Inner Work Notes

Tag: omnipotence

  • Why Not Understanding Someone Makes You Angry

    Someone is explaining something to you, and the words keep arriving, but nothing is landing. You ask them to go through it once more, and they do, patiently — and you still have nothing.

    Then you notice the heat coming up in your chest.

    Which is strange, when you think about it. Not following someone costs you nothing at all, and nobody gets hurt. You could say “I’m not getting this” and the afternoon would carry on exactly as before. But your jaw sets, your voice comes out with an edge you never planned, and something in you has clearly taken offense.

    That heat is worth a closer look, because what drives it began long before this conversation, when you were a baby.

    Why do grown adults still throw tantrums?

    In the first months of life, a baby’s mind works very differently from an adult’s.

    A baby experiences hunger, cries, and is fed. Because the baby cannot yet understand that a separate caregiver heard the cry and chose to respond, the hunger and the feeding feel like one continuous event. At this stage, the baby cannot yet tell where he ends and the world begins.

    Psychoanalysis calls this early state infantile narcissism. The baby is the center of his own world, and as far as he can tell, things happen the way he wants them to. It is a normal stage, not a fault.

    As a child grows, that self-centered state has to change, slowly, until he can want something badly and still notice that the person fetching it is tired. The trouble starts when that change never happens. Then the baby’s expectation that things will go the way he wants is still at work at ten, at twenty, at fifty. You can see it at an airport gate when a flight is cancelled: a man at the counter, his voice climbing, talks to the agent as though she had grounded the plane herself. Some part of him still expects the world to rearrange itself the moment he asks.

    For some people, this expectation is not just one part of them; it shapes their whole personality. Then it does not stay quietly in the background. It is strong, and it allows no exceptions: things have to go their way, every time. A no does not merely disappoint someone like that. It shakes them.

    What does a baby learn when crying brings milk?

    That early stage comes with a feeling of enormous power. It is not power over other people; the baby does not yet know other people are there. It is simpler and wider than that: I can do anything. Psychoanalysis calls it omnipotence, and the baby feels certain the power belongs to him.

    He feels this because he cannot yet imagine that anything is coming to him from outside. There is hunger, there is crying, and then there is warmth and milk and fullness. From where the baby lies, that sequence can mean only one thing: I made that happen. I produced it myself.

    The illusion holds because the milk arrives soon after the hunger — soon enough that the baby can feel he created it himself.

    Meanwhile someone is awake at three in the morning, and someone’s back hurts, and the baby knows nothing about it — and at that age he shouldn’t have to.

    He needs that illusion for a while because it creates the first sense that his actions affect the world. Gradually, small delays teach him that another person exists separately and that satisfaction does not always arrive on command. As he learns to bear those waits, the feeling that he can do anything slowly turns into a more realistic confidence. When that learning remains incomplete, the old expectation — whatever I need will come the moment I need it — carries on into adult life. And for an adult, what is needed is often not milk but an answer: “If I need an answer, an answer must exist, and I should be able to get it now.”

    Where does “I have to know everything” come from?

    When we picture that feeling of power, we usually think of the doing side of it: I can handle anything, I can fix anything, just hand it to me.

    But that feeling has a twin, growing from the same root: I can know everything. Psychoanalysis calls this second one omniscience. In adult life it usually sounds like this: I have to know everything.

    You will recognize it immediately if you carry it. Not being able to let a thing go until you work out why someone spoke to you in a certain tone. Reading every review on the internet before buying a kettle. Two in the morning, still searching your symptoms online. Sitting in a meeting where one word goes past you, and feeling something clench.

    Curiosity looks identical from the outside, but curiosity can be put down. You get interested, you get distracted, you are perfectly fine. The need to know everything cannot be put down — it has to be finished.

    And it can never be finished, because we are small and the world is not. Most of what happens near you will never be explained to your satisfaction. Why your neighbor moved. Why a friendship cooled. What your father was really thinking. A great deal will simply stay unexplained. Some people can’t accept that. The missing answer does no harm by itself; the harm comes from refusing to live without one. That refusal keeps them frustrated, and, as the next scene shows, the frustration turns into anger at other people.

    What happens to your voice when you don’t follow?

    Here is the scene where this belief shows itself. Two people are talking, and one of them is getting angry because he does not understand what the other is saying.

    Look at it plainly and it makes no sense at all. The one who didn’t understand is the one who is angry. If that is you, why should missing the point put heat in your chest? “I’m not following you” is a complete sentence, and you are allowed to leave it there and go get a coffee.

    Instead there is the sigh, the clipped tone, the “no, but what do you actually mean.” The temperature in the room climbs two degrees.

    Underneath the sigh sits a sentence nobody ever says out loud: I am supposed to know this. And when the explanation will not go in, the frustration does not stay inside this one conversation. It spreads: this person makes no sense, the news makes no sense, nothing about the way the world works makes sense. There is an easy way out of all of it, one simple thought: there is something here I don’t know yet. And that is precisely the thought that will not come.

    Why does the blame end up on the other person?

    When you do not understand something but believe you should, confusion quickly becomes shame: “If I cannot follow this, there must be something wrong with me.”

    Because that conclusion is painful, the mind looks for another explanation. Anger provides one: the problem is no longer that you do not understand; the problem is that the other person is explaining badly.

    Then that thought comes out as blame.

    Psychoanalysis calls this move projection. When you cannot bear to feel confused or inadequate, you experience your own shame and frustration as something the other person is doing to you. You may even feel they are making it difficult on purpose, or looking down on you. So instead of saying, “I do not understand,” you say, “You are not explaining this properly. You are not making any sense. Anyone would be lost.” The accusation protects you from the shame of not knowing. But from then on, the conversation is no longer about what they meant. It is about what they did wrong.

    Sometimes the complaint is fair. Some people genuinely do explain badly. So use the heat as a signal. When you hear yourself say, hotly, “You’re not making any sense,” stop before you argue any further and ask yourself: am I ashamed, right now, that I don’t know?

    Why is “I don’t know” so expensive to say?

    For most people, most of the time, it costs very little. You say the three words, someone explains, and the world carries on turning.

    But if your self-worth depends on being the person who understands, those three words feel like a threat to who you are. Admitting confusion makes you feel exposed or inferior. Anger feels safer: it lets you keep feeling like the person who understands, and it puts the failure on someone else.

    It all happens very quickly. You miss the meaning. You take that as proof that something is wrong with you. You push that shame away and get annoyed at the speaker instead. By the time you notice you are angry, the earlier steps are already over.

    Have you ever said “I don’t know” and left it there?

    Nobody has ever read a paragraph like this one and thought, right then, I’ll stop needing to know things. The belief does not give way to reasoning, because it formed in infancy, long before you could reason at all.

    It gives way instead to experience, gathered slowly. You didn’t understand, and you said so, and nothing fell apart. You sat with a question that stayed open, and an hour later you were still yourself. Enough of those and the old belief loosens its grip. It never gets defeated — it gets outgrown.

    That means the change comes in very small steps. So start with one small step.

    The next time somebody loses you completely, say it out loud — I don’t know what you mean — and then stop there. Don’t ask them to explain it again, and don’t tell them they’ve explained it badly. Don’t turn it into a joke, and don’t attach a reason about being tired or the room being loud. Just the sentence, and then quiet.

    Then watch what your body does with the quiet. Maybe nothing much. Maybe a small squirm, an urge to fill the silence, or to give the excuse you promised yourself you wouldn’t give. If discomfort turns up, don’t argue with it, because the discomfort is the useful part. It shows you that the oldest part of you, the part formed in infancy, is still at work, still expecting the world to explain itself to you.

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • Why Someone Warm to Everyone Turns Cold With You

    Everyone describes him as warm and easy to talk to. His coworkers say he listens, laughs, and helps without being asked. But at dinner with you, he answers in four words, looks at his phone, and shows no interest in what you are saying. The difference leaves you wondering which version of him is real.

    You ask what he’s thinking about and he says nothing. Later you lie in the dark and do what you always do, which is look for the fault in yourself first. Maybe you need too much. Maybe you heard a tone that was never in the room. Maybe you’re just too sensitive.

    Hold on to that last one for a minute, because there’s an explanation that goes back to the 1940s, and it doesn’t start with you.

    Ronald Fairbairn, a Scottish psychoanalyst, had a name for people who keep others at a distance even while they seem warm. He called the pattern schizoid. The word comes from the Greek for “split.” It can sound like the name of a severe mental illness, but Fairbairn also used it for something he saw in ordinary people: a mind divided in two to keep itself safe. In the man who is warm at work and cold at dinner, his coworkers meet one half, and no one is allowed near the other.

    Fairbairn said this split shows up in three ways. Read them slowly, because each one probably explains an evening you have already lived through. I’ll write “he” throughout; swap it for “she” if that fits your life better.

    Why does nothing you say ever get through to him?

    The first is a quiet, unshakable sense of being right. Fairbairn’s word for it was omnipotence, which literally means being all-powerful, the way God is. The man at your table would never say it out loud, but inside he feels as if he were God, so to him, whatever he knows and believes simply cannot be wrong.

    For a man like this, what he believes does not feel like an opinion. It feels like reality itself. So when you remember something differently, or tell him it felt different to you, he doesn’t hear one more way of looking at it. He hears an attack, as if you had called him a liar, and he defends himself instead of thinking about what you said.

    You already know how that feels from the inside. You went in to talk something through and somehow ended up in a courtroom, where you explained and he defended, you softened and he defended again. You tried explaining it more clearly, and then tried again. But the problem was never how well you explained. He cannot bear the idea that there could be another way of seeing it.

    So why would anybody need to be that right? Fairbairn’s answer is strange, and it’s worth sitting with. In his view, being divided in two and feeling that the world is not quite real are the same condition. People and events never feel fully solid to a man like this. When nothing out there feels solid, the one thing that still does is what goes on in his own head. That is where the feeling of being God comes in: his own thoughts become the one thing he can be sure of. The less real the world feels to him, the harder he has to be right about it.

    Why does he move away as you move closer?

    The second is distance, and underneath it sits fear. Getting close to another person genuinely frightens him. Without realizing it, he expects anyone who gets close either to leave him or to take control of him. Here’s the part that makes it almost impossible to discuss — he doesn’t know he’s frightened at all. Ask him, and he may tell you he has just never needed people much. The fear never looks like fear. Instead he wraps himself in mystery and becomes hard to read.

    You can’t tell what kind of day he’s had, and a real question gets you back a shrug, a joke, or an answer to some other question. Step toward him and he is already a step further back.

    Early in the relationship, the fact that he said so little about himself may have looked like depth. You imagined a rich inner life in him, waiting to be shared, and thought that one day, as you grew closer, he would let you in. Fairbairn saw the mystery as armor. Because he never shows what he feels or why he does what he does, no one can get close enough to hurt him.

    Months later you finally work out what the mystery actually was: a line drawn without a single word. Come this close. No closer.

    The distance also feeds the first feature, the need to be right. Because he never lets anyone all the way in, nothing anybody says really reaches him — not the praise, not the warning, not the apology. With nothing from other people to steady him, all he has left to lean on is being right. The less he takes in from other people, the harder he leans on it, and the longer this goes on, the more certain he becomes.

    Why can a quiet man nod along and still change nothing?

    The third is living entirely inside his own head: his own thoughts and his own view of things count for more than anything anyone says to him. This one surprises people. You would expect it mostly in loud, self-centered types, but quiet, inward people often have more of it.

    The loud version is easy enough to spot. He takes up all the air, fishes for compliments, and wants the whole day arranged around him. Ten minutes in, you have him figured out: he thinks he’s the only person in the room who matters.

    The quiet version is much harder to spot. He does not raise his voice or ask for praise. He listens, nods, and lets you finish. But after an hour of talking, nothing has changed: not what he thinks, not what he does. He never tells you what is on his mind, either, so you walk away not knowing whether he agreed to anything at all. He looked open the whole time, and none of your words got through.

    That’s a different order of stubbornness. It doesn’t need to win the argument. It simply never has the argument.

    Why is the quiet one’s stubbornness so hard to see, even for him?

    Because the loud one keeps running into things. He charges at the world and the world pushes back — a job ends, a friend stops calling, somebody finally tells him to his face what he’s like. None of that is pleasant, but all of it is a mirror, and one day he might actually look into it.

    The quiet one collides with nothing. He stays polite, stays useful, stays well liked, so nobody ever has a reason to push back. No crash means no mirror. The pattern isn’t any smaller inside him; it has simply never been seen, not even by him, and it lasts longer for exactly that reason.

    Why does it only happen with you?

    This is the part I would underline twice. None of the three has to show up in everyday life, and Fairbairn was careful to say so. A man can know he carries them or have no idea at all. He can seem fine most of the time and then, in one area of his life only, the whole thing switches on.

    Sometimes that area is power. Watch how he handles a boss, or somebody who works under him, and there it is, sitting inside a life that looks fine everywhere else.

    Most often, though, the area is love.

    This is why a man can be generous with strangers, patient with coworkers, and emotionally cold with the person who loves him. Casual relationships do not require him to reveal himself or depend deeply on another person. Intimate love does. So the fear that stays quiet with strangers and coworkers comes up with you, because you are the one who is close.

    That’s why the man his coworkers describe and the man across the dinner table from you will never add up to one person. Neither description is a lie. They see him from a distance, and you see him up close.

    So are you the sensitive one?

    Not necessarily. Other people speaking well of him does not make the coldness you have felt any less real.

    Look at what you’ve been quietly doing each time he goes cold. You count it against yourself — too needy, too watchful, too much. Notice that habit, because the cause you keep looking for in yourself lies somewhere else.

    The trigger is intimacy. He goes cold with you not because you matter less than his coworkers, but because you are close enough that he would have to show his feelings and lean on you. His coldness protects him from that closeness. It is not a measure of your worth.

    But isn’t a bit of this in everyone?

    Yes. And that’s the part to keep.

    These three aren’t a checklist for labeling somebody so you can be finished with him. Being sure you’re right, keeping your distance, living inside your own head — everyone carries some of each, in different amounts, and usually in one particular area of life. If you read this only as an article about him, the same problems will keep coming back between the two of you.

    So go back over today and find one moment when you nodded along while, inside, you were quietly saying no. Just one. Don’t work out who was right; that’s a different job for a different evening.

    Then write it down, one line, in whatever words turn up: “I nodded along about the weekend plans, and inside I was saying no.”

    It’s small enough to feel pointless. It isn’t. Think back to the quiet man. What he carries inside never runs into anything, so it is never seen, not even by him. A no you say only inside your head is the same. Nobody sees it, and even you barely notice it. Once you write it down, it is on the page, where you can see it. That one line is a first step out of your own head.

    References

    • Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1940). Schizoid Factors in the Personality. In Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality (1952). London: Tavistock.

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board