that's a red flag? but I do that.... [cc]

Summary

The script discusses the challenges of identifying destructive relationships, cautioning against overuse of 'red flags' which can be misleading. It emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing behaviors like love bombing and mirroring, which can be both innocent and manipulative. Through a case study of Isak, it illustrates how to discern genuine connections from exploitative ones, advocating for cautious engagement and self-reflection to avoid being exploited.

Takeaways

• 🚩 The term 'red flag' is often overused and can sometimes be based on personal prejudice rather than actual threat.
• 🔍 More credible red flags include manipulative tactics used by harmful individuals, like love bombing and mirroring.
• 🤔 It's challenging to distinguish between innocent and harmful behaviors, as both can exhibit similar traits.
• 👥 Group dynamics can lead to the labeling of certain behaviors as red flags due to tribalism or conformity.
• 🚨 'Red lights' or 'deal-breakers' refer to coercive and destructive behaviors, unlike red flags which require closer scrutiny.
• 🤝 Red flags are not definitive proof of ill intent but are signs that warrant a closer look at someone's motives.
• 🧐 Assessing the true motives behind behaviors takes time, observation, and a dispassionate evaluation of evidence.
• 🌐 Past experiences can influence how we perceive and react to certain behaviors in new relationships.
• 💔 Abusive relationships can leave lasting effects on a person's ability to trust and correctly interpret new relationships.
• 🛑 Recognizing and leaving a harmful relationship can be difficult due to the emotional manipulation and idealized memories.
• 🔄 Abusers may attempt to revamp their image and return, claiming to have changed, which is a common tactic to regain control.

Q & A

What is the main issue with the overuse of the term 'red flag'?

The main issue with the overuse of the term 'red flag' is that it gets applied to a wide range of traits and behaviors, some of which are absurd and not indicative of any actual threat. This can lead to false assumptions and judgments based on personal preferences rather than actual harmful intentions.

What are some examples of false red flags mentioned in the script?

False red flags mentioned in the script include not paying for both parties on a date, lacking religious belief, loving classical music, being an only child, and having the 'wrong' kind of phone.

What is the difference between 'red flags' and 'red lights' in the context of relationships?

In the context of relationships, 'red flags' are behaviors that require closer examination as they could be innocent or indicative of harmful intentions. 'Red lights' or 'deal-breakers' refer to clear instances of coercive, controlling, and destructive behavior such as violence, threats, and mind games.

Can you explain the 'zabaglione effect' mentioned in the script?

The 'zabaglione effect' refers to a situation where people in a group falsely agree on something to reach a consensus, as illustrated by a group interview scenario where multiple people falsely claimed to like zabaglione, an obscure Italian dessert, to fit in with the group.

What are some manipulative tactics associated with destructive individuals or groups?

Some manipulative tactics associated with destructive individuals or groups include love bombing, where targets are showered with attention, affection, and praise, and mirroring, where the manipulator professes similar interests, beliefs, and experiences to create an illusion of connection.

How does the script suggest we should approach behaviors that could be both red flags and innocent actions?

The script suggests that we should approach such behaviors with caution and not be swept off our feet by them. It advises taking a step back, slowing down, and assessing the situation with a clear head to determine the underlying motives.

What is the significance of Isak's relationship with Greg in the script?

Isak's relationship with Greg is significant because it set a benchmark for what Isak believed a relationship should be like, characterized by spontaneity and no holding back. This idealized view made him vulnerable to falling for the manipulative tactics of subsequent abusive partners.

How does the script describe the process of assessing motives behind red-flag behaviors?

The script describes the process of assessing motives behind red-flag behaviors as similar to a court case, where one must consider the weight of evidence, assess dispassionately, tolerate ambiguity, and take time to arrive at a verdict.

What is the 'revamp' mentioned in the script, and how does it relate to abusive relationships?

The 'revamp' is a tactic where abusers claim to have changed and come back for a second try, attempting a more subtle manipulation. This is seen when Devon tries to re-enter Isak's life, claiming to be a different person, which is a common ploy to regain control.

Why is it important to scrutinize ourselves according to the script?

It is important to scrutinize ourselves because our own magical idealistic notions about relationships can make us vulnerable to exploitation by bad actors. The script suggests that to see red flags clearly, we need to remove our rose-colored glasses and be realistic about the behaviors we are willing to accept.

What does the script suggest as a strategy to avoid being exploited in relationships?

The script suggests that we should make decisions in a state of clear-headedness and not be driven by intense emotions. It advises taking time to assess situations and not to abandon caution, especially when significant commitments are involved.

Outlines

00:00

🚩 Understanding Red Flags in Relationships

The paragraph discusses the concept of 'red flags' in relationships, noting that while they are meant to warn of potentially destructive relationships, they are often overused and misapplied. Red flags can stem from personal biases or group tribalism, leading to the mislabeling of innocent traits. The paragraph also distinguishes between red flags, which require further investigation, and 'red lights' or 'deal-breakers,' which are clear signs of harmful behavior. It illustrates how behaviors like love bombing and mirroring can be both innocent and manipulative, making it challenging to discern true intentions.

05:03

🕵️‍♂️ Assessing Motives Behind Red-Flag Behaviors

This section delves into the complexity of determining the motives behind behaviors that could be red flags. It emphasizes the need for careful observation and judgment over time, much like a court case. The narrative introduces 'Isak,' a therapy client who has experienced abusive relationships and is learning to discern between genuine and manipulative behaviors. The paragraph highlights how past experiences can cloud judgment and the importance of considering the weight of evidence before making decisions about relationships.

10:04

🌀 The Danger of Being Swept Away by Red Flags

The paragraph narrates Isak's experience with Devon, illustrating how behaviors like mirroring, love bombing, and rushing to commit can be both innocent and manipulative. It discusses how these behaviors can lead to hasty decisions and commitment, which may be difficult to reverse. The paragraph also explores the concept of the 'honeymoon phase' and how it can obscure the reality of a relationship, leading to confusion and ambivalence when the relationship sours.

15:06

🔍 Looking Beyond Red Flags to Make Informed Decisions

The final paragraph reinforces the message that there are no simple formulas for identifying bad actors and that relying on simplistic ideas can lead to pushing away good people. It discusses the importance of self-scrutiny and the need to approach relationships with a clear head, rather than being swept away by intense emotions. The paragraph concludes with Isak's encounter with Devon, who claims to have changed, highlighting the 'revamp' tactic used by some abusers to regain trust. The narrative underscores the need to look beyond initial impressions and to consider the potential for long-term harm in a relationship.

Keywords

💡Red flag

A red flag refers to behaviors or traits that serve as potential warning signs of harmful or manipulative behavior in relationships. The script discusses how the term 'red flag' is often overused or misapplied to trivial traits, but it should instead be reserved for more significant manipulative behaviors like 'love bombing' or 'mirroring.' The term is central to the theme, which is about identifying genuine versus superficial warning signs in relationships.

💡Love bombing

Love bombing is a manipulative tactic where a person overwhelms someone with excessive affection, attention, and praise to create a false sense of connection. In the script, it is used as an example of a red flag that can be difficult to identify because it may seem like genuine warmth at first. Isak experiences this behavior with Devon, where initial affection gives way to control and manipulation.

💡Mirroring

Mirroring is the act of copying another person’s interests, beliefs, or behaviors to create the illusion of connection. In the script, Isak experiences mirroring with Devon, who expresses identical interests and preferences, leading Isak to question the authenticity of their connection. This tactic is highlighted as a red flag, but the script also notes that not all mirroring is manipulative, as it can stem from benign motives.

💡Manipulation

Manipulation refers to the use of deceitful or controlling tactics to exploit or dominate others. The script discusses how manipulative behaviors, such as love bombing or intense probing into someone’s personal history, can be red flags for potentially harmful relationships. Isak’s experiences with Sam, Jake, and Devon reveal various manipulative tactics that ultimately harm him emotionally.

💡Emotional abuse

Emotional abuse involves patterns of behavior that undermine a person’s sense of self-worth, control, and emotional stability. In the script, Isak's relationships with Sam, Jake, and eventually Devon are characterized by emotional abuse, with behaviors like silent treatment, coercive control, and mood swings being prominent signs. The script examines how emotional abuse can be subtle, escalating over time and becoming difficult to escape.

💡False bond

A false bond is a manufactured sense of connection between two people, often created by the manipulator to control the target. In the script, Isak initially feels a deep connection with Devon, but over time realizes that this bond was artificially created through love bombing and mirroring. The false bond makes it harder for Isak to recognize the red flags and walk away.

💡Silent treatment

Silent treatment is a form of emotional abuse where one person deliberately ignores or isolates another as a form of punishment or control. Isak recalls how Sam used silent treatment as a way to manipulate and punish him, leaving him feeling emotionally starved. The use of silent treatment by Devon later on signals to Isak that similar red flags are present in this new relationship.

💡Rush to commit

The rush to commit is a manipulative tactic where a person pushes for rapid escalation in a relationship, such as moving in together or making significant emotional commitments. The script highlights this behavior in Isak’s relationship with Devon, where Devon quickly suggests moving in together after a brief period of dating. This tactic is identified as a red flag because it bypasses the natural progression of trust-building.

💡Ambivalence

Ambivalence refers to the mixed or conflicting emotions one might feel toward a relationship or person, particularly when they have experienced both positive and negative behaviors. In the script, Isak struggles with ambivalence after breaking up with Devon, as he recalls both the sweet moments and the abusive ones. This internal conflict is part of the challenge in identifying red flags and making clear decisions.

💡Benign actors

Benign actors are individuals whose behaviors may resemble manipulative tactics but are motivated by genuine, harmless intentions. The script contrasts benign actors with bad actors, explaining that behaviors like love bombing or mirroring are not always signs of manipulation. For instance, Isak’s first partner, Greg, was impulsive and affectionate, but with no malicious intent, highlighting the importance of carefully assessing motives in relationships.

Highlights

Destructive behaviors often emerge later in relationships, complicating disengagement.

The term 'red flag' is overused and can include trivial or prejudiced traits.

False red flags arise from personal bias rather than actual threat.

Credible red flags involve manipulative tactics used by exploitative individuals.

Love bombing and mirroring are tactics that can be used by both innocent and harmful parties.

The 'zabaglione effect' illustrates how people might falsely mirror preferences.

Behaviors can be driven by benign motives, complicating the identification of red flags.

Red flags are not definitive proof of harmful intent but require closer scrutiny.

Assessing motives behind red-flag behaviors can be challenging and requires observation.

Case study of Isak illustrates the difficulty in identifying abusive relationships.

Isak's past experiences with abusive relationships cloud his judgment of new ones.

Devon's behavior with Isak mirrors the manipulative tactics of Isak's previous abusers.

The rush to commit is a common tactic used by abusers to ensnare their targets.

Isak's suggestion to take things slow is a prudent response to Devon's rapid advances.

Devon's mood swings and use of silence are red flags indicating potential abuse.

Isak's realization that Devon's behavior was not genuine leads to the end of their relationship.

Isak's ambivalence post-breakup is a common reaction to the love bombing tactic.

The concept of 'revamp' where abusers claim to have changed is a common manipulation.

Isak's encounter with Devon's revamp attempt illustrates the persistence of abusers.

There are no simple formulas for identifying bad actors; it requires careful assessment.

The importance of removing idealistic notions to see red flags clearly.

Transcripts

Many people who get drawn  into destructive relationships

— from domestic to professional to ideological —

often find that the destructive  behaviour only emerges

some time into the relationship.

We find ourselves in a spin

struggling to recognise the  people we thought we knew.

Unfortunately, by the time we get our  bearings and realise what’s going on

it’s sometimes too late to extract  ourselves straightforwardly.

We might’ve formed social connections  that are tough to untangle,

made commitments that are difficult to break.

Be great — wouldn’t it? —  if before we’d got involved

we’d had a list of clear, unambiguous  warning signs to watch for.

‘Red flag’ has become a common term for attributes

considered to be indicators of bad actors.

But there are problems with the concept.

One massive issue is overuse.

The term ‘red flag’ gets applied

to a ridiculous range of traits and behaviours.

Some of the more absurd examples I’ve come across

include not paying for both parties on a date,

no religious belief, a love of classical music,

being an only child, having  the ‘wrong’ kind of phone.

These kinds of false red flags can  arise from individual prejudice

or — on the group level — tribalism.

Attributes are labelled red flags not  because they signify any actual threat

but merely because they don’t  conform to personal preferences.

More credible lists of red flags

feature manipulative tactics  known to be associated

with genuinely destructive,  exploitative individuals and groups

including various superficially  positive behaviours

designed to reel targets in.

For example, love bombing —

showering targets with  attention, affection and praise

or mirroring — professing  similar interests, beliefs,

preferences and experiences to  create an illusion of connection.

But even here, things are far from clear-cut.

Many people have commented to me over the years

that these well-documented  kinds of red-flag behaviours

are commonly exhibited by innocent parties.

Someone I’ll call Jason

who was love-bombed by members  of a deeply damaging group

said he became convinced his  ferociously friendly new neighbours

would one day reveal some murky agenda.

After a couple of years, he realised  they were just genuinely warm people.

But, for Jason, it raised  a very reasonable question:

how do you tell the difference between  harmless and harmful love-bombers?

The same question holds for mirroring.

Years ago, in a group interview for  one of my first counselling courses

we were asked to organise  a hypothetical group meal.

It was a completely arbitrary exercise

designed to see how we interacted.

Someone suggested everyone should  shout out their favourite dessert.

I said, ‘Zabaglione’ — which is an  Italian alcoholic whipped custard.

To my surprise, the next  person also said zabaglione.

So did the next. And the next.

Only the fifth person chose something different.

I’ve jokingly called it the zabaglione effect.

It stretched credulity to believe this obscure  dessert was such a universal favourite.

And indeed one group member later confessed

she just said it to help us  get to a group consensus.

Another said he couldn’t think  of anything else in the moment.

The third made no retraction.

Professing preferences, interests  and beliefs we don’t necessarily hold

can stem from various motivations.

Many targets of abuse habitually echo other people

because historically voicing their own views

led to punishment and ridicule.

So if a behaviour can be  driven by all kinds of motives

— bad and benign —

what does it even mean to call it a red flag?

The term ‘red flag’ isn’t about saying:

when you see this behaviour, run.

That sentiment applies more to what we  might call ‘red lights’ or ‘deal-breakers’

— i.e. instances of coercive,  controlling and destructive behaviour

including violence, threats and mind games.

Labelling a behaviour as a red flag

is more about saying: this needs a closer look.

This person or group could be innocent

but bad actors are also  known to behave in these ways

to manipulate and exploit their targets.

So I need to pay attention,  keep a healthy guard up

until I feel confident about  the motives at play here.

Of course some of us prefer to keep things simple

and treat red flags like red lights.

Take them as evidence of wicked intent.

In doing that, we can end up  pushing lots of good people away.

And for individuals who already  have a tendency to self-isolate

that can further magnify their isolation

and cut them off from valuable support.

Assessing the motives behind red-flag  behaviour isn’t always straightforward.

None of us are mind readers

and making an informed judgement  can require a lot of observation

across many situations over a span of time.

Like a court case, we have to  consider the weight of the evidence

assess it dispassionately

tolerate ambiguity as we entertain  the possibility of guilt or innocence

and take whatever time we  need to arrive at our verdict.

I’d like to explore this  process of assessing motives

with a case study of a therapy  client I’ll call ‘Isak’.

Isak came to therapy following a  couple of abusive relationships.

His confidence had taken a hefty hammering

and he was annoyed at himself  for falling for a second abuser

barely months after leaving the first.

He’d thought he was on safe ground

because the second one was so different.

The first, Sam, had been  gentle, humble, intellectual.

When Jake came along, he  seemed like the total opposite:

playful, excitable, goofy.

But over time, Jake’s behaviour  changed just like Sam’s had

becoming fiercely critical,  controlling and coercive.

When we’ve had damaging experiences  with an individual or group

we sometimes avoid people who appear  similar in terms of basic temperament.

But by focusing on surface presentation  style, we can miss deeper patterns.

Despite their apparent differences, Sam  and Jake employed very similar tactics.

As we explored these tactics

Isak saw how Sam and Jake had swiftly  forged a false sense of connection.

But he still had a hard time seeing  their behaviour as red flags.

Because he’d seen it before. In his  very first relationship with Greg.

Greg swept into Isak’s life like a dust devil.

They crossed paths in their college  canteen and instantly clicked.

Shared the same outlook, interests, experiences.

Confided things they’d never confessed before.

In no time, they were living together.

It was the happiest time of Isak’s life.

Tragically, after just a handful of years together

an aggressive cancer that Greg had  survived in his teenage years returned.

This time he didn’t make it.

Isak’s relationship with Greg became a benchmark —

a template for what a  relationship should look like.

Spontaneous, impulsive, no holding back.

While it was plain to see  why Greg — and now Isak —

had taken this seize-the-day approach to life

we looked at the idea that ‘Carpe diem!’

might not always be the best guiding principle.

Great if you were lucky enough to meet a Greg.

But a red carpet for bad actors  looking to bypass security checks

and shortcut their way into someone’s life.

A few months into therapy

Isak revealed he’d started  seeing someone called Devon.

He hadn’t wanted to talk about it until now

because he thought analysing it would kill it.

They’d met one lunchtime at a park  near Isak’s work and instantly clicked.

Things went well for a few weeks.

They’d had some great days out  and found they had tons in common.

Recently Devon had organised an  amazing weekend break to Europe.

But on their last night, the mood changed

when Isak suggested they should take things slow.

Devon became suddenly distant.

And Isak feared he’d ruined everything.

We hit rewind and reviewed  the events in more detail.

Sitting in the park one day

Isak’s joined by a passing jogger, Devon.

They get talking.

Everything Isak likes, Devon seems to like too —

same music, same films, same food.

When Isak mentions he’s  always wanted to visit Berlin

Devon says it’s been his dream too.

Isak said it crossed his mind that  Devon might be trying to mirror him.

But he’d spoken so fluently  about their mutual interests.

He then reminded himself  that Sam and Jake had too.

Isak and Devon exchange phone numbers.

Over the following month, they go for drives out

to the countryside and the coast.

Isak now remembers that  Devon commented on his shirts

and bought some in a similar style.

He also remembers that Devon  seemed intensely interested

in his family and past relationships.

Again, this could be completely innocent.

We want to know who we’re with.

But this intense probing is also consistent

with the period of interrogation  commonly experienced by targets

as abusers try to gauge weak  spots and potential obstacles.

Isak tells Devon about Sam and Jake.

Devon says he’s had some abusive relationships too

and gets emotional speaking about  how they shattered his confidence.

He says he’s never been this open with anyone.

But he feels safe with Isak.

He has total faith in him and  feels like he can say anything.

Again these sentiments could be sincere.

But overblown expressions of trust  are also a common manipulation

designed to create a false bond.

After a few weeks, Devon arranges  a weekend trip to Berlin.

Isak is thrilled.

In Germany, Devon showers  Isak with gifts and attention.

He tells Isak he’s never met anyone like him

and he’s in constant awe of him.

On their last night, Devon tells Isak

he’d like to spend the rest of his life with him

and asks if he can move in with  Isak when they get back to the UK.

The rush to commit is extremely  common among bad actors

from abusive partners to abusive  ideological groups to online scammers.

Targets are pressured into situations  that are difficult to get out of.

Isak suggests they take things slow.

He needs time to think. Devon  says he doesn’t need any

time — he’s sure. Isak says  he wants to be sure too.

It’s worth underlining again  that all these behaviours

— mirroring, interrogation, love bombing,

overblown statements of trust, rushing to commit —

can spring from benign motives.

Some people are just impulsive and enthusiastic

like Isak’s first partner Greg.

The point is it’s a mistake to allow ourselves

to be swept off our feet by these behaviours

and abandon all caution

especially when sizeable commitments are involved.

In the morning, Devon is cold and distant.

After a bleak taxi ride to the airport

he says a breezy goodbye and  leaves Isak to catch his flight.

Devon’s dramatic mood swing  shows a chilling ability

to switch off the sunshine.

The honeymoon is definitely over.

But going over the events with a clearer head

Isak begins to wonder how real the honeymoon was.

Between this and the next therapy  session, Isak doesn’t hear from Devon

although he notes Devon has been active online.

He recalls that Sam often subjected him

to silent treatments when they lived together

sometimes ignoring him for days.

Isak remembers it felt like  being physically starved.

With Devon’s mood swings  and use of punitive silence

the red flags are now giving way to red lights.

Isak starts imagining life without Devon.

In the next session, Isak reports  that Devon sent him an email

saying he didn’t believe Isak  ever wanted a relationship

and that Isak had just used him.

He made it clear the burden was  on Isak to prove his intentions.

Isak recalls similar dominance tests  in his relationships with Sam and Jake.

It was always Isak who had to prove himself.

For Isak, Devon’s email is the tipping point.

He sends Devon a brief,  terminating reply and blocks him.

Over the next few sessions,  Isak wrestles with ambivalence.

Did he overreact? Were things really that bad?

He remembers sweet moments with  Devon that knock him off balance.

This is the insidious effect  of the abuser’s love bombing.

It creates a tantalising idealistic  image of what might have been.

Isak wonders if maybe Devon wasn’t a  complete monster like Sam and Jake.

Maybe Devon’s previous abusive  relationships just made him

overly sensitive and he just  needed extra reassurance.

Leaving aside the question  of whether Devon’s accounts

of those relationships were true,  Isak raised an important point.

Some targets of abuse begin relationships

when they’re not yet ready to handle them

— not able to negotiate,

to set and/or meet reasonable expectations,

to navigate conflict.

Getting involved with people  based on who they might become

instead of who they are right now

can set both parties up for a very bumpy ride.

Recovery has to come first, then relationships.

People don’t have to be ‘monsters’  or predators to be unfit partners.

We don’t have to diagnose them  with malignant personalities.

We just have to look at their behaviour

imagine it’s never going to change

and ask ourselves if we’d be  prepared to live with that.

Some weeks after finishing with Devon

Isak encounters him again at the park.

Devon embarks on a lengthy monologue

telling Isak he regrets how things ended.

He says Isak was right to dump him.

But he’s a different person now — thanks to Isak.

He admires Isak for taking no nonsense.

He wishes he was that strong.

He wonders if they might be friends.

And maybe down the line — who knows.

I call this the revamp.

Here, abusers come back for a second  try, claiming to have evolved.

But all that’s evolved is their deviousness.

Having underestimated the  target the first time round

the abuser attempts a more subtle game.

Isak says he’s seeing someone.

It’s a lie but it’s all he can  think of to get rid of Devon.

It doesn’t work.

But it achieves something much more effective.

Devon explodes, repeating  all his previous accusations.

Sometimes, when we arrive at a negative verdict about a person or group

some part of us is left wondering  if we made the right judgement.

But sometimes life hands us total vindication.

Isak observes him silently until he leaves.

There are no simple formulas  for identifying bad actors.

When we rely on simplistic  ideas about who to avoid

we often end up pushing away more good people.

Some bad actors make  themselves known very early on

with obvious red-light behaviours.

But others are extremely convincing.

Their red-flag behaviours can appear identical

to positive innocent behaviours

— the only difference being the underlying motive.

Even highly trained abuse experts  are sometimes taken in by them.

To some degree, every new relationship  represents a leap of faith.

But it doesn’t have to be a reckless one.

When we’re encouraged to make  decisions in states of intense emotion

— feeling swept off our feet,  feeling confused, feeling panic —

we need to take a step back, slow down

and assess the situation with a clear head.

Benign actors can stand close inspection.

As Isak’s story illustrates, we  also need to scrutinise ourselves.

The more we fill our heads  with magical idealistic notions

about relationships, families, life

the easier we are to exploit by bad actors

ready to promise us that magic.

If we want to see their red flags clearly

we need to remove our rose-coloured glasses.