Vicious Cycles

Vicious cycles make it important to examine interactions. Consider the loop between my emotions and overeating:

I am definitely an emotional eater, prone to eating too much when I am stressed, upset or angry. But unfortunately overeating in turn causes me to be stressed, upset and angry. So I, like many people, get caught in a vicious cycle. Some people don’t suffer from either arrow: emotions don’t cause them to eat, but also, when they do overeat they don’t feel bad about it. Suffering from one arrow is unfortunate but at least it doesn’t cause the escalation that the two cause in conjunction. The cycle could be broken by breaking either of those arrows, which could be classified as “feelings” and “action”:

I have tried breaking both of these arrows. When I am upset, I try to do something other than eat. Also, if I do find myself overeating I try not to feel bad about it. I find the latter easier to do than the former, especially when I’m stressed about some work I am trying to finish: I can stop myself from eating but then I won’t get the work done, and I am far too responsible about meeting deadlines to accept that outcome.

The vicious cycle might have more arrows in it, as in a typical type of domestic meltdown between two people with slightly different needs. Perhaps Sam needs to feel loved where Alex needs to feel respected. While feeling respected Alex is able to be very loving, and while feeling loved Sam is able to show Alex plenty of respect. But if it starts going wrong it can escalate very fast, as each person’s reaction leaves the other feeling more deprived.

If they want to break the vicious cycle, one way is to look at which of these arrows is the easiest to break. As above, the arrows come in two types: feelings and action.

They might decide that feelings are hard to control, but actions can be changed. In that case the key is for Alex to show love even when feeling disrespected, or for Sam to show respect even when feeling unloved. Of course, there can still be an argument about who should break the cycle first. This can lead to very aggrieved people feeling that they are less at fault and that therefore the onus should not be on them to break the cycle. The best answer is that both people should make efforts to break the cycle. Perhaps an even better answer is one I read in Love and Respect by Dr Emerson Eggerichs, saying that whoever is more mature should break the cycle.

A more widely inflammatory example of the same principle involves police brutality against black people in the US. A highly simplified account connects police aggression with community distrust, which can in turn shape later interactions.

This is a very different situation but the question is analogous: if we want to break this vicious cycle, which arrow should be broken? Is it the case that actions are easier to change than feelings here too? Some people argue that black people should simply “do what they’re told” by the police. But tragically, there are well-documented examples of black people being shot by police even when they were doing what they were told.

Other people argue that police should be trained to de-escalate all violent situations rather than responding with aggression themselves. One point of view is that whoever has the position of power should take responsibility for breaking this cycle. Some successful programs focus on changing both of the “feelings” arrows by fostering better relations between police and communities.

In all cases I think it’s important to understand that this is a cycle, and claiming there is one root cause is an oversimplification, unless we acknowledge that the cycle itself is the root cause.