The “Three Times Rule” for Starting Difficult Conversations

I have found that there is a useful way to frame and approach difficult conversations. I call it the “three times rule.” It refers to the fact that if I find myself returning to an incident or exchange with someone on more than three occasions, then I use the three times rule to bring it up.




Here is an example.

Me: “Hi, Janet. I was wondering if we might find a time to talk.”



Janet: “Sure, what is up?”

Me: “Well, we had an exchange the other day that I wanted to discuss with you. You see, I have this rule that if something happens, and I find myself thinking about it afterwards on three or more different occasions, then that is a signal that I should bring it up. I found myself thinking about an exchange we had a week or so ago several times over the week so I wanted to talk with you about it.”

Janet: “Ok. I am not sure if I know what you are talking about. It is when I made that comment about your theory?”




Me: “Yes, that was the thing. I want to be clear upfront that I am not sure exactly what you meant by it or what to make of it. I just wanted to let you know that it activated something in me and I wanted to share that with you.”

Janet: “So, can you tell me what you were thinking or what you reacted to?”

Me: “Yes. So, everyone knows that I am definitely obsessed with my theory. So, at one level when you said that ‘it was all I cared about’ I can see what you mean. But it was the way you said it. Or maybe the way I heard it. I don’t know, it just seemed a bit disrespectful or hurtful. I guess I heard it as though you were saying I some complete narcissist who only cared about my theory. Maybe I am projecting but that is how I heard it. Or, that is how a part of me heard it. And I found myself going back to it more than three times over the past week, so here I am sharing that with you just to let you know.”

Janet: “Huh. Well, I really did not mean that I thought you were a complete narcissist, I just was saying that you are obsessed with your work. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.”

Me: “Thanks for that. Like I said, I knew it might have come from me. It is just that I do have some complicated feelings about my work and my relationship to it and how it connects to others. Maybe I was putting that on to your comment more than I should have. But I figured you would want to know because it did affect me. And now hearing your feedback helps me see that it was not your intent.”

I have found in my clinical work that many people have difficulty knowing how to “process” feelings about their relationship.




Read 3 Tips To Create Conversations That Are Worth Having In Your Workplace

Process talk refers to when you shift perspective from the normal everyday content (the “what” of the conversation) to processing the feelings and the relationship dynamics (the “how” of the conversation).

conversation

This is an unusual way of talking that does take practice.

The “three times rule” is one simple tactic for framing the conversation. 

There are some additional principles to guide process discussions.

First, as this example opened, let the person know that you would like to find a time to talk.

This alerts the person that there is something important to discuss and allows the frame and context to be set.

Second, tell them about the three times rule.




Doing so gives you a justification and it serves to “depersonalize” the reason for talking and is likely to decrease their defensiveness.

That is, the reason you are bringing this up is because of the rule rather than you are pissed with them.

Third, be open to the idea that what you were upset about might be the result of a misinterpretation on your part.

You will notice that I said that it was the way “a part of me heard it” rather than some absolute meaning that she clearly conveyed even if she denies it. This gives the conversation the space to go in a number of different directions.

Read The Helicopter Technique Metaphor: 10 Useful Options For Navigating Difficult Conversations




Fourth, this conversation ended pretty quickly, which is fine.

The point was made and a new understanding was reached and the stage is set for the conversation to be returned to if need be. It is likely better for the issue to be raised briefly than not at all. And if it goes deeper and both parties are curious, accepting, loving/compassionate, and motivated in good faith, then it can be an excellent experience. 

Finally, the initial goal with this kind of conversation is not to blame or judge, but rather to “call the field” (see here for more on this concept) and communicate that there was a disruption just so that folks are aware of the bump that happened. Being aware that there was a disruption does not necessarily translate into the notion that someone is wrong or should be blamed or that there was only one correct interpretation. I think one of the great interpersonal or socio-emotional skills is learning how to process these kinds of things and how not to get trapped in neurotic reactive cycles with others who we have conflicts with.  


Written by: Gregg Henriques, Ph.D
Originally appeared on: Psychology Today
Republished with permission.
rule starting difficult conversations pin


Published On:

Last updated on:

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D

Dr. Gregg Henriques is a Professor of Graduate Psychology at James Madison University in the Combined-Integrated Doctoral Program in Clinical and School Psychology. He received Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Vermont and did his post-doctoral training at the University of Pennsylvania, working with Dr. Aaron T. Beck. His primary area of scholarly interest is in developing a “unified metapsychology framework” for both the science and practice of psychology. Toward that end, he has authored the book, A New Unified Theory of Psychology and developed a popular blog on Psychology Today, Theory of Knowledge, where he has authored over 350 essays on psychology, philosophy, politics, and mental health. He is the founder of the Theory of Knowledge Society, a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, and has won numerous awards for teaching, scholarship, and service, and published dozens of articles in leading academic journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, American Psychologist, and Review of General Psychology. A licensed clinical psychologist, he has expertise in theoretical psychology, unified approaches to psychotherapy, psychological well-being, personality functioning, depression, and suicidal behavior. See his home page at gregghenriques.com.

Disclaimer: The informational content on The Minds Journal have been created and reviewed by qualified mental health professionals. They are intended solely for educational and self-awareness purposes and should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you are experiencing emotional distress or have concerns about your mental health, please seek help from a licensed mental health professional or healthcare provider.

Leave a Comment

Today's Horoscope

Accurate Daily Horoscope for 12 Zodiac Signs

Daily Horoscope 25 June 2025: Prediction For Each Zodiac Sign

🌟 Ready to unlock the secrets of 25 June, 2025? Discover your personalized horoscope and see what the stars have in store for you today! ✨🔮

Latest Quizzes

Music Taste Quiz: Find Out Your Strongest Personality Trait

Music Taste Quiz: The Music You Like Can Reveal Your Strongest Personality Trait!

Whether you’re the life of the party with a pop playlist, or a deep thinker grooving to jazz, your choice in music can say a lot about who you are.

Latest Quotes

Weekly Horoscope 23 June To 29 June part one

Weekly Horoscope 23 June To 29 June

Weekly Horoscope 23 June To 29 June Aries (March 21 – April 19)Tangible progress on home & wellness goals. A heartfelt reset in family matters or living arrangements. An unexpected insight around 27th may reshape how you handle emotional security or finances. Taurus (April 20 – May 20)This is the week to act on long-held…

Readers Blog

Dear Me At 23 Lessons Learned And Dreams Ahead

Dear Me At 23: Lessons Learned And Dreams Ahead

I think of life as a ride that propels us to live through the synopsis of time, that stargazes us through life, that guides us through our darkest moments, that comforts and confronts us. Striding through the odyssey of journey that mesmerises us in its finest beauty and haunts us with its darkness, that binds…

Latest Articles

I have found that there is a useful way to frame and approach difficult conversations. I call it the “three times rule.” It refers to the fact that if I find myself returning to an incident or exchange with someone on more than three occasions, then I use the three times rule to bring it up.




Here is an example.

Me: “Hi, Janet. I was wondering if we might find a time to talk.”



Janet: “Sure, what is up?”

Me: “Well, we had an exchange the other day that I wanted to discuss with you. You see, I have this rule that if something happens, and I find myself thinking about it afterwards on three or more different occasions, then that is a signal that I should bring it up. I found myself thinking about an exchange we had a week or so ago several times over the week so I wanted to talk with you about it.”

Janet: “Ok. I am not sure if I know what you are talking about. It is when I made that comment about your theory?”




Me: “Yes, that was the thing. I want to be clear upfront that I am not sure exactly what you meant by it or what to make of it. I just wanted to let you know that it activated something in me and I wanted to share that with you.”

Janet: “So, can you tell me what you were thinking or what you reacted to?”

Me: “Yes. So, everyone knows that I am definitely obsessed with my theory. So, at one level when you said that ‘it was all I cared about’ I can see what you mean. But it was the way you said it. Or maybe the way I heard it. I don’t know, it just seemed a bit disrespectful or hurtful. I guess I heard it as though you were saying I some complete narcissist who only cared about my theory. Maybe I am projecting but that is how I heard it. Or, that is how a part of me heard it. And I found myself going back to it more than three times over the past week, so here I am sharing that with you just to let you know.”

Janet: “Huh. Well, I really did not mean that I thought you were a complete narcissist, I just was saying that you are obsessed with your work. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.”

Me: “Thanks for that. Like I said, I knew it might have come from me. It is just that I do have some complicated feelings about my work and my relationship to it and how it connects to others. Maybe I was putting that on to your comment more than I should have. But I figured you would want to know because it did affect me. And now hearing your feedback helps me see that it was not your intent.”

I have found in my clinical work that many people have difficulty knowing how to “process” feelings about their relationship.




Read 3 Tips To Create Conversations That Are Worth Having In Your Workplace

Process talk refers to when you shift perspective from the normal everyday content (the “what” of the conversation) to processing the feelings and the relationship dynamics (the “how” of the conversation).

conversation

This is an unusual way of talking that does take practice.

The “three times rule” is one simple tactic for framing the conversation. 

There are some additional principles to guide process discussions.

First, as this example opened, let the person know that you would like to find a time to talk.

This alerts the person that there is something important to discuss and allows the frame and context to be set.

Second, tell them about the three times rule.




Doing so gives you a justification and it serves to “depersonalize” the reason for talking and is likely to decrease their defensiveness.

That is, the reason you are bringing this up is because of the rule rather than you are pissed with them.

Third, be open to the idea that what you were upset about might be the result of a misinterpretation on your part.

You will notice that I said that it was the way “a part of me heard it” rather than some absolute meaning that she clearly conveyed even if she denies it. This gives the conversation the space to go in a number of different directions.

Read The Helicopter Technique Metaphor: 10 Useful Options For Navigating Difficult Conversations




Fourth, this conversation ended pretty quickly, which is fine.

The point was made and a new understanding was reached and the stage is set for the conversation to be returned to if need be. It is likely better for the issue to be raised briefly than not at all. And if it goes deeper and both parties are curious, accepting, loving/compassionate, and motivated in good faith, then it can be an excellent experience. 

Finally, the initial goal with this kind of conversation is not to blame or judge, but rather to “call the field” (see here for more on this concept) and communicate that there was a disruption just so that folks are aware of the bump that happened. Being aware that there was a disruption does not necessarily translate into the notion that someone is wrong or should be blamed or that there was only one correct interpretation. I think one of the great interpersonal or socio-emotional skills is learning how to process these kinds of things and how not to get trapped in neurotic reactive cycles with others who we have conflicts with.  


Written by: Gregg Henriques, Ph.D
Originally appeared on: Psychology Today
Republished with permission.
rule starting difficult conversations pin


Published On:

Last updated on:

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D

Dr. Gregg Henriques is a Professor of Graduate Psychology at James Madison University in the Combined-Integrated Doctoral Program in Clinical and School Psychology. He received Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Vermont and did his post-doctoral training at the University of Pennsylvania, working with Dr. Aaron T. Beck. His primary area of scholarly interest is in developing a “unified metapsychology framework” for both the science and practice of psychology. Toward that end, he has authored the book, A New Unified Theory of Psychology and developed a popular blog on Psychology Today, Theory of Knowledge, where he has authored over 350 essays on psychology, philosophy, politics, and mental health. He is the founder of the Theory of Knowledge Society, a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, and has won numerous awards for teaching, scholarship, and service, and published dozens of articles in leading academic journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, American Psychologist, and Review of General Psychology. A licensed clinical psychologist, he has expertise in theoretical psychology, unified approaches to psychotherapy, psychological well-being, personality functioning, depression, and suicidal behavior. See his home page at gregghenriques.com.

Leave a Comment

    Leave a Comment