The Marriage Number Line: Why the Distance From +6 to +10 Is Longer Than You Think

“It’s fine,” she says. Her voice is quiet, but the distance between the two people on the sofa feels anything but fine.

Many couples do not describe their relationship as bad. They describe it as “fine.” That can mean they have found a workable rhythm. It can also mean they have quietly lowered their hopes.

Dr. Greg Stewart uses a simple number line to help couples talk about that difference. It is not a diagnostic test or a scientific scale. It is a prompt for an honest conversation: Where do we feel we are now, and what might help us move toward the relationship we want?

A number line for an honest conversation

Imagine a line running from -10 to +10.

At -10, a couple may feel close to separation or divorce. At 0, the relationship may feel more like roommates: not necessarily full of conflict, but short on closeness and emotional connection. At +10, the partners might say, “I literally don’t know how our relationship can be any better.” Think of the deep devotion portrayed in The Notebook, not as a demand for perfection, but as a picture of a relationship that feels deeply cherished.

A +10 does not mean that life is free of disappointment, conflict, or ordinary chores. It describes a sense of mutual affection and commitment that makes both people feel profoundly valued.

The numbers are a conversation tool, not a measurement instrument. Their purpose is not to decide who is right. Their purpose is to help two people say what they may have been avoiding.

Ask one another, gently and separately: “Where would you place our relationship today?” Then listen to each answer before explaining or defending your own. A difference in scores does not prove that one partner is mistaken. It reveals that each person is experiencing the relationship from a different place.

Why the upper part of the line takes more effort

In Stewart’s metaphor, the path upward is not evenly spaced. Moving from deep distress toward a steadier, more positive relationship may bring visible changes. Moving from “good enough” toward a relationship that feels exceptional calls for something different: sustained, thoughtful attention to one another.

The gap between +6 and +10 is not literally greater than the numerical distance between -10 and +5. It is a metaphor for the kind of work involved. The upper range asks partners to keep noticing each other, to pursue one another’s hearts, and to look for ways to serve without keeping score.

That can mean doing a task your partner usually carries, creating a small moment of delight, or asking, “What would help you feel cared for this week?” Not as a transaction. Not as proof that you deserve something back. As a practice of generosity.

Relationship satisfaction does not follow one inevitable path. A large meta-analysis of 165 samples and more than 165,000 people found that average satisfaction varied across age and relationship duration; those averages do not dictate any one couple’s future (Bühler et al., 2021). Research also links shared coping and perceived partner support with greater relationship satisfaction over time (Rusu et al., 2020). The practical point is hopeful: a number is a snapshot, not a sentence.

The reef between “good” and “so much better”

There is a memorable image in Castaway: Tom Hanks builds a raft, but a reef keeps pushing it back toward shore. He needs a makeshift sail and the wind to carry him beyond the barrier and into open water.

Many couples recognize a similar point in their relationship. They may care for one another and function well together. They may still think, “It could be so much better.” That feeling can mark a reef, not a reason to condemn the relationship, but a place where a different kind of effort may be needed.

A sail does not guarantee calm seas. It gives the raft a way to use the wind. In a relationship, commitment and motivation can provide that direction. Feelings matter, but they are not always present in equal measure. A chosen act of care can begin before the feeling returns.

The cost of settling at +3

A relationship at +3 is not necessarily a crisis. It may be familiar, functional, and even comfortable. But if “fine” becomes a reason to stop trying, the relationship may receive only the effort that matches that lowered expectation.

Life can make people cautious. Past hurt may teach us to expect less, so disappointment cannot reach as far. That self-protection is understandable. Yet it can also keep partners from asking for what they want or offering the care they would be glad to receive.

Hedonic adaptation, the tendency for positive experiences to feel more ordinary with repetition, may help explain why familiar goodness can fade into the background. It is one possible process, not a verdict on a couple or a prediction of inevitable decline (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Appreciation, novelty, and deliberate attention can help partners notice one another again.

The goal is not to manufacture constant romance. It is to stop treating the good in a relationship as though it no longer needs tending.

When your ratings do not match

Stewart recalls asking partners to rate their relationship and hearing the same striking contrast in two different couples: one partner said +5, while the other said -7. That difference is not a punchline about who is right. It is a reminder that a relationship can feel very different to the two people living in it.

He uses the metaphor of a thermostat and thermometer: one partner may try to set the emotional climate, while the other reflects the temperature they experience. Either partner can take either role. Both people shape the relationship, and both need to be heard.

The first task is not to argue the number upward. It is to become curious about what lies beneath it. “What has been happening that makes this feel like a -7 for you?” is more likely to open a conversation than “How can you say that?”

Some partners express pain through anger. Anger can signal hurt and a desire for something to change, while apathy may reflect emotional distance or exhaustion. Still, anger does not justify intimidation, threats, or harm. If either person feels unsafe, seek appropriate professional support.

A path over the reef: three phases

Stewart describes three phases that can help couples move toward a stronger relationship.

First, stop causing further damage. Address the ways you speak and act when hurt. Criticizing a partner’s character instead of naming a specific behavior can make repair harder. Begin with what happened, what it meant to you, and what you need now.

Second, schedule the minimum. Good intentions often lose to crowded days. Put the basics of shared life on the calendar: time to talk, time to be together, and time to rest. Treat these as small, dependable practices rather than grand gestures.

Third, practice the skills of the +6 to +10 range. Look for ways to pursue one another’s hearts. Surprise your partner by carrying a task they usually handle. Ask what would make them feel cared for. Give freely, while still speaking honestly about your own needs.

The aim is not to create a perfect marriage. It is to make affection and consideration part of the relationship’s foundation. Some couples mark their anniversary as a chance to renew their choice of one another, to “win your spouse back to the altar” through ordinary, faithful acts. The image can stand on its own, whether or not a couple shares its religious meaning.

Research across different journals points to related themes: supportive communication, growth, and the ways partners respond to each other are associated with aspects of relationship quality (Davis & Goodfriend, 2007; Fávero et al., 2021; Hughes & Camden, 2020; Mazzuca et al., 2018). These findings do not offer a formula for every couple. They do reinforce the value of paying attention, speaking openly, and responding with care.

Use I³ to choose your next step

The I³ framework (Information, Interpretation, Intensity) offers a way to approach a difficult relationship conversation without letting the first emotion set the entire course.

Information: Ask for both honest ratings. What is happening? What has each of you been noticing? Let each partner describe their experience before drawing conclusions.

Interpretation: Name the story you are telling yourselves. “We have settled at +3” may be one interpretation. Another is, “We are facing a difficult stretch, and we have room to grow.” Consider what else could be true.

Intensity: Once you have more information and have examined your interpretations, choose an effort that fits the need. A sincere conversation may be the right next step. So may a consistent act of care, a change in the daily routine, or support from a licensed professional.

I³ is an emotional-management framework, not a clinical diagnosis and not a substitute for care from a licensed professional.

A relationship at +3 is not doomed, and +10 is not reserved for movie scenes. The upper range is a real possibility, reached through steady choices rather than luck. Begin by asking where each of you stands. Listen without rushing to correct the answer. Then choose one caring action you can repeat.

Explore Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk and his book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

References

Bühler, J. L., Krauss, S., & Orth, U. (2021). Development of relationship satisfaction across the life span: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 1012–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000342

Bühler, J. L. (2022, July 21). How steady can you expect relationship satisfaction to be? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-i-shapes-we/202207/how-steady-can-you-expect-relationship-satisfaction-be

Davis, R. L., & Goodfriend, W. (2007). Complementarity in romantic relationships: Constructs involved in individual and partner change. Modern Psychological Studies, 13(1), 65–71. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol13/iss1/8/

Fávero, M., Lemos, L., Moreira, D., Ribeiro, F. N., & Sousa-Gomes, V. (2021). Romantic attachment and difficulties in emotion regulation on dyadic adjustment: A comprehensive literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 723823. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.723823

Hughes, J. L., & Camden, A. A. (2020). Using Chapman’s Five Love Languages theory to predict love and relationship satisfaction. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 25(3), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN25.3.234

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

Mazzuca, S., Kafetsios, K., Livi, S., & Presaghi, F. (2018). Emotion regulation and satisfaction in long-term marital relationships: The role of emotional contagion. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(7), 971–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518804452

Redita, N. E., Sukamto, M. E., & Josephine, A. F. (2023). Is sexting a matter in marriage? The role of body acceptance by spouse on sexual satisfaction. The Open Psychology Journal, 16, Article e187435012307170. https://doi.org/10.2174/18743501-v16-230815-2023-44

Rusu, P. P., Nussbeck, F. W., Leuchtmann, L., & Bodenmann, G. (2020). Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction: A longitudinal study disentangling timely stable from yearly fluctuations. PLOS ONE, 15(4), e0231133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231133

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Do You Feel Pursued? The Question Most Couples Never Ask Out Loud

They love each other, but the evening passes on the same couch without a tender question, an affectionate touch, or a plan made just for the two of them. Neither has pursued the other’s heart on purpose in months.

That kind of distance can be hard to name. It may not feel like a crisis. It may simply feel like life has become a sequence of errands, shared responsibilities, and brief exchanges about what needs doing. Then one day, one partner looks across the room and thinks, We feel more like roommates than lovers.

There is a question that can open a door: “Do you feel like I’m currently pursuing your heart?”

What does it mean to pursue your partner?

Pursuit is not pressure. It is not keeping score, demanding attention, or expecting your partner to respond on command. It is a specific, thoughtful action intended to create a positive emotional experience for someone you love.

In a marriage or committed relationship, pursuit includes seeking time together, sharing experiences, and contributing to one another’s quality of life. It also means taking initiative: planning a date, offering affection, expressing admiration, or making space for a meaningful conversation.

Dr. Greg Stewart teaches that two needs are central to every relationship: safety and pursuit. Safety means being able to reveal weaknesses and speak honestly without fear of being shamed or dismissed. The more safely two people can give and receive truth, the deeper their connection can become. Pursuit helps keep that connection active. It communicates, I still choose you. I want to know you. Your happiness matters to me.

These are ideas from Stewart’s relationship framework, not a demand for one particular kind of romance. Pursuit will look different in different relationships. The point is to learn what feels caring and meaningful to your partner, then act on that knowledge with respect.

The question most couples avoid

In counseling, Stewart invites one partner to ask the other: “Do you feel like I’m currently pursuing your heart?”

The answer may be no, yes, or sometimes. If the answer is yes or sometimes, he asks a follow-up: “Am I blowing you away in how hard I’m pursuing you?”

The answer, he says, is almost always no.

Then the partners switch roles and ask each other the same questions. The exchange can be humbling. It can also be relieving. Each person hears something that may be difficult to admit: “I haven’t been pursuing you on purpose.” And each may discover the other has been making the same assumption. That the loss of romance meant desire had disappeared.

Research offers a useful distinction here: sharing something matters, but feeling understood and responded to matters too. In a daily-diary study of 99 couples, perceived partner responsiveness: feeling understood, valued, and supported, was associated with couple satisfaction (Candel & Turliuc, 2021). In other words, attention is not just being in the same room. It is letting your partner know their experience matters to you.

A Psychology Today article similarly describes how a partner’s response to even an ordinary disclosure can either support emotional closeness or weaken it (Parker, 2017). A quick, attentive question may say more than a long conversation in which one person feels ignored.

The second question turns the focus inward

There is another way to understand pursuit. Instead of asking your partner whether they feel pursued, ask yourself:

“Is my spouse compelled, motivated, or excited to brag about how incredible of a spouse I am? Would they say, ‘I have never been loved like this before, and I can’t imagine being loved like this by anyone else’?”

This is not an invitation to demand praise. It is a measure of your own intention. Am I creating the kind of relationship where my partner feels cherished, safe, and actively loved?

The question also interrupts a familiar habit: building a list of what your partner is not doing while overlooking what you may have stopped doing yourself. Stewart puts it plainly: until you are actively trying to help your partner feel deeply loved, hold your complaint long enough to examine your own part.

That is not a rule for accepting disrespect or ignoring unmet needs. It is a practice of responsibility: begin by noticing what is within your reach. A study of dual-income couples found a positive association between spousal support and marital satisfaction (Gallimore et al., 2006). The study does not prove that one partner’s supportive act will resolve every relationship problem. It does reinforce the value of steady, responsive care.

Keep the original promise in view

For couples who made vows at an altar, the image of those promises can be a meaningful reminder. For others, the commitment may have been made in a different setting. Either way, most relationships begin with an intention to protect and cherish one another.

Over time, routine can crowd out that intention. The relationship may not be broken. The pursuit may simply have gone quiet.

The goal is not to recreate the first month of dating or copy a film’s version of romance. It is to return to the promise behind the early affection: I will make room for you. I will seek to understand you. I will care about what brings you joy.

Research across different samples and methods points toward a similar theme, with important limits. One cross-sectional study of university students in South Africa found positive associations between love-related dimensions, including intimacy, and reported attachment behaviors such as responsiveness and engagement (Tyolo et al., 2022). A Psi Chi Journal study found that perceived use of a partner’s preferred expressions of affection was associated with love and relationship satisfaction (Hughes & Camden, 2020). These studies do not prescribe a universal romantic script. They support a more practical idea: learn what feels meaningful to your partner rather than assuming that what moves you will move them.

Use I³ to interrupt the drift

I³ (pronounced “I cubed”) offers a simple way to slow down assumptions and choose a more helpful response. Its three steps are Information, Interpretation, and Intensity.

Lock 1: Information. Ask the question out loud. Do not assume you know how your partner feels. “Do you feel like I’m currently pursuing your heart?” gives you information you cannot get by guessing. The American Psychological Association recommends regular conversations that reach beyond household logistics and create room for partners to share what is happening in their lives (American Psychological Association, n.d.).

Lock 2: Interpretation. Notice the stories that may have filled the silence. One partner may think, They no longer want to be close to me. The other may be thinking, We are busy, and we will reconnect when things settle down. Ask what is true, not merely what fear predicts.

A PLOS ONE study found that the way people disclose online and offline can relate differently to intimacy and satisfaction, underscoring the value of how and where partners share personal information (Lee et al., 2019). The study does not test the I³ method; it simply reminds us that connection depends on more than the amount of communication.

Lock 3: Intensity. Size the problem accurately. A long period without intentional pursuit deserves attention, but it does not automatically mean the relationship is over. It may mean two people need to speak honestly and begin again with small, consistent actions.

Try this tonight

Choose a quiet moment. Put away distractions. Ask each other, one at a time:

1. “Do you feel like I’m currently pursuing your heart?”
2. “What is one small action that would help you feel pursued this week?”

Listen to the answer without defending, correcting, or turning it into a scorecard. Then write privately: “What do I do that helps my partner feel loved? What is one thoughtful action I can take this week?”

Keep the action specific and suited to your relationship. You might plan an evening together, give your partner your full attention during a conversation, offer a note of appreciation, or take something off their plate. The gesture need not be grand. It needs to be intentional and welcome.

Pursuit is not a personality trait reserved for naturally romantic people. It is a practice of noticing, asking, and acting with care. Practices can be restarted.

For more on managing the emotions and interpretations that shape everyday life, watch Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk and explore his first revised book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions. Learn more about Becoming More Counseling, Coaching, & Consulting.

I³ is an emotional-management framework. It is not a clinical diagnosis and is not a substitute for licensed care. If you or your partner need help navigating ongoing distress or relationship concerns, consider support from a licensed mental health professional.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Happy couples: How to keep your relationship healthy. https://www.apa.org/topics/marriage-relationships/healthy-relationships

Candel, O. S., & Turliuc, M. N. (2021). The role of relational entitlement, self-disclosure and perceived partner responsiveness in predicting couple satisfaction: A daily-diary study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 609232. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.609232

Gallimore, S. A., Hughes, J. L., & Geldhauser, H. A. (2006). Marriage length, spousal support, and marital satisfaction in dual-income men and women. Modern Psychological Studies, 12(1), Article 8. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol12/iss1/8/

Hughes, J. L., & Camden, A. A. (2020). Using Chapman’s five love languages theory to predict love and relationship satisfaction. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 25(3), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN25.3.234

Lee, J., Gillath, O., & Miller, A. (2019). Effects of self- and partner’s online disclosure on relationship intimacy and satisfaction. PLOS ONE, 14(3), e0212186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212186

Parker, H. (2017, January 31). Let’s get responsive. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-future-self/201702/lets-get-responsive

Tyolo, T. P., Erasmus, P., Koen, V., & Tsabedze, W. F. (2022). Attachment style, love style, and attachment behaviour in university students’ intimate relationships, South Africa: A brief study. The Open Psychology Journal, 15, Article e187435012208190. https://doi.org/10.2174/18743501-v15-e2208190

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

If Tinkerbell Fixed Your Marriage Tonight, What Would Be Different About You?

A wife leaned forward on the counseling-room couch, ready to describe what was wrong with her husband. Then she understood the question and leaned back, silent. The couple could list each other’s faults with striking detail. When asked what they themselves might change, neither had an answer.

That pause holds a question worth carrying into any close relationship: If Tinkerbell flew into your bedroom tonight and sprinkled magical dust that perfected your marriage, what would be different about you tomorrow? Not about your marriage. Not about your spouse. About you.

The question is not a trick, and it is not an invitation to take all the blame. It is a way to look honestly at the part of a relationship you can influence: your own choices, words, and responses.

Start with the question that turns the mirror toward you

In his counseling work, Dr. Greg Stewart describes asking a couple this question during their first session. The wife initially leaned forward to answer. Then she realized he was not asking what should change about her husband or their marriage. She leaned back and said nothing.

After a few seconds, he observed that either spouse could likely talk at length about the other person. But when the question turned inward, both were speechless. That silence did not mean they were bad people or that their concerns were unimportant. It showed how easily attention can settle on what someone else should do, and how difficult it can be to name our own next step.

Dr. Stewart treats this question as a first pillar: immovable, tall, and always in focus. In counseling, the work begins and ends with the person doing it. A counselor cannot change a spouse on someone else’s behalf. Each person can bring their emotional energy to examining and evolving themselves.

That does not mean a partner’s concerns will be ignored. It means each person begins with what they can actually examine: their own reactions, habits, and contributions. The question creates room for responsibility without requiring self-condemnation.

Research on couples supports the value of looking closely at how partners interpret one another. In a study of married couples, attributions about a spouse’s behavior were related to perceived and expressed criticism, even after accounting for observed criticism and marital adjustment (Peterson & Smith, 2011). In other words, what we believe a partner’s behavior means can shape how we experience and respond to it. A pause for self-reflection can help separate what happened from the story we quickly build around it.

Safety and pursuit make honesty possible

Every close relationship asks two enduring questions: Can I be safe with you? Do you still pursue my heart?

Safety means being able to speak honestly, admit a weakness, or describe a hurt without being mocked, dismissed, or punished for the vulnerability. Pursuit means taking intentional action to create a positive emotional experience for the person you love. Neither happens by accident. Both are built through repeated moments of attention and care.

In research following 91 newlywed couples, perceived criticism and blame during conflict were associated with a decline in intimate safety over time. For wives in the study, perceived understanding of a partner’s point of view was associated with increased safety (LaMotte et al., 2017). Another study found that conflict was less damaging to relationship satisfaction when people felt understood by their partner (Gordon & Chen, 2016).

These findings do not ask anyone to agree with everything a partner says. They point to something more basic: the experience of being heard matters. When partners speak with honesty and respond with care, difficult conversations have a better chance of becoming places for understanding rather than contests to win.

A useful question to ask yourself is, “Do I want my spouse to feel safe with me in my heart?” If your answer is yes, let that answer guide your next conversation. When arguments become sharp or defensive, they may reflect a painful departure from what you want for the relationship, not proof that kindness was never part of you.

A 2019 study of daily stress communication among married couples found that clearer communication was associated with greater perceived responsiveness from a partner. That responsiveness, in turn, was associated with relationship satisfaction (Pagani et al., 2019). A simple, direct statement can help make care easier to offer: “I want to talk about what hurt me, and I want to do it without attacking you.”

Remember, “This is us”

Dr. Stewart encourages couples to remember moments when they were tender, unselfish, and deeply connected. Perhaps resting in each other’s arms and thinking, This is us.

Those moments matter. Hurt and anger are real, and they deserve attention. But a moment of anger does not have to define the whole person or the whole relationship. It can be a signal to pause, understand what is happening inside, and choose a response that better reflects the kind of partner you want to be.

This is not the same as excusing harm. Safety requires boundaries. If there is intimidation, coercion, or abuse, self-reflection does not require you to accept it or handle it alone. Prioritize safety and seek appropriate professional support.

Song of Songs offers a gentle image for this work: “I sleep, but my heart is awake; it is the voice of my beloved! He knocks, saying, ‘Open for me, my love, my dove, my perfect one’” (Song of Songs 5:2). Readers of faith may hear a sacred invitation in those words. Others may simply recognize the image of a heart still listening, ready to open a window. The practice does not depend on sharing a religious tradition.

Use the I³ locks before intensity takes over

The I³ framework (pronounced “I cubed”) offers a practical way to pause before reacting. Its three parts are Information, Interpretation, and Intensity. The Panama Canal Rule is simple: let the locks of Information and Interpretation fill before letting Intensity take over.

The Tinkerbell question applies the first lock to the self. Many people have gathered extensive information about what a spouse should change. They have not yet gathered clear information about what they themselves would change. A written answer turns that inward question into something concrete.

Then comes the second lock: interpretation. When you look honestly at your own page, you may find more than one truth at once:

• The truth is, I have my own list.
• The truth also is, my spouse may have been waiting for me to go first.
• The truth is, I can begin with myself without pretending that my concerns do not matter.

That is not a verdict against you or your spouse. It is more complete information, and a better place from which to choose what the moment deserves.

A one-page exercise for tonight

Set aside a quiet moment. Take a page and write your answer to the Tinkerbell question:

If I woke tomorrow and our marriage felt perfected, what would be different about me?

Keep the page focused on yourself. Write about the behaviors, words, and patterns you can choose, not what your spouse needs to stop doing. Be specific. “I would listen without preparing my defense” gives you something to practice. “I would be a better spouse” is too broad to guide you.

This is an exercise in honest self-knowledge, not a search for reasons to blame yourself. If the question brings up something painful, pause and treat yourself with care.

If your relationship is safe enough for an open conversation, bring your list to your spouse this week. You might say, “I’ve been thinking about what I can change in myself. What would you want me to add to my list?” Listen to the answer. Do not bring a list of what you want your spouse to change. This first conversation is about hearing what your partner sees in you, not defending, correcting, or switching the focus.

Studies of close relationships distinguish several important qualities, including conflict, companionship, help, security, and closeness (Ponti et al., 2010). This exercise does not promise to resolve every conflict. It offers a small, deliberate opportunity to practice openness, care, and accountability.

Begin where your influence begins

When people feel stuck in a marriage, it is natural to search for the one change their partner needs to make. But lasting connection also asks for another kind of courage: the willingness to look inward without turning that look into self-attack.

The marriage can begin to change when one person changes what they can actually control. That person is you, not because you are responsible for everything, but because your own next choice is the place where your influence begins.

For more on managing difficult emotions, watch Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk or explore his first revised book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions. Learn more about Becoming More Counseling, Coaching, & Consulting.

I³ is an emotional-management framework, not a clinical diagnosis and not a substitute for licensed care.

References

Emamzadeh, A. (2019, September 30). How whining and sulking can damage a relationship. Psychology Today.

Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2016). Do you get where I’m coming from?: Perceived understanding buffers against the negative impact of conflict on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000039

Huebschmann, N. A., & Sheets, E. S. (2021). Don’t fear conflict: Relationship stress beliefs in friend, familial, and romantic relationships. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 26(2), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN26.2.252

LaMotte, A. D., Khalifian, C. E., & Barry, R. A. (2017). Newlyweds’ perceptions of partner conflict behaviors and change in intimate safety over time. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(1), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000244

Neoh, M. J. Y., Teng, J. H., Lee, A., Setoh, P., Mulatti, C., & Esposito, G. (2022). Negative emotional reactions to criticism: Perceived criticism and source affects extent of hurt and relational distancing. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0271869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271869

Pagani, A. F., Donato, S., Parise, M., Bertoni, A., Iafrate, R., & Schoebi, D. (2019). Explicit stress communication facilitates perceived responsiveness in dyadic coping. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 401. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00401

Petersen, J., & Le, B. (2017). Psychological distress, attachment, and conflict resolution in romantic relationships. Modern Psychological Studies, 23(1), Article 3. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol23/iss1/3

Ponti, L., Guarnieri, S., Smorti, A., & Tani, F. (2010). A measure for the study of friendship and romantic relationship quality from adolescence to early-adulthood. The Open Psychology Journal, 3, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350101003010076

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

You Are, You Can, I Want To: The Three Sentences That Make Someone Feel Significant

A hard week ends at the kitchen table. “How did it go?” is a caring question, but sometimes the words that matter most are, “I saw how steady you were when things got difficult.”

Nobody feels deeply admired by praise that could be given to anyone. Specific words tell someone: I notice who you are, I believe in what you can do, and I want to be close to you.

What admiration really sounds like

Admiration is not flattery. Flattery can be pleasant, but it often stays general: “You’re amazing,” “You’re the best,” or “You always know what to do.” Real admiration names a quality in a particular person and connects it to something that matters.

Dr. Greg Stewart’s I³ framework offers a simple way to express it:

1. You are: name a strength.
2. You can, name a capacity or possibility.
3. I want to: name your desire to share, support, or connect.

The words should be true. They should also be personal. “You are thoughtful” may be kind. “You are thoughtful; you noticed that your sister needed a quiet moment and made room for her” helps someone understand exactly what you value.

Relationship research points to the importance of that kind of responsive recognition. In a daily-diary study of couples, perceived partner responsiveness, feeling understood and supported, was associated with greater relationship satisfaction, including on days when partners felt more responsive to one another (Candel & Turliuc, 2021). That does not prove that one phrase can repair every difficulty. It does remind us that daily moments of attention matter.

1. “You are…” Name the strength you see

Begin with a quality that is genuinely present: steady, resourceful, generous, perceptive, courageous, patient, or discerning.

Then connect it to an example.

“You are resourceful. When the plan fell apart, you found another way forward without making anyone feel small.”

This first sentence answers a quiet question: Who do you see me as?

For many men, Stewart’s chapter frames significance, success, and respect as important emotional aims. A man may work hard to feel capable and valued, pursuing those feelings in whichever parts of life seem to offer them. That perspective is not a rule about every man. It is an invitation to notice what matters to the person in front of you. A precise observation may reach him more deeply than a broad compliment.

The same principle applies to women and to people of every temperament: see the actual person, not a role or an assumption. A study of university students found positive associations between aspects of love (intimacy, passion, and commitment) and measures that included accessibility, responsiveness, and engagement. Its sample was specific, so the findings should not be treated as a universal formula. They are consistent, however, with the value of being attentive and available to one another (Tyolo et al., 2022).

2. “You can…” Name the capacity you believe in

The second sentence does not demand a result. It expresses confidence in someone’s ability to take a next step.

“You can have that difficult conversation with care. You have a way of being honest without losing your compassion.”

This sentence answers: What do you believe I am capable of?

Keep the encouragement grounded. Avoid turning it into pressure. “You can do anything” may sound uplifting, but it can leave a person alone with the expectation to succeed. “You can take this one step at a time; I have seen how carefully you think things through” offers belief without a burden.

There is a useful boundary here. Affirmation is not the same as trying to fix someone. Research published in Modern Psychological Studies examined helping behaviors in romantic relationships and found that perceived partner responsiveness played a role in the association between compassionate traits and attempts to help or change a partner (Robinson & Lewandowski, 2025). The study is exploratory and based on a young-adult sample. Still, it offers a helpful caution: care can begin to feel controlling when it stops listening. Before offering advice, ask whether your partner wants encouragement, help, or simply your presence.

3. “I want to…” Tell them where you stand

The third sentence turns recognition into connection. It says what you want to share or do, not what you expect the other person to give in return.

“I want to hear what you think before we decide what to do next.”

“I want to make time for the thing you have been looking forward to.”

“I want to understand what this has been like for you.”

This sentence answers: Where do I stand with you?

Together, the three sentences answer three needs at once: who you are, what you can do, and whether I want to draw near. Do not recite them like a script. Let them guide what you genuinely want to say.

Recognition also lands most deeply when it feels sincere rather than staged. Public praise can be meaningful, but praise in private often carries a different kind of reassurance. A sentence offered across the kitchen table is not a performance for an audience. It is a personal message: I see you when no one else is watching.

A PLOS ONE study found that gratitude depended in part on whether people understood a relationship as one in which each person cared about the other’s needs. The study was not a test of this three-sentence practice, nor solely a study of married couples. It does support a broader point: the meaning behind a kind act matters (Simão & Seibt, 2014). Appreciation feels different when it communicates care rather than an obligation or a tally.

The same practice, offered in both directions

Stewart’s chapter places particular emphasis on a husband feeling significant and respected. It also describes a parallel need for a wife to feel seen, understood, and honored. That deserves equal attention.

A partner may need to hear, “He gets me”, not because he agrees with every thought, but because he is curious about her inner world. Ask what she finds meaningful, what she is carrying, and what she wishes you understood. Then reflect what you heard before offering your own interpretation.

For example:

“You are perceptive. You noticed how much that conversation affected our daughter.”

“You can tell me what you need, even if you are still working it out.”

“I want to understand the part that matters most to you.”

Stewart connects honoring a wife with the language of 1 Peter 3:7. He also draws on Christian images of distinct forms of service and help, while explicitly rejecting the idea that difference means lesser worth or lesser purpose. Readers need not share that faith tradition to practice the central principle: respect your partner as a full person, and do not mistake your perspective for theirs.

The two of you may not feel valued in identical ways. A general compliment to one partner may not be the form of attention the other is longing for. Ask. Listen. Adjust. Relationship research has examined responsive affirmation and whether a partner’s expressions of care align with what the recipient values; those findings can be informative, but no model should be treated as a fixed label for an individual (Hughes & Camden, 2020).

Why this matters in marriage

Stewart also argues that, for many husbands, sexual intimacy shared with a wife can be a particularly powerful experience of feeling wanted and significant. A career, a home, or other achievements may matter deeply, yet they do not necessarily offer the same experience of being chosen and cherished by a spouse.

This is a perspective about emotional meaning, not a measure of anyone’s worth or an expectation one partner must fulfill. Intimacy should be mutual, respectful, and freely shared. Affection, attention, and honest conversation matter in their own right; none should be used as leverage.

Research on intimacy similarly emphasizes the exchange between disclosure and a partner’s response. When people share something personal and feel understood, validated, and cared for, closeness can grow (Ruan et al., 2020). Gottman and Driver’s work on everyday marital interaction describes small bids for connection (words, gestures, and invitations to engage) and the significance of how partners respond to them (Gottman & Driver, 2005). Sometimes the most meaningful response is a question, a pause, or a sentence that makes your partner feel known.

Try this tonight

Choose a calm moment. Put away distractions. Think of one true thing you admire about your partner.

Then offer the three parts in your own words:

• You are: Name a specific strength.
• You can: Name a capacity without demanding an outcome.
• I want to: Name a sincere wish to connect, listen, or share.

For instance:

“You are generous with your attention. You can stay thoughtful even when the day has been heavy. I want to hear what you have been thinking about.”

Then leave room for your partner’s response. Do not correct it, explain it away, or turn the moment into a request for praise in return. Admiration is a gift, not a transaction.

Research on gratitude in close relationships links appreciation with responsiveness and relationship maintenance, though it cannot guarantee that a particular practice will resolve longstanding conflict (Gordon et al., 2012). Treat the exercise as one small way of turning toward one another, not as a substitute for the deeper work a relationship may need.

A final word on I³

The I³ framework begins with information, considers the interpretation placed upon it, and attends to the intensity of the resulting emotion. In a relationship, those steps can help you notice what happened, question the story you attached to it, and choose words that reflect what you truly value.

I³ is an emotional-management framework, not a clinical diagnosis and not a substitute for licensed care.

For more on the framework, watch Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk. Explore his first revised book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions. Learn more about Becoming More Counseling, Coaching, & Consulting.

Significance is not reserved for a fortunate few. It is made visible in the details: the strength you name, the capacity you affirm, and the desire to meet someone with care. Specificity can be learned. Begin with what is true, say it plainly, and let the person you love know you see them.

References

Candel, O. S., & Turliuc, M. N. (2021). The role of relational entitlement, self-disclosure and perceived partner responsiveness in predicting couple satisfaction: A daily-diary study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 609232. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.609232

Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2012). To have and to hold: Gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028723

Gottman, J. M., & Driver, J. L. (2005). Dysfunctional marital conflict and everyday marital interaction. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 43(3–4), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v43n03_04

Hughes, J. L., & Camden, A. A. (2020). Using Chapman’s Five Love Languages Theory to predict love and relationship satisfaction. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 25(3), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN25.3.234

Robinson, S., & Lewandowski, G. (2025). Is the Light Triad really that light?: The Light Triad’s role in relationship savior complex. Modern Psychological Studies, 30(2), Article 4. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol30/iss2/4/

Ruan, Y., Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., Hirsch, J. L., & Bink, B. D. (2020). Can I tell you how I feel? Perceived partner responsiveness encourages emotional expression. Emotion, 20(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000650

Simão, C., & Seibt, B. (2014). Gratitude depends on the relational model of communal sharing. PLOS ONE, 9(1), e86158. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086158

Stone, R. D. (2023, February 13). 3 love principles to keep things juicy in your relationship. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/the-color-of-wellness/202302/3-love-principles-to-keep-things-juicy-in-your-relationship

Tyolo, T. P., Erasmus, P., Koen, V., & Tsabedze, W. F. (2022). Attachment style, love style, and attachment behaviour in university students’ intimate relationships, South Africa: A brief study. The Open Psychology Journal, 15, Article e187435012208190. https://doi.org/10.2174/18743501-v15-e2208190

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Tell Me Who I Am: The Three Questions Every Person Is Quietly Asking

A man hears, “You handled that with real patience. I admire that about you.” He deflects the compliment in under four seconds. Ask him why, and he may not know.

Sometimes praise reaches us and finds no place to land. We brush it aside, question the speaker, or change the subject. Beneath that reflex may be a question we have carried for years: Who am I, really?

Identity sought, identity given, identity received

Dr. Greg Stewart has described asking people, “What is your identity?” Often, there is a pause. The question sounds simple, yet answering it can feel surprisingly difficult.

Identity is not formed in a single moment. It develops through what we seek to understand about ourselves, what others communicate to us, and what we eventually accept as true. In childhood, three questions often sit beneath that process:

• Tell me who I am.
• Tell me what I will become.
• Tell me how I’m doing.

A child asks these questions through words, behavior, and the ordinary reach for a parent’s attention. A caring response helps the child feel noticed, guided, and valued. No parent answers perfectly. What matters is a pattern of care, attention, and repair.

Different caregivers may answer in different ways. Their personalities, experiences, expectations, and relationships with the child shape what the child hears. Those differences do not follow a fixed formula based on whether a caregiver is a mother or father, or whether a child is a boy or girl.

Research suggests that warmth and rejection can be associated with different identity experiences in adolescence, while also emphasizing that development is shaped by more than one influence (Ding et al., 2024). This is not a verdict on parents. It is a reminder that the words and responses a child receives can matter.

From “Tell me” to “I am”

When a child’s questions are met with enough steadiness and care, a gradual shift becomes possible. The child who first asks, “Tell me who I am,” may grow into an adult able to say, “I am.”

That does not mean the adult never needs reassurance, guidance, or love. It means other people’s responses no longer have to supply the whole definition.

Identity, value, and worth are related, but they are not identical. Identity concerns who you understand yourself to be. Value concerns what you believe matters about you. Worth concerns whether you believe you deserve dignity and care. These understandings begin forming early, but they continue to develop across life.

Research following young adults found that identity exploration and commitment can continue to shift across different areas of life, including relationships with peers (Shell et al., 2020). Self-esteem, too, changes over time rather than remaining fixed after childhood (Erol & Orth, 2011). Early experience can leave an impression; it does not have to write the final sentence.

Praise itself is not always easy to receive. In one study, children with lower self-esteem responded less comfortably to praise about who they were than to praise about what they had done (Brummelman et al., 2014). That finding does not explain every adult’s reaction to a compliment. It does offer a useful distinction: specific, grounded recognition may be easier to trust than a sweeping statement about a person’s identity.

The answers we look for later

Parents are not the only voices in a person’s life. Peers become part of the picture. So do teachers, coaches, friends, partners, and communities. Later, a person may look to a following, a stranger’s approval, or a therapist for an answer that feels settled.

The questions remain familiar:

• Tell me who I am: “Do I belong here? Do you see the real me?”
• Tell me what I will become: “Do you believe I can grow?”
• Tell me how I’m doing: “Is my effort enough? Am I getting it right?”

Where you look for the answer may show you which question still feels unfinished. This is not a reason for shame. It is useful information.

In reflecting on his own family, Dr. Stewart has considered the experiences carried through generations: stories of what his grandfather and father lived through, both good and painful. Every family passes down more than stories. It may also pass down ways of seeking approval, expressing care, or handling silence. Understanding that history does not require blaming anyone. It can help you notice what you inherited and decide what you want to carry forward.

Research on self-esteem and relationships also points to a complex, ongoing connection: conflict and self-esteem can develop alongside one another through adolescence and adulthood, rather than forming a simple one-way chain (Kiviruusu et al., 2016). Our sense of self is shaped in relationship, but it can continue to change.

When silence becomes a verdict

When the answer to “Tell me who I am” was unclear or missing, an adult may begin filling in the silence. A delayed reply becomes “I don’t matter.” A mistake becomes “I always fail.” A compliment gets dismissed because it does not fit the story already running inside.

In I³, pronounced “I cubed,” this is the Interpretation Gap: the space between what happened and what we decide it means. The framework moves through three parts: Information, Interpretation, Intensity. First, identify what you know. Then examine the meaning you assigned to it. Finally, choose how much emotional energy to spend.

In everyday terms: put down the microscope and pick up the mirror. Do not use the mirror to criticize yourself. Use it to notice the sentence you are repeating about your worth.

Research on adolescent identity and autonomy suggests that development is supported by a mix of relationships, exploration, and room to make meaningful choices (Akram et al., 2022; Arroyo et al., 2026). These studies have limits, including a small sample in the Modern Psychological Studies article. They do not prove a single recipe for self-worth. They reinforce a more modest point: growth is shaped by context, and people keep participating in their own becoming.

A reflection you can try today

Set aside ten quiet minutes. Write the three questions at the top of a page:

1. Tell me who I am.
2. Tell me what I will become.
3. Tell me how I’m doing.

Under each one, answer two prompts:

• Whose voice do I currently look to for this answer?
• What answer do I want to practice giving myself?

Be honest and specific. Perhaps a parent’s old criticism still speaks when you make a mistake. Perhaps a partner’s praise feels more believable than your own judgment. Perhaps you have learned to measure your progress by other people’s approval.

Then separate information from interpretation. “I made a mistake” is information. “I am a failure” is an interpretation. The distinction does not erase the mistake. It gives you a chance to respond to the event without turning it into a verdict on your whole identity.

Psychologist Christopher Mruk, writing for Psychology Today, describes self-esteem as connected to both a sense of worthiness and a sense of competence (Mruk, 2019). That is a useful reminder: you can treat yourself as worthy of respect while still learning, changing, and taking responsibility.

The practice is not to silence every outside voice. It is to hear those voices without handing them the final authority over who you are. Let trusted people encourage you. Let honest feedback help you grow. But do not confuse a person’s opinion with the full measure of your worth.

The voice you were waiting for can become your own. Not because you no longer need others, but because their approval no longer has to finish your sentence.

That is not a small victory.

I³ is an emotional-management framework, not a clinical diagnosis and not a substitute for licensed care.

Learn more about Becoming More Counseling, Coaching, & Consulting. Explore the I³ framework in Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk and his book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

References

Akram, A. R., Abidin, F. A., & Lubis, F. Y. (2022). Parental autonomy support and psychological well-being in university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of autonomy satisfaction. The Open Psychology Journal, 15, Article e187435012208100. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/VOLUME/15/ELOCATOR/e187435012208100/FULLTEXT/

Arroyo, E. O., Constantino, A. P. M., & Rojo, D. P. (2026). Parenting for autonomy: New insights into warmth, leniency, and emotion regulation. Modern Psychological Studies, 32(2), Article 1. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol32/iss2/1/

Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Overbeek, G., de Castro, B. O., van den Hout, M. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). On feeding those hungry for praise: Person praise backfires in children with low self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031917

Ding, Y., Sun, C., & Dong, B. (2024). Effect of parental rearing styles on adolescent ego identity: The mediating role of involutionary attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1292718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1292718

Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2011). Self-esteem development from age 14 to 30 years: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024299

Kiviruusu, O., Berg, N., Huurre, T., Aro, H., Marttunen, M., & Haukkala, A. (2016). Interpersonal conflicts and development of self-esteem from adolescence to mid-adulthood: A 26-year follow-up. PLOS ONE, 11(10), e0164942. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164942

Mruk, C. (2019, November 15). Authentic self-esteem and well-being XIII: Tips for parenting. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/authentic-self-esteem-and-well-being/201911/authentic-self-esteem-and-well-being-xiii-tips

Shell, M. D., Shears, D., & Millard, Z. (2020). Who am I? Identity development during the first year of college. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 25(2), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN25.2.192

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

He Wants to Experience You. You Want to Be Experienced!

He brings home a plan for the weekend. She wanted him to ask how she was feeling. By bedtime, both feel unheard, and both believe they were trying.

This quiet mismatch can make a loving marriage feel lonely. One person offers an experience; the other longs to be understood within it. Each may be giving sincerely while missing what the other is asking for.

Dr. Greg Stewart describes the pattern this way: “A man says, ‘I want to experience . . .’ A woman says, ‘I want to be experienced.’” It is a useful lens, not a rule for every man or woman. The deeper point is that the two visions are not a 1:1 correlation. They only halfway overlap.

Two longings beneath the same moment

In Stewart’s framing, the man’s longing is often connected to significance: to feel respected, capable, and successful in the relationship. His way of reaching for connection may be to plan, initiate, provide, or invite his wife into something he finds meaningful.

The woman’s longing, in this chapter’s framing, is often to feel truly known. She wants her husband to see her, get her, understand her, and honor her, not merely notice what she does, but be curious about who she is. “He gets me” is the quiet assurance she hopes to feel.

These are not competing needs, and neither is more important. They are different ways of reaching for closeness. Within Stewart’s Christian perspective, the imagery of Genesis begins with a picture of openness: “the man and his wife … were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25, New International Version). The chapter also uses a symbolic reading of the man’s and woman’s roles in relation to the Trinity. That is a faith-based interpretation, not a ranking of worth or ability. Women are just as capable of fulfilling their purpose and calling.

In an intimate marriage, desire and emotional closeness can meet. A husband may look at his wife with admiration and feel drawn toward her. She may, at the same time, long to know that he is captivated not only by what he sees, but by the person she is: her humor, her questions, her inner life, and the details that make her singular. The invitation is not to reduce either partner to a stereotype. It is to become more curious about the person you love.

Research offers a useful, qualified companion to this idea. In a study using hypothetical relationship profiles, participants overall rated emotional accessibility as more important than sexual accessibility when considering whether a relationship might end. The study also found differences between men’s and women’s ratings, but its sample and imagined scenarios limit how broadly the findings can be applied (Wade & Mogilski, 2018). It is evidence that emotional availability matters, not proof that every woman or man wants the same thing.

Why good intentions can still miss

Return to the weekend plan. He may be saying, “I want to share something with you. I want us to enjoy this together.” She may be hoping to hear, “I want to know what has been on your mind.” Neither message is wrong. But the person receiving the first may not hear the second.

This is the interpretation gap: the distance between what a partner intends and what the other person understands. When that gap goes unnoticed, a plan can feel like a substitute for attention. A question can feel like criticism. Silence can be interpreted as indifference, even when someone is simply tired or unsure how to begin.

The Gottman Institute describes small moments of connection as “bids”: attempts to reach for attention, affection, or engagement. Turning toward a bid means responding with interest rather than dismissing or overlooking it (Gottman Institute, 2015). Research in Emotion, an American Psychological Association journal, likewise found that perceived partner responsiveness (the sense that a partner understands, validates, and cares) encouraged people to express their emotions (Ruan et al., 2020).

Responsiveness does not require perfect words. It begins with noticing the reach.

Gender research also calls for caution. In a study of emotional responses to video clips, differences depended on the emotion and on whether researchers measured physiological responses or self-reported feelings. The results do not support a simple rule that one gender always feels or expresses more (Deng et al., 2016). Learn your spouse, not a stereotype.

Let I³ help you slow the moment down

The I³ framework (pronounced I cubed) offers a practical pause: Information, Interpretation, Intensity. Start with what happened. Notice the meaning you assigned to it. Then recognize how strongly that interpretation is affecting you.

If she says, “You never ask what I think,” the information is the sentence she spoke. The interpretation might be, “Nothing I do is enough.” The intensity might be defensiveness, hurt, or frustration. Separating these parts creates room to respond to the person in front of you rather than to the story forming in your mind.

This pause matters because partners may be experiencing the same event differently. Studies of emotion find that expression and internal experience do not always line up neatly. A quiet response does not necessarily mean a lack of feeling; a strong expression does not tell you everything about its cause (Deng et al., 2016). Ask before you conclude.

Try these four moves this week

1. Ask the question beneath the plan.
Before offering a solution or activity, pause and ask, “What would help you feel close to me this week?” Listen to the full answer. Do not immediately replace it with your own idea.

2. Name what you are trying to offer.
A husband might say, “I planned this because I want us to have time together. I also want to hear what would feel meaningful to you.” Naming the intention helps; asking whether it landed matters just as much.

3. Make admiration specific.
Stewart’s suggested pattern is: “You are … You can … So I want to …” For example: “You are thoughtful. You can make people feel at ease. I want to spend Saturday with you and hear more about the idea you mentioned.” The value is not in repeating a script. It is in speaking about what you genuinely notice and appreciate.

4. Treat honesty as an invitation to closeness.
If an old acquaintance sends a message, or a difficult moment arises, talk about it openly rather than waiting for your spouse to discover it. The aim is not to surrender every private thought or turn marriage into surveillance. It is to share information that matters to the trust you are building, and to invite your partner into what you are processing when doing so would create greater understanding.

Being known requires honesty and care. Being trusted requires the same.

Studies of partner responsiveness and emotional expression suggest that feeling understood can make it easier to speak honestly (Ruan et al., 2020). Hughes and Camden’s study of couples also found that perceived use of a partner’s preferred way of expressing affection predicted relationship satisfaction. That finding encourages attention to your partner’s preferences; it does not mean one popular formula can define every relationship (Hughes & Camden, 2020).

We also inherit ideas about romance from stories and films. Research on changing romantic expectations in films examines portrayals on screen, not what all couples actually want (McNeil & Morton, 2023). Let stories prompt questions, not dictate answers. And when uncertainty stirs jealousy, remember that jealousy itself has cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions; noticing it is a reason to seek clarity, not to assume motive (Tani & Ponti, 2016).

The gap is an invitation, not a verdict

If you have wondered, “Why doesn’t he get me?” or heard, “My wife says I don’t understand her,” begin with curiosity rather than defense. Ask what being seen would look like today. Tell your spouse what you hoped your gesture would communicate. Then listen for the part you may have missed.

The gap between wanting to experience and wanting to be experienced is not a verdict on a marriage. It is an instruction sheet nobody handed you. With patience, honest words, and attention to the person in front of you, you can learn to read it together.

For more on the I³ framework, visit Becoming More Counseling, Coaching, & Consulting, watch Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk, or find his first revised book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

Note: I³ is an emotional-management framework, not a clinical diagnosis and not a substitute for licensed care. If distress or conflict feels difficult to manage, consider seeking support from a licensed mental health professional.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Emotion. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/emo

Deng, Y., Chang, L., Yang, M., Huo, M., & Zhou, R. (2016). Gender differences in emotional response: Inconsistency between experience and expressivity. PLOS ONE, 11(6), e0158666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158666

Gottman Institute. (2015, April 1). Turn towards instead of away. https://www.gottman.com/blog/turn-toward-instead-of-away/

Hughes, J. L., & Camden, A. A. (2020). Using Chapman’s Five Love Languages theory to predict love and relationship satisfaction. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 25(3), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN25.3.234

McNeil, R., & Morton, L. C. (2023). Expectations in film relationships: The suffocation model in motion pictures. Modern Psychological Studies, 29(1), Article 29. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol29/iss1/29

New International Version Bible. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1978)

Ruan, Y., Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., Hirsch, J. L., & Bink, B. D. (2020). Can I tell you how I feel? Perceived partner responsiveness encourages emotional expression. Emotion, 20(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000650

Seltzer, L. F. (2013, July 14). The most important quality to look for in a partner. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dating-decisions/201307/the-most-important-quality-to-look-for-in-a-partner

Tani, F., & Ponti, L. (2016). The romantic jealousy as multidimensional construct: A study on the Italian short form of the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale. The Open Psychology Journal, 9, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350101609010111

Wade, T. J., & Mogilski, J. K. (2018). Emotional accessibility is more important than sexual accessibility in evaluating romantic relationships, especially for women: A conjoint analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00632

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Where Would They Be Right? The One Question That Ends Most Arguments

Two people live in the same house and do not speak for three days. Each carries a sentence that could end the conflict, yet neither says it aloud. One is thinking, “I wanted you to understand why this hurt.” The other is thinking, “I wanted you to see that I was trying.”

The silence is not empty. It is crowded with assumptions.

Their how became so destructive that they never reached the what.

The Problem Is Often Not the Topic

In my work in marriage counseling, I cannot think of one couple who sought help where communication was not on the list. Every couple has subjects that require honest discussion. The subject itself is rarely the central problem.

The problem emerges when they attempt to discuss it.

Negative emotional energy becomes inflated. Voices rise. Accusations replace observations. One person brings evidence from three years ago. The other responds with a related grievance. Soon, the couple is no longer discussing the original concern. They are defending their character, their intentions, and their right to feel wounded.

Then they need another conversation to recover from the hurt caused by the first conversation.

Many never return to the legitimate topic because their how is so bad they cannot get through the what.

This pattern appears in marriage, dating, sibling relationships, friendships, and families. The closer the relationship, the more exposed we feel. Our sense of significance, security, and worth may become tied to whether the other person pursues us, understands us, or validates us. When those emotional goals feel blocked, the discussion can quickly become a referendum on our value.

Research supports the importance of this distinction. Perspective-taking helps people understand how a conflict appears to another person and improves the accuracy of communication. It also increases the possibility of creative, mutually beneficial solutions (Johnson, 2019). Yet perspective-taking requires effort. Under emotional pressure, people often default to their own perspective and struggle to account for what the other person knows, believes, or means (Nedergaard & Smith, 2024).

Every Argument Has Orbiting Statements

Whenever two people argue, they usually have many points of agreement and many points of disagreement. After all the monologuing, however, each person generally has one main point.

One main goal.

One outcome they want the conversation to achieve.

The difficulty comes from everything orbiting that main point. These orbiting statements include:

• Opinions about the other person’s character.
• Supporting evidence from unrelated situations.
• Assumptions about motives.
• Comparisons with other people.
• Old injuries that have not been resolved.
• Absolutes such as “always” and “never.”
• Defenses against statements that were never actually made.

The orbiting material creates confusion. It also contains many statements that fail the test of being rational, healthy, wise, or right. That is why the couple moves into tangents and never solves the original problem.

A conflict may sound enormous because the conversation contains thirty sentences. Yet beneath those sentences are often two understandable goals.

One person wants security.

The other wants significance.

One wants consideration.

The other wants trust.

One wants the household responsibility to change.

The other wants recognition for what has already been carried.

Most arguments are not two people disagreeing about every possible matter. They are two people who have not yet separated the central issue from the noise surrounding it.

Use the RHWR Grid

The RHWR grid gives both people a standard for evaluating the conversation. RHWR means:

• Rational
• Healthy
• Wise
• Right

Everyone is accountable to this standard. Everyone may also appeal to it.

Ask the questions plainly:

“It is or is not rational that I or you…”

“It is or is not healthy when I or you…”

“It is or is not wise that I or you…”

“It is or is not right that I or you…”

This language changes the conversation. It moves the discussion away from “Who is the bad person?” and toward “What is the most sound way to understand and respond to this situation?”

The grid does not require agreement. It requires honest evaluation.

A person may say, “I understand why you are upset, but I do not agree with your conclusion.” That is not dismissal. It is a distinction between acknowledging an experience and accepting every interpretation attached to it.

This distinction matters. Research on conflict communication shows that directness can be beneficial when serious, changeable problems need to be addressed. Yet directness becomes harmful when it is delivered through contempt, blame, or emotional excess (Overall & McNulty, 2017). Validation also requires context. Warmth can reduce defensiveness, but warmth must not become a way to avoid necessary change.

The RHWR grid holds both truths together.

Find the Main Point

After an argument, do not immediately attempt to solve the problem. First, create space.

Separate if necessary. Cool down. Do not use the pause to build a better prosecution. Use it to examine the conversation with humility.

Review the statements your partner made. Identify the ones that were rational, healthy, wise, or right. Then review your own statements. Identify the ones that were not.

This practice keeps pride from consuming all your energy. It also prevents you from spending the entire pause proving that the other person was wrong.

Next, sift through the orbiting statements. Ask:

• What was my partner’s main point?
• What goal were they trying to achieve?
• What did they want me to understand?
• Is that main point rational, healthy, wise, or right?

Then ask the same questions about yourself.

Most of the time, both main points will pass the RHWR test.

This is where humility becomes practical. You may discover that your partner’s delivery was harmful while the concern underneath it was legitimate. You may discover that your own concern was reasonable while your method of expressing it was destructive.

The how may need repair. The what may still deserve attention.

State the Main Point in One Sentence

The simplest version of the exercise is this:

“Look, my main point is…”

Then finish the sentence without adding an indictment.

“My main point is that I want us to agree on how we will handle this responsibility in the future.”

“My main point is that I felt alone, and I want reassurance that we are facing this together.”

“My main point is that I need us to discuss this without raising our voices.”

“My main point is that I want to feel considered before decisions are made.”

A main point stated simply becomes easier to evaluate. It also becomes easier for the other person to understand.

When you return to the conversation, do not begin with a defense. Begin with clarification.

Ask:

“What is your main point?”

Listen to the answer.

Then ask:

“Is that what I understood you to mean?”

Allow the other person to correct you. Do not argue with the correction. Your first responsibility is to understand accurately.

Follow this sequence:

1. Accountability. Identify what was not rational, healthy, wise, or right in your own words and actions.
2. Clarification. State what you believe the other person’s main point is and allow them to correct it.
3. Main points. State your own main point in one clear sentence.
4. Solution. Ask, “What is the most rational, healthy, wise, and right response moving forward that achieves both goals?”

This approach does not require one person to surrender. It asks both people to look for a solution that respects the legitimate goals underneath the argument.

Return to the Triggers Later

The RHWR process may expose old wounds. It may activate fear, shame, anger, or insecurity again. That is acceptable. Do not allow the renewed trigger to hijack the solution.

First, agree on the way forward.

Then return to the emotional repair.

You might say:

“I still need to talk about how we spoke to each other. I am glad we reached a solution, but I do not want to ignore the damage caused by the conversation.”

That is a separate and necessary discussion. It belongs after both people understand the main points and agree on a constructive response.

The I³ framework (Information, Interpretation, Intensity) helps you notice what is happening beneath the argument. Gather the information. Examine more than one interpretation. Then direct the intensity toward a wise response.

I³ is an emotional-management framework. It is not a clinical diagnosis and not a substitute for licensed care. If conflict involves fear, coercion, threats, abuse, or ongoing emotional harm, seek appropriate professional and safety support.

Most Arguments Contain More Agreement Than We Think

Finding another way to look at a situation requires humility and work. It requires the willingness to admit that your first interpretation may be incomplete.

For readers of faith, this echoes the ancient invitation to cry aloud for knowledge, insight, wisdom, and understanding, then search for them as carefully as hidden treasure. Readers who do not share that tradition can still practice the principle. Wisdom is pursued. It is not assumed.

The hopeful truth is this:

Most arguments are not two people disagreeing about a solution. They are two people who never got past the noise to discover that they agree about the goal.

They both want safety.

They both want respect.

They both want to matter.

They both want the relationship to become more trustworthy.

Ask the question that creates room for that discovery:

“Where would they be right?”

Then ask where you would be right.

Do not use the question to surrender your convictions. Use it to recover the truth that anger buried beneath the noise. Begin there. Clarify the main points. Then build the most rational, healthy, wise, and right path forward.

Learn more about the I³ framework in Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk, or read the revised edition of I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Healthy relationships. https://www.apa.org/topics/marriage-relationships/healthy-relationships

Branand, B., Mashek, D., & Aron, A. (2019). Pair-bonding as inclusion of other in the self: A literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02399

Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 713–726.

Johnson, D. W. (2019, June 5). The importance of taking the perspective of others. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/constructive-controversy/201906/the-importance-of-taking-the-perspective-of-others

Kracht, T. M., & Powell, D. N. (2021). Media consumption: Association with implicit theories of romantic relationships. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 26(4), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN26.4.363

McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). When “negative” behaviors are positive: A contextual analysis of the long-term effects of interpersonal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017479

Nedergaard, J., & Smith, K. (2024). Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Perspective-taking in a language game. PLOS ONE, 19(1), e0288330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288330

Overall, N. C., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships? Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.002

Petersen, J., & Le, B. (2017). Psychological distress, attachment, and conflict resolution in romantic relationships. Modern Psychological Studies, 23(1), Article 3. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol23/iss1/3/

Ponti, L., Guarnieri, S., Smorti, A., & Tani, F. (2010). A measure for the study of friendship and romantic relationship quality from adolescence to early adulthood. The Open Psychology Journal, 3, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350101003010076

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Is There Any Other Way of Looking at It? The Three Interpretations That Break an Automatic Reaction

One message appears on your screen: “We need to talk.” Within seconds, you may read it as rejection, danger, or the beginning of an ending. The words have not changed, but your interpretation has, and now three different evenings are possible.

This is the work of Lock 2 in the I³ framework: Interpretation. I³, pronounced “I cubed,” stands for Information, Interpretation, Intensity. Once you have gathered the available information, you must interrupt the mind’s next automatic move: the interpretation, opinion, or conclusion you attach to what happened.

The governing question is simple:

Is there any other way of looking at it?

That question does not ask you to deny your experience. It asks you to examine it carefully.

The three interpretations: negative, neutral, and positive

Every situation can be viewed through at least three interpretive possibilities:

1. Negative
2. Neutral
3. Positive

The negative interpretation usually arrives without assistance. It is often the first conclusion produced by fear, disappointment, anger, or insecurity.

The neutral and positive interpretations require deliberate thought.

Suppose someone sends a message saying, “We need to talk.”

The negative interpretation may be:

“They are upset with me. I have done something wrong. This relationship may be over.”

The neutral interpretation may be:

“They want to discuss something. I do not yet know what it is.”

The positive interpretation may be:

“They value the relationship enough to address something directly. This conversation may create greater understanding.”

None of these interpretations should be accepted merely because they sound comforting. The goal is not forced optimism. The goal is accuracy.

Cognitive reappraisal works in a similar way. It involves changing the meaning assigned to an emotionally charged situation so that the emotional response becomes more proportionate and useful (Gross & John, 2003). Research in Frontiers in Psychology likewise describes reappraisal and acceptance as distinct strategies that can reduce negative emotion through different cognitive processes (Monachesi et al., 2023).

Why the negative interpretation arrives uninvited

Dr. Greg Stewart’s I³ framework begins with a crucial distinction: all emotion is energy. Some emotional energy supports an improving quality of life. Other emotional energy helps you solve a problem or respond to a situation you perceive as threatening.

Negative emotional energy is not automatically bad. It may signal that something requires attention.

The difficulty begins when we mislabel the energy or misjudge the situation producing it.

A short message may produce anxiety because your conclusion is that a problem exists. Anger may arise because you conclude that someone has violated an expectation. Sadness may emerge because you conclude that an important goal has been blocked.

In each case, the emotion is connected to an interpretation.

The mind often treats an interpretation as if it were information. It is not. Information is what happened. Interpretation is what you believe what happened means.

The American Psychological Association’s cognitive restructuring guidance makes the same distinction. First identify the situation, feeling, and thought. Then evaluate the thought against the evidence. If the thought is inaccurate, replace it with a more accurate one. If the thought is accurate, create an action plan (American Psychological Association, n.d.).

This is not emotional denial. It is disciplined examination.

The two questions that unlock neutral and positive readings

Two questions help you move beyond the automatic negative conclusion.

1. Have I challenged the legitimacy of my expectations?

Unmet expectations often create the impression that something is wrong. Yet not every expectation is reasonable, necessary, or within another person’s responsibility.

Ask:

• Was this expectation clearly communicated?
• Was it realistic?
• Did I assume another person would think as I think?
• Did I confuse my preference with an obligation?
• Would I consider this expectation reasonable if someone else held it?

A blocked expectation is not always evidence of mistreatment. Sometimes it is evidence that the expectation needs revision.

2. Have I considered whether the blocked path may protect me?

This is the beginning of a positive interpretation.

You may have wanted a particular relationship, opportunity, answer, or outcome. When the path closed, you experienced loss. Later, you may have recognized that the closed path protected you from a deeper difficulty or redirected you toward something more fitting.

This does not make disappointment unreal. It gives disappointment a wider context.

The neutral interpretation asks, “What else may be true?”

The positive interpretation asks, “What good may become possible because this did not unfold as I expected?”

Both questions expand the field of vision.

Ask where the other person may be right

One of the most effective ways to challenge an automatic interpretation is to debate yourself.

Ask:

If someone completely disagreed with me, where would they be right?

This question is particularly useful during conflict. You do not need to surrender your position. You need to search for the part of reality your position may be missing.

Consider a disagreement with someone close to you. You may believe that the other person is careless, dismissive, or unfair. Before defending your conclusion, ask:

• How would someone with no vested interest in meeting my expectations view this situation?
• What facts would that person notice?
• Where might the other person’s concern be legitimate?
• What would they say if they were describing the situation accurately?
• What part of their experience have I failed to understand?

Perspective-taking can function as a form of reappraisal because it changes the meaning assigned to another person’s actions. It does not excuse harmful conduct. It helps you distinguish intention from impact, fact from assumption, and disagreement from danger.

This practice also reflects the wisdom of Proverbs 15:22: “Without consultation, plans are frustrated, but with many counselors they succeed.” You do not need to share the faith tradition behind the verse to appreciate the principle. Your first interpretation may be incomplete. Wise counsel can reveal what you cannot see alone.

Use the RHWR test

Dr. Stewart offers another tool for examining interpretations: the RHWR paradigm.

Ask whether your conclusion is:

• Rational
• Healthy
• Wise
• Right

Use the test in two directions.

First, hold your original interpretation accountable:

• Is it rational, or am I filling in missing information?
• Is it healthy, or does it intensify fear without improving my response?
• Is it wise, or does it move me toward an impulsive decision?
• Is it right, or is it simply familiar?

Second, use the test to preserve accurate beliefs. Once an interpretation passes the RHWR test, you do not need to discard it merely because another person disagrees.

The purpose is not to eradicate your opinions, judgments, or conclusions. The purpose is to obtain the opinions, judgments, and conclusions that are true.

We all have blind spots. Seek insight from people whose mental models are more accurate and effective. Do not assume that needing another perspective makes you weak. It makes you teachable. Others may need your perspective as well.

Practice “The truth is” and “The truth also is”

You can apply Lock 2 today with two sentence stems.

“The truth is…”

Use this phrase to replace an untrue or exaggerated opinion.

• “The truth is, I do not know why they have not replied.”
• “The truth is, disappointment does not prove that I have been rejected.”
• “The truth is, I reacted to my interpretation, not to complete information.”

Think of what a wise friend, a trusted counselor, or God would say to complete the sentence.

“The truth also is…”

Use this phrase to add another true interpretation without denying the first.

• “The truth also is, this situation may require a direct conversation.”
• “The truth also is, the other person may have a legitimate concern.”
• “The truth also is, this blocked path may lead me toward a healthier one.”
• “The truth also is, I can respond with dignity even while I feel disappointed.”

This language creates room. It prevents one conclusion from becoming the entire story.

A recent Nature Communications study found that emotion regulation strategies such as reappraisal are represented through distributed and distinguishable patterns of brain activity rather than a single isolated mechanism (Jiang et al., 2026). The practical implication is modest but meaningful: interpretation is not a decorative layer added after emotion. It is part of how emotional experience is organized.

Let interpretation set the right intensity

The third lock in I³ is Intensity. It concerns the amount of emotional energy required for an effective response.

When you identify interpretations across the negative, neutral, and positive spectrum, then test them for rationality, health, wisdom, and truth, you are more likely to bring the right amount of energy to the situation.

A real problem may require courage and firm action. A misunderstanding may require patience and clarification. A blocked expectation may require grief, adjustment, and renewed direction.

Do not bring a ten to a situation that requires a three. Do not bring a three to a situation that requires a ten.

Interpretation helps you calibrate the response.

Over time, this practice makes you more resilient and tough-minded. You become less dependent on the first story your mind tells you. You learn to pause without becoming passive, question without becoming cynical, and reinterpret without abandoning reality.

I³ is an emotional-management framework, not a clinical diagnosis and not a substitute for licensed care. If emotional distress is persistent, overwhelming, or interfering with daily life, seek support from a qualified mental-health professional.

Learn more through Becoming More Counseling, Coaching, & Consulting. Watch Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk, and explore the revised edition of I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Handout 27: 5 steps of cognitive restructuring instructions. https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/supplemental/Treatment-for-Postdisaster-Distress/Handout-27.pdf

Diers, K., Weber, M., Theobald, A., et al. (2021). Should we keep some distance from distancing? Regulatory and post-regulatory effects of emotion downregulation. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0255800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255800

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

Jiang, H., He, J., Zimmermann, K., et al. (2026). Common and distinct neurofunctional signatures of dynamic naturalistic emotion regulation strategies. Nature Communications, 17, 4272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-70708-5

Modern Psychological Studies. (n.d.). Modern Psychological Studies. https://www.modernpsychologicalstudies.com/

Monachesi, B., Grecucci, A., Ahmadi Ghomroudi, P., & Messina, I. (2023). Comparing reappraisal and acceptance strategies to understand the neural architecture of emotion regulation: A meta-analytic approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1187092. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1187092

Psychology Today. (n.d.). Cognitive reappraisal. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-reappraisal

Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research. (n.d.). Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research. https://journal.psichi.org/

Stewart, G. (2026). I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions (Rev. ed.). Becoming More Counseling, Coaching, & Consulting. https://a.co/d/cQ93cyo

The Open Psychology Journal. (n.d.). The Open Psychology Journal. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

It Is Illegal to Have an Opinion Until You Have All the Information

A rumor is repeated twice at the dinner table, and everyone has a verdict before anyone asks a question. Within minutes, a person who was not present at the event has been judged, condemned, and discussed as though the entire story were known.

This is how quickly an incomplete story becomes a complete opinion.

The rule is simple:

It is illegal for you to have any opinion and any emotion until you have all the information.

The word illegal is not a legal claim. It is a mental boundary. It reminds you that forming a strong opinion before understanding the full story is a violation of wisdom, accuracy, and emotional discipline.

This is Lock 1 of the Panama Canal Rule in the I³ framework, pronounced I cubed. The framework describes how Information, Interpretation, and Intensity shape our emotional experience. Like the locks of the Panama Canal, one stage must fill before the next can open. Information is the first lock.

Information Is More Than the First Version of the Story

Information is not merely the sentence someone tells you. It includes the topic, the data, the facts, and the assumptions being used to explain what happened and what should happen next.

That distinction matters.

Someone says, “She ignored me.”

That is not the whole story. It is an interpretation presented as information.

The actual information may be that she did not respond to one message. She may have been driving, grieving, overwhelmed, distracted, or unaware that a response was expected. The event is one thing. The meaning assigned to the event is another.

Psychology Today describes motivated reasoning as a process in which people unconsciously bend information toward a preferred conclusion. Confirmation bias then leads people to favor evidence that supports what they already believe and discount evidence that challenges it (Psychology Today, 2025).

The first story may be emotionally compelling. It may also be incomplete.

“I Heard That” Should Set Off Every Alarm

The phrase “I heard that…” should set off every bell and whistle in your mind.

It signals that you have received information through another person, another interpretation, or another person’s emotional state. It does not prove that the information is false. It does mean the information requires examination.

The writer of Proverbs expressed this principle plainly:

“He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him” (Proverbs 18:13, New King James Version).

The psychological move stands on its own, whether or not you share the faith behind the passage. Do not answer before you hear. Do not judge before you investigate. Do not intensify before you understand.

Dr. Greg Stewart has described having many experiences in which he became upset about something, only to discover that there was more to the story. As soon as he heard the rest, both his opinion and his emotion changed. The regret came afterward. He had been consumed by something that was not even true.

Most people know this experience. You receive a message. You feel the heat rise. You construct a sentence in your mind. Then you learn the missing fact, and the entire emotional structure collapses.

The apology comes quickly.

So does the embarrassment.

The Hardest Time to Apply the Rule

The most difficult time to seek more information is when you want what you heard to be true.

If a story supports your beliefs, confirms your suspicions, or justifies your anger, you may accept it without examination. You may repeat it because it feels satisfying. You may share it because it makes someone else look guilty and makes your own position look wise.

That is where the rule becomes most important.

Proverbs offers another useful warning:

“The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17, New King James Version).

The first account often feels complete because it arrives first. Kruglanski and Webster (1996) described the desire for a definite answer as a need for cognitive closure. Under that pressure, people may “seize” on an early explanation and “freeze” around it. They stop looking because uncertainty feels uncomfortable.

Research in The Open Psychology Journal similarly connects closed-mindedness, intolerance of ambiguity, and the tendency to stop seeking information once a preferred position has formed (Wastell et al., 2013).

The danger is not that you have an opinion. The danger is that you confuse an early opinion with a final conclusion.

Your Brain Uses the Information It Has

Think of your mind as a computer. It does not independently adjudicate every piece of information it hands to the frontal lobe. It uses what it has gathered since birth, along with the formulas you have practiced.

Your brain uses a formula to determine how much to engage before forming an opinion. That formula requires constant adjustment.

If your history has taught you to expect rejection, silence may look like rejection. If your history has taught you to expect betrayal, an unexplained change may look like betrayal. If your history has taught you that conflict is dangerous, a raised voice may feel like an emergency.

The brain is not trying to ruin your life. It is trying to make sense of the information available to it. But incomplete information can produce a confident conclusion.

The solution is not to distrust every thought. The solution is to examine the data before obeying the thought.

Castelblanco Riveros (2022), writing in Modern Psychological Studies, examined the presence of cognitive biases among college students and emphasized how ordinary people can be influenced by systematic patterns of thought. Bias is not reserved for foolish people. It is part of being human.

Wisdom begins when you recognize your vulnerability to it.

Negative Emotion Is a Signal to Pause

Negative emotion is often the clearest signal that you need to pause and gather information.

Anger says, “Something matters.”

Fear says, “Something may be dangerous.”

Hurt says, “Something has affected me.”

None of these emotions automatically tells you what happened, what someone intended, or what you should do next.

The DBT Wise Mind Principle describes wise mind as the integration of emotional mind and logical mind. Emotional mind notices the significance of an event. Logical mind examines the facts. Both are needed.

Impulse control is therefore a foundational emotional-intelligence skill. Without it, the environment rules your emotional state. A rumor controls you. A notification controls you. A facial expression controls you. A delayed response controls you.

Proverbs 25:28 offers a vivid image:

“Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls” (New King James Version).

The point is not emotional suppression. It is emotional stewardship.

Research on emotion regulation supports the value of pausing, noticing, and reconsidering before responding. Cognitive reappraisal involves changing how one understands an event so that the emotional response can become more proportionate. It is associated with healthier emotional functioning than simply suppressing expression (Gross & John, 2003). Mindfulness research also emphasizes awareness, attention, and reduced reactivity as important components of emotion regulation (Guendelman et al., 2017).

Social Media Rewards Speed, Certainty, and Outrage

Technology can educate, connect, and strengthen communities. It can also reward the fastest reaction rather than the most accurate conclusion.

A post confirms your opinion. You like it. You share it. Others repeat it. Familiarity begins to feel like proof.

The American Psychological Association reports that people are more likely to believe misinformation when it comes from an in-group source, appeals to fear or outrage, or appears repeatedly (American Psychological Association, 2024). PLOS ONE research shows that beliefs can persist even after the misinformation supporting them has been retracted (Siebert & Siebert, 2023).

This is how personal emotion becomes public momentum.

Online bullying and hostility can intensify when people stop seeing one another as human beings and start treating incomplete stories as settled facts. The consequences can move from posts to harassment, threats, and physical conflict.

You may not control the entire information environment. You can control what you accept, what you repeat, and what you allow to govern your emotions.

Proverbs 18:2 states, “Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions” (New King James Version). Understanding requires patience. Opinion requires very little.

Run the Lock 1 Questions

Before you react, repeat a message, criticize a person, or make a consequential decision, ask:

• Do I need to get the whole story first?
• Do I need to do some research first?
• Do I need to talk to someone first?
• Is all the information true?

Then ask a fifth question:

What am I assuming because I want this version to be true?

You cannot gather every fact. You can gather what is reasonably available. You can ask the person involved. You can examine the source. You can distinguish observation from interpretation. You can understand the mental model behind a decision before criticizing it.

Assume the best motives and intentions when the evidence allows it. That does not mean ignoring harm or excusing wrongdoing. It means refusing to condemn a person based on a story that has not yet been examined.

Information does not eliminate every difficult emotion. It gives emotion a more trustworthy foundation.

Build the First Lock Before the Next One Opens

The I³ wall art reads:

Information, Interpretation, Intensity

The order matters.

Do not begin with intensity. Do not treat interpretation as fact. Fill the first lock.

Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk, “Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions,” explores the emotional principles behind the I³ framework. His revised book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions, develops these ideas further.

The I³ framework is an emotional-management tool. It is not a clinical diagnosis and not a substitute for licensed mental-health care. If emotional reactions feel unmanageable, persistent, or unsafe, seek support from a qualified licensed professional.

An opinion built on the whole story may still require revision. That is not failure. It is maturity.

But an opinion built on patience, humility, and sufficient information is one you will rarely need to apologize for.

References

American Psychological Association. (2024, March 1). What psychological factors make people susceptible to believe and act on misinformation? https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/misinformation-belief-action

Castelblanco Riveros, C. A. (2022). Cognitive biases incidence in college students of a Midwestern institution. Modern Psychological Studies, 28(1), Article 5. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol28/iss1/5/

Guendelman, S., Medeiros, S., & Rampes, H. (2017). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: Insights from neurobiological, psychological, and clinical studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00220

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion-regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263

Psychology Today. (2025). Motivated reasoning: Confirmation bias. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/motivated-reasoning

Siebert, J., & Siebert, J. U. (2023). Effective mitigation of the belief perseverance bias after the retraction of misinformation: Awareness training and counter-speech. PLOS ONE, 18(3), e0282202. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282202

Wastell, C. A., Weeks, N., Wearing, A., Duncan, P., & Ebrahimi, W. (2013). The impact of closed-mindedness on the assessment of threat: An empirical study. The Open Psychology Journal, 6, 10–19. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/contents/volumes/V6/TOPSYJ-6-10/TOPSYJ-6-10.pdf

Fokas, K., & Soysa, C. K. (2017). Negative emotion-focused coping mediates the relationships between neuroticism and psychological outcomes in college students. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 22(4), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN22.4.258

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Forgiveness Isn't Saying It Is Okay

The memory returns without permission.

A sentence. A face. A room. A familiar tone of voice. Suddenly, the old injury is present again. Your body tightens. Your thoughts accelerate. The desire for justice rises.

You may wonder why healing has not arrived. You may believe forgiveness requires you to minimize the harm, restore the relationship, or pretend the pain has disappeared.

It does not.

Forgiveness is not saying it is okay. It is refusing to let the person who harmed you retain authority over your peace.

Forgiveness Begins Where Healing Begins

In Chapter 7 of I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions, Dr. Greg Stewart presents healing through four columns.

1. The story.
2. The emotions.
3. The healing work.
4. Peace.

The story produces the emotions. The healing work produces peace. Columns two and four are results. Column three is where your participation matters.

Forgiveness is the gateway to that work. Without forgiveness, a person remains tied to the injury and to the person who caused it.

This does not mean the injury was small. It does not mean the offender deserves access to you. It means you begin releasing the authority to judge, punish, condemn, seek revenge, or personally execute justice.

You stop carrying the offender into every future room.

Research supports this distinction. Forgiveness is generally understood as a change in thoughts, emotions, and motivations toward the person who caused harm. It is not the same as excusing the offense, forgetting the offense, or reconciling with the offender (Weir, 2017; Liester, 2025).

What Forgiveness Is Not

The distinction must remain precise.

Forgiveness is:

• Not forgetting.
• Not waiting for an apology.
• Not ceasing to feel pain.
• Not a one-time event.
• Not trusting.
• Not reconciliation.
• Not losing.

It is winning.

Forgiveness does not require renewed contact. It does not require restored trust. It does not require a conversation, an explanation, or a second chance.

A person may forgive and still maintain permanent distance. A person may forgive and still report abuse. A person may forgive and still pursue lawful accountability. A person may forgive and still acknowledge that the harm was deliberate, severe, and unacceptable.

The forgiveness occurs within you. Accountability may occur elsewhere.

The American Psychological Association describes forgiveness as distinct from justice and reconciliation. It can reduce the burden of chronic anger and stress without removing appropriate boundaries or consequences (Weir, 2017).

Stage One: Release the Pursuit of Justice

Forgiveness stage one begins with a direct question:

Have I forgiven them?

The question does not ask whether the person deserves forgiveness. It asks whether you are willing to release the pursuit of justice from your own hands.

This is difficult because the mind often creates a private courtroom. It rehearses the offense. It imagines the offender exposed, punished, humiliated, or finally forced to understand the damage.

The vision can feel morally satisfying. It can also keep you emotionally attached.

Many films and television stories understand this instinct. A wounded character pursues revenge until the offender’s life is finally in reach. Then someone says, “Do not do it. It will not make you feel any better.”

The warning is accurate. Revenge promises relief but often preserves the relationship between the injured person and the offender. The offender remains central. The wound remains active. The future remains organized around the past.

Research on rumination reaches a similar conclusion. Repeatedly reviewing an offense tends to intensify anger and negative emotion. Compassionate reappraisal, by contrast, can increase forgiveness, empathy, perceived control, and emotional calm while reducing intrusive thoughts about the offense (Witvliet et al., 2022).

Releasing the pursuit of justice does not declare the offender innocent. It declares that your peace will no longer depend on the offender’s punishment.

Stage Two: Release the Need for Justice

Stage two is harder.

Stage one releases the pursuit of justice. Stage two asks what happens if justice is never served.

If your peace depends on the offender receiving the punishment you believe is deserved, then your emotional health remains connected to the no-control column. Your peace depends on the environment. It depends on another person’s choices, recognition, repentance, exposure, or punishment.

That is a fragile foundation.

The I³ framework separates the control column from the no-control column. You may control your interpretation, response, emotional goals, micro goals, and long-term direction. You do not control another person’s conscience, confession, consequences, or transformation.

Holding tightly to the desire for justice keeps you anchored to what you cannot control.

The chapter’s theological argument goes further. Justice means equal evaluation and equal scales of measurement. If we insist that justice must be executed on those who harmed us, we must also consider what equal justice would require of us.

This does not mean every person has committed the same acts. It means every person possesses a capacity for wrongdoing. We are often most biased against the sins and weaknesses we do not personally struggle with. We extend understanding to our own tendencies while demanding severe judgment for another person’s tendencies.

The doctrine of depravity addresses propensity, not identical behavior. It argues that every human heart requires grace. The issue is not whether everyone has committed the same wrong. The issue is whether anyone can claim complete moral superiority.

Dr. Stewart places this argument beneath Matthew 6:15: “But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

He also points to Matthew 7:2: “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

The theological center is not that the injury did not matter. The center is that God did not merely demand justice from a distance. God volunteered to take the justice of those who traumatized Him.

That is love.

Readers who do not share the author’s faith can still recognize the psychological movement. Complete freedom requires releasing the belief that your healing must wait for another person to suffer. Otherwise, the offender continues to govern your inner life.

The Panama Canal Rule and the Interpretation Gap

The I³ process follows the Panama Canal Rule. Each lock must fill before the next one can open.

• Lock 1: Information. What happened.
• Lock 2: Interpretation. What you believe the event means.
• Lock 3: Intensity. The emotional energy produced by that meaning.

Lock 3 cannot fill correctly until Locks 1 and 2 are secured.

Trauma often widens the interpretation gap. You know what happened, but your mind adds conclusions:

• I am permanently damaged.
• No one is safe.
• People always betray you.
• I will never have peace unless they pay.
• My future depends on their regret.

These conclusions may feel like facts. They are interpretations.

Forgiveness does not erase information. It does not falsify the story. It challenges the interpretation that says the offender must control your future.

Ask better questions.

• What is true about what happened?
• What am I adding to the story?
• What remains under my control?
• What emotional goal reflects the person I want to become?
• What is one micro goal I can practice today?

The RHWR grid can guide this examination:

• Is this interpretation Rational?
• Is it Healthy?
• Is it Wise?
• Is it Right?

A desire for safety may be rational, healthy, wise, and right. A desire to remain consumed by revenge may feel justified while failing the other three tests.

Make Peace the Emotional Goal

Forgiveness does not require emotional numbness. Pain may return. Anger may rise. Memories may remain.

The goal is not to become indifferent to injustice. The goal is to stop making peace contingent on justice.

Set a macro goal: I will become free from the offender’s control over my inner life.

Then establish micro goals:

• Do not rehearse the punishment scene tonight.
• Name the emotion without obeying it.
• Separate the offender’s behavior from your worth.
• Maintain a necessary boundary without adding hatred.
• Pray, reflect, or write a release statement if those practices fit your convictions.
• Return your attention to the present moment.

This is interior mastery. It is not denial. It is disciplined ownership of your response.

A simple statement may help:

What happened was wrong. It mattered. I will not excuse it. I will not surrender my peace to it. I release the authority to execute justice myself.

Forgiveness may need to be repeated. The return of anger does not mean the first decision was false. It means healing is a process.

Research on posttraumatic growth distinguishes intrusive thinking from deliberate reflection. Intrusive thinking repeatedly pulls a person back into distress. Deliberate reflection can help a person reconstruct meaning and develop a stronger, more coherent view of life (Eames & O’Connor, 2022).

Do not force growth. Do not call the trauma a gift before you are ready. Begin with truth. Continue with safety. Move toward freedom at a sustainable pace.

Peace Is Column Four

The final column is peace.

Peace does not mean the offender received what you believed was deserved. Peace means your healing no longer depends on that outcome.

You have moved from the no-control column to the control column. You have stopped asking the pre-event question, “Why did this happen to me?” and begun asking the healing question, “What will I do with what happened?”

This is the fork in the road after trauma.

One path leads toward bitterness, entitlement, self-righteousness, addiction, and endless review. The other leads toward responsibility, emotional goals, internal strength, and interior mastery.

Forgiveness is not saying it is okay.

It is saying the harm will not receive the final word. The offender will not occupy the center of your identity. Justice may remain in the hands of God, the courts, the community, or the consequences of life.

Your peace can begin before the verdict.

Continue the I³ Conversation

Dr. Greg Stewart explains the I³ framework, pronounced “I cubed,” in his TEDx talk.

Read the full framework in the revised edition of I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

If trauma continues to affect your safety, relationships, sleep, or daily functioning, seek support from a qualified mental-health professional. Forgiveness should not be forced, rushed, or used to silence the need for protection.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Forgiveness can improve mental and physical health. Monitor on Psychology, 48(1). https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/01/ce-corner

Buju, S., & Jugrin, D. (2021). A Christian model of forgiveness: An analysis from the perspective of modern psychological theories. International Journal of Education and Psychology in the Community, 11(1–2), 47–71. https://www.marianjournals.com/files/IJEPC_articles/Vol_11_no_1_and_2_2021/Buju_Jugrin_IJEPC_2021_1_2_47_71.pdf

Duc, T. (2025). Mindfulness and forgiveness as catalysts for stress reduction and social cohesion: A mixed-methods study in multicultural Binh Duong, Vietnam. The Open Psychology Journal, 18, e18743501415887. https://doi.org/10.2174/0118743501415887251010112959

Early, K. E., Holloway, A. L., & Welton, G. L. (2005). A look into forgiveness: The roles of intentionality, severity, and friendship. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 10, 54–59. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.psichi.org/resource/resmgr/journal_2005/summer05_early.pdf

Eames, C., & O’Connor, D. (2022). The role of repetitive thinking and spirituality in the development of posttraumatic growth and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0272036. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272036

Liester, M. B. (2025). The healing science of forgiveness. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-leading-edge/202506/the-healing-science-of-forgiveness

Weir, K. (2017). Forgiveness can improve mental and physical health. Monitor on Psychology, 48(1). https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/01/ce-corner

Witvliet, C. V. O., Blank, S. L., & Gall, A. J. (2022). Compassionate reappraisal and rumination impact forgiveness, emotion, sleep, and prosocial accountability. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 992768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992768

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

You Can Heal Without Re-Living It

The memory returns. A sound, a sentence, a particular expression, or an unexpected silence opens the old wound. Your body reacts before your reason can intervene.

The event happened years ago. Yet the fear feels present.

You may wonder, “Why is this still running my life?”

Dr. Greg Stewart offers a freeing answer in Chapter 7 of I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity: You do not have to relive it to heal.

“But to heal, you don’t need to process him anymore.”

Clients at the residential treatment center often believed they needed to revisit the traumatic event repeatedly. They assumed healing required making peace with the story by examining every detail again and again.

That is not the only path to healing.

The story is just that: the story. What continues to run is what you carried away from it.

Trauma Leaves Lies and Losses

Trauma often leaves behind two forms of emotional weight.

The first is a lie about yourself.

You may have been powerless during the event. Still, you may later tell yourself that it was your fault, that you deserved it, or that your inability to stop it proves something defective about you.

Those interpretations are false. They are also powerful.

When you later make a mistake, experience rejection, or fall short of your expectations, the impact may become disproportionately severe. The present disappointment appears to confirm the old lie. Your value and worth absorb a second blow.

The second form of weight is what you lost.

When Dr. Stewart asked clients what trauma had taken from them, they often answered quickly:

• Confidence
• Security
• Safety
• Trust
• Purity
• Significance
• The feeling of being enough

Trauma can create a vacuum where one of these qualities once existed. Then, when a later situation requires confidence, safety, trust, or significance, you have less inner strength available to draw from.

The present situation may be completely different from the original trauma. Yet your emotional response becomes inflated.

Dr. Stewart describes the process with a vivid image. Your mental model assumes the present threat is the same as the original threat. Like a backhoe, it scoops emotional energy from the trauma and dumps it onto the current circumstance.

One lost quality becomes lost again whenever life resembles certain elements of the original experience.

Research on trauma and meaning-making supports this understanding. People assign meaning to events through their beliefs about identity, fairness, safety, control, and purpose. When a traumatic event violates those beliefs, distress increases. Healing involves restoring a workable relationship between what happened and what you believe about yourself and the world (Park, 2022).

I³ and the Interpretation Gap

The I³ framework describes emotional experience through three locks:

1. Information
2. Interpretation
3. Intensity

The Panama Canal Rule states that Lock 3 cannot fill until Locks 1 and 2 are secure.

In trauma, the intensity of the present moment may feel overwhelming because the interpretation remains unrepaired. The smoke detector is responding to danger, but it cannot distinguish between smoke from a burned dinner and a house fire.

The alarm is real. The interpretation is inaccurate.

This is the Interpretation Gap. The event in front of you may be a difficult conversation, a delayed response, or an uncertain transition. Your mind interprets it through the unfinished meaning of the original trauma.

Reclaiming what was lost is Lock 2 work. It repairs interpretation before demanding that intensity disappear.

That is interior mastery. It does not deny pain. It teaches you to understand the source of pain and respond with greater wisdom.

The Practice of Reclaiming What Was Lost

Use the following sequence as a reflective exercise. Move slowly. Stop if the process becomes overwhelming. You do not need to force insight.

1. Name what you felt you lost

Choose one word.

If several words fit, define each one. Consider what safety, confidence, trust, or significance means to you now. Identify the word that most precisely describes the loss.

2. Prove it

Ask:

• How do I know I lost this?
• What evidence shows its absence?
• What does this quality mean to me currently?

Do not use this step to accuse yourself. Use it to become accurate.

3. Picture having it back

Describe the restored quality with precision.

What would you think if you had it back? How would you carry yourself? What would change in your relationships, choices, boundaries, and daily decisions?

Make the description concrete.

4. Identify how the loss feels

Notice the situations that expose the vacuum.

You should have felt secure, but you felt threatened. You should have felt confident, but you felt insignificant. You should have trusted the person in front of you, but your body prepared for betrayal.

The current event may be different from the original trauma. The emotional pattern may still resemble it.

Awareness prepares you for the next situation. It helps you say, “This feeling is familiar, but this moment is not the past.”

5. Build an acronym

Create an acronym from the word you are reclaiming. Pair each letter with a synonym, principle, or sentence you can use as an emotional anchor.

The goal is not to create a slogan. The goal is to give your mind a precise alternative interpretation.

6. Watch, reflect, and rehearse

Notice daily situations that test the quality you are rebuilding.

At the end of the day, walk through the event as if watching a video. Review it moment by moment. Then imagine applying your description and acronym in the instant when the old pattern appeared.

What would you think? How would you feel? What would you choose?

This practice gradually retrains the mental model. It begins to enmesh the reclaimed quality into your heart and soul.

Angela’s SAFETY Practice

In the chapter, Angela used this process in her relationship with her husband, Neil. She chose the word SAFETY and developed an acronym to guide her during difficult conversations.

• S is for strong. “My emotional strength is when the environment has very little impact on my emotions.”
• A is for altruistic. “When I see anyone angry, I will have a heart of compassion because the truth is, they are afraid.”
• F is for freedom. “The more I learn these skills, the freer I am. I am free from old Angela.”
• E is for equal. “We are equal. We equally have struggles, legitimate complaints, authority, and power.”
• T is for tame, teachable, and truthful.
• Y is for yes. “My goal in any conversation is to agree as much as possible because the other person’s point aligns with truth. I will look for opportunities to say, ‘Yes, you are right.’”

Angela also used four journal prompts:

• How did this play out today?
• Where did I lack it?
• What would it look like if I had it?
• Where did I have it today when previously I would not have?

The final question matters. Healing requires honest attention to growth, even when growth is small.

You May Become Stronger Without Wishing for the Trauma

A bone becomes stronger around a break as it heals. It reinforces itself at the site of injury.

This analogy helps explain why some people say they are stronger after trauma. They do not mean the trauma was good. They do not wish it on anyone. They mean that healing can produce strength, humility, compassion, and discernment that were not present before.

Post-traumatic growth can coexist with grief. It is not a requirement. You do not need to turn your suffering into an inspirational story before you are allowed to heal. Recovery narratives are diverse, nonlinear, and personal (Llewellyn-Beardsley et al., 2019).

Your task is not to praise what harmed you. Your task is to reclaim what it took.

Professional Support Is a Strength

Dr. Stewart uses a four-column process, a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, to help people examine information, interpretation, emotional response, and behavior. He has also received training in EMDR, a structured therapy that helps many people heal from traumatic memories.

When trauma occurs during childhood, a child may lack the cognitive and emotional resources to understand what happened. The harmful interpretation created in that moment can become stuck. The child may conclude, “I am bad,” “I am powerless,” or “I am unsafe.”

Therapies such as EMDR can help dislodge those interpretations and connect the memory with information the adult now possesses: the event is over, the responsibility was not theirs, and they survived (American Psychological Association, 2025).

Seeking professional support is not a failure. It is a disciplined act of strength.

If you live with intrusive memories, nightmares, panic, dissociation, or persistent fear, bring these experiences to a licensed mental health professional. Do not force yourself to process trauma alone.

The goal is not to erase the story. The goal is to stop allowing the story to define the present.

Learn more about Dr. Greg Stewart’s ideas in his TEDx talk, or explore the revised edition of I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity on Amazon.

References

American Psychological Association. (2025, June 26). What is EMDR therapy and why is it used to treat PTSD?

Duc, T. (2025). Mindfulness and forgiveness as catalysts for stress reduction and social cohesion: A mixed-methods study in multicultural Binh Duong, Vietnam. The Open Psychology Journal, 18. https://doi.org/10.2174/0118743501415887251010112959

Llewellyn-Beardsley, J., Rennick-Egglestone, S., Callard, F., Crawford, P., Farkas, M., Hui, A., et al. (2019). Characteristics of mental health recovery narratives: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. PLOS ONE, 14(3), e0214678. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214678

Park, C. L. (2022). Meaning making following trauma. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 844891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.844891

Psychology Today. (2022). How to make peace with your trauma memory

Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research. (2024). Research on rumination, stress, negative affect, and trauma-related distress. Journal archive

Modern Psychological Studies. (n.d.). Contemporary psychological research on trauma adaptation and post-traumatic growth. A specific article-level citation should be verified against the journal archive before publication.

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Why Trauma From Twenty Years Ago Still Hits You Today

You may have asked yourself a painful question: If the trauma happened ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, and the event itself happened only once, why does it still affect me today.

The question is reasonable. The pain is real. The answer begins with understanding how the mind carries information forward.

Dr. Greg Stewart’s I³ framework (Information, Interpretation, Intensity) offers a clear way to understand the process. The event becomes information. The mind interprets that information. The body and emotions then experience intensity.

Trauma disrupts that sequence. Old information can enter a present situation before the mind has accurately interpreted what is happening now.

Trauma Begins With Powerlessness

The word locus means location. An external locus of control means that something outside of you, more powerful than you, and completely unexpected entered your life and altered it.

You were going about your ordinary day. Then something arrived that you could not stop, prevent, or control. The shock came not only from what happened, but from the sudden loss of personal power.

The COVID-19 pandemic offers a familiar example. Something began on the other side of the globe. It traveled across borders, disrupted daily life, closed businesses and schools, separated families, and changed the quality of life for nearly everyone. Most people had no meaningful way to stop it. They had to respond to circumstances they did not choose.

That is the essence of trauma: an unexpected force enters your life, overwhelms your available resources, and leaves you trying to understand what happened.

This does not minimize anyone’s pain. True, diagnosable trauma has specific clinical criteria. Many people also experience deeply difficult life events that do not meet those criteria but still produce lasting emotional effects. The experience and the healing process can overlap.

The American Psychological Association describes posttraumatic stress through symptoms such as painful recollections, flashbacks, nightmares, avoidance, emotional numbing, physiological arousal, disrupted sleep, and survivor guilt (American Psychological Association, 2022). These symptoms are not signs of weakness. They are signs that the past remains active in the present.

The Question Beneath the Question

After trauma, people often ask, “Why did this happen?”

The question is ubiquitous whenever expectations remain unfulfilled. Trauma intensifies it. You are not merely seeking a sequence of events. You are appealing to something greater than the event or the person who caused it. You are searching for meaning and purpose.

Two different questions often become confused.

The first is the pre-event question:

• Why did this happen?
• What led to it?
• How did it happen?
• Why did that person choose to do it?

The second is the meaning question:

• What will I do with what happened?
• What does this experience mean in the life I am building now?
• What values, boundaries, wisdom, or purpose will guide me forward?

People sometimes say, “I do not know why it happened, but over time I understand why it happened.” That statement may express genuine growth, but it does not answer the original question. It answers a different one.

You may never know why the trauma occurred. You can still decide what meaning you will give your life afterward.

The Carryover Effect

The carryover effect is the heart of the explanation.

Your mind creates mental models to help you recognize patterns and respond quickly. When a present situation resembles the trauma, even slightly, the mental model may assume that the threat is the same.

It is as though the mind uses a backhoe. It reaches into the old trauma, scoops up the emotional energy attached to it, and dumps that energy onto the present circumstance.

A tone of voice resembles the voice of the person who hurt you. A road resembles the road where the event occurred. A billboard, fragrance, date, room, or facial expression opens a door you did not intend to enter.

The present moment may contain a two. Your nervous system responds with a seven because it has pulled emotional energy from the past.

This is one of the three causes of inflated negative emotional energy described in I³. The intensity does not come only from what is happening now. It may come from what happened then.

Research on trauma memory supports this pattern. Trauma-related memories can arise involuntarily through internal or external cues. They may carry a sense of “nowness,” as though the event is happening again rather than being remembered as something that happened before (Rahman & Brown, 2021).

The interpretation gap makes the process worse. This is the space where the mind fills silence, ambiguity, and incomplete information with fear. When trauma has trained the mind to expect danger, an unanswered text, a quiet room, or a change in someone’s expression can become evidence of an old threat.

What You Carry Away

Trauma often leaves you carrying two things.

1. Lies about yourself

You may have been powerless during the event, yet later concluded that it was somehow your fault.

You may believe you deserved it. You may believe you should have prevented it. You may believe that your judgment, worth, purity, confidence, or ability to protect yourself was permanently damaged.

Those conclusions are interpretations. They are not the same as the facts of the story.

Later mistakes can activate those interpretations. When you fail, disappoint someone, or face rejection, the emotional impact becomes larger because the experience appears to confirm the old lie.

2. The impact of what you lost

Ask yourself what the trauma took from you.

People often name confidence, security, safety, trust, purity, significance, or the feeling of being enough.

When one of these elements is lost, it creates a vacuum. Later, when a situation requires confidence or trust, there may be little emotional strength available. The response becomes inflated because the inner resource is missing.

This is not a character defect. It is an unresolved wound affecting the intensity of present experience.

The Re-Experiencing Cycle

I³ describes the re-experiencing process through four columns.

Column one is the story. It contains the sequence of events. Think of it as a newspaper article. What happened first. What happened next. Who was present. What was said. What occurred.

Column two is the emotion. It contains what you felt then and what you feel now when the memory returns.

As you move through life, something in the environment reminds you of the trauma. You move through column one and column two again. Then you decide that you do not want to think about it anymore.

For a while, you may succeed. Then a billboard, road, person, smell, or conversation triggers the cycle again.

The repetition does more than hurt. It can increase the frequency of the memory because each re-experiencing gives the event another time, date, and place stamp.

Column three is where healing work occurs. This is where you examine the interpretation, challenge the lie, identify what was lost, establish what is true now, and choose a wise response to the present.

Column four is peace.

Columns two and four are automatic results of columns one and three. You cannot command yourself to feel peace while refusing to examine the information and interpretation producing the intensity.

This is also the Panama Canal Rule. Lock 3, Intensity, cannot be secured until Lock 1, Information, and Lock 2, Interpretation, are secured. The carryover effect occurs when intensity is filled by old information rather than present facts.

From Emotional Reaction to Emotional Goal

Healing does not mean pretending the trauma was positive. It does not mean approving what happened. It does not require forgetting.

It means establishing an emotional goal for the present.

Your macro goal may be interior mastery: living with clarity, freedom, and peace rather than allowing the past to govern every new situation.

Your micro goal may be more immediate: identify the trigger, separate then from now, name the emotion, and choose your next response.

Use the RHWR grid:

• Is this response rational?
• Is it healthy?
• Is it wise?
• Is it right?

The grid does not condemn your first emotional reaction. It gives you a standard for what you do next.

The goal is not emotional numbness. The goal is appropriate intensity. Let the present circumstance carry its own weight. Do not ask today to carry the entire burden of yesterday.

Healing Does Not Require You to Relive Everything Alone

If you are living with persistent intrusive memories, nightmares, panic, avoidance, or a constant sense of danger, bring it to a licensed mental-health professional.

Dr. Greg Stewart is a counselor trained in EMDR and other trauma therapies. For a child, trauma can become an impasse because the child does not yet have the cognitive or emotional resources needed to understand what happened. The lie believed in that moment can become stuck. Therapies such as EMDR can help dislodge the old interpretation and reconnect the memory with the truth of the present.

Do not force yourself to process overwhelming material without support. Healing requires courage, but it also requires wisdom.

The Question of Hope

Has there ever been anyone who went through worse than what I have and yet came through it successfully healed?

The chapter points to Dr. Viktor Frankl, author of Man’s Search for Meaning. Frankl lost his entire family in the Nazi concentration camps. He survived experiences of unimaginable cruelty and made a freewill decision to create meaning from what he had endured.

That decision did not make the suffering good. It gave his life direction after suffering had tried to take everything from him.

You may never be able to change what happened. You can, with support and honest work, change the authority it holds over your interpretation of today.

Learn more about the I³ framework in Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk, and explore the revised edition of I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

References

American Psychological Association. (2022). Posttraumatic stress disorder. https://www.apa.org/topics/ptsd

Modern Psychological Studies. (n.d.). Modern Psychological Studies archive. University of Tennessee Libraries. https://trace.tennessee.edu/mps/

Psychology Today. (n.d.). Why forgiveness isn’t required in trauma recovery. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/simplifying-complex-trauma/202202/why-forgiveness-isnt-required-in-trauma-recovery

Rahman, N., & Brown, A. D. (2021). Mental time travel in post-traumatic stress disorder: Current gaps and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624707. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624707

The Open Psychology Journal. (n.d.). Research on trauma, emotion regulation, and meaning-making. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/

May, P. E., & Katz, J. (2010). Sexual victimization in close relationships and self-blame among college women. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 15. https://scispace.com/journals/psi-chi-journal-of-psychological-research-1uhgox9z/2010

PLOS ONE. (2024). Research on expressive writing and trauma-related outcomes. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0308928

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Depression Isn't Apathy: The Anger No One Talks About

Depression can look like indifference.

A person stops answering messages. Ordinary tasks become difficult. The interests that once gave life color lose their appeal. From the outside, the person may seem detached, unmotivated, or unreachable.

Inside, however, there may be no indifference at all.

There may be anger, grief, exhaustion, and a profound loss of hope.

Chapter 6 of Dr. Greg Stewart’s I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity, Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions offers a practical lens for understanding this experience. It is not a medical definition of depression, and it is not a substitute for clinical assessment. It is an emotional-management framework: depression may look like apathy after a person has spent tremendous energy trying to change what hurts, then concludes that change is impossible.

That conclusion can become especially dangerous when the person stops extending grace to themselves.

Depression May Be Anger After Hope Has Burned Out

In the framework of Chapter 6, anger is directed toward the environment. It carries energy. It says, “Something is wrong, and I must change it.”

Depression appears when that effort has continued for too long without the desired result. The person has tried, waited, explained, endured, negotiated, prayed, worked, or hoped. The emotional goal remains blocked.

Eventually, the person raises what the chapter calls a white flag of surrender.

The environment appears to have won.

But the surrender often carries a second conclusion: “If the environment will not change, I must be the reason.”

The person then declares themselves the loser.

This is where anger can turn inward. The person no longer directs all of the emotional energy toward the situation. They direct it toward their identity, value, and worth.

Research supports the importance of this distinction. Anger and irritability are common in depression, yet they are frequently overlooked when depression is associated only with sadness or withdrawal (Psychology Today, n.d.; “Anger and Major Depressive Disorder,” 2017). Self-criticism, rumination, and hopelessness can reinforce one another, creating a cycle that is painful and difficult to interrupt.

The Hidden Sentence: “Something Is Wrong With Me”

The I³ framework places special emphasis on the sentences people believe about themselves, other people, life, and God.

Those sentences matter because they do more than describe experience. They shape interpretation. Interpretation influences intensity. Intensity influences response.

A painful event may begin as information: rejection, abandonment, failure, abuse, loss, or prolonged disappointment. The mind then interprets the information. If the interpretation becomes, “I am unwanted,” “I am powerless,” or “I will never be safe,” the emotional intensity can become overwhelming.

Children who experience abuse or neglect face a particular burden. They do not possess the emotional or intellectual resources to evaluate the adults responsible for their care. They often cannot conclude, “The adults are acting from dysfunction.” Instead, they may conclude, “I am the problem.”

That conclusion can reach directly into identity and worth.

It can remain active long after the original circumstances have changed.

This does not mean that every negative belief is consciously chosen. It does not mean that a person should simply replace painful thoughts with cheerful ones. It means that therapy may need to examine the sentences beneath the symptoms with patience and precision.

Name the Emotion Before You Judge It

Negative emotions are not moral failures. They are natural, useful, and necessary forms of information.

Anger may identify a violated boundary or blocked goal. Grief may identify meaningful loss. Fear may identify perceived danger. Shame may reveal a painful belief about the self. Depression may signal that emotional resources have been depleted and hope has narrowed.

The goal is not to eliminate negative emotion. The goal is to develop the right type and amount of emotion for the situation.

This requires accurate labeling.

A person may say, “I feel nothing,” when the more precise statement is:

• “I feel angry that nothing changes.”
• “I feel ashamed that I cannot fix this.”
• “I feel exhausted from trying.”
• “I feel afraid that the future will repeat the past.”
• “I feel grief over the life I expected to have.”
• “I feel hopeless about my ability to influence anything.”

These distinctions matter. “Apathy” can close the conversation. “Anger, grief, exhaustion, and hopelessness” can open it.

The American Psychological Association emphasizes that depression requires careful assessment and evidence-based treatment, especially when hopelessness or suicidal thinking is present (American Psychological Association, n.d.). A label should create a path toward understanding, not become another judgment.

The Sentence Dump: A Way to See the Mental Model

Chapter 6 presents the sentence dump as a practical exercise. It is not a diagnostic tool. It is a way to bring hidden interpretations into view.

Choose one current source of distress. Write every sentence that appears in your mind about it. Do not edit the sentences while writing.

You may find statements such as:

• “Nothing will ever change.”
• “I always ruin everything.”
• “No one would care if I disappeared.”
• “I should be stronger than this.”
• “This proves that I am broken.”
• “There is no point in trying again.”

Then examine each sentence carefully.

Ask:

1. Is this a fact, an interpretation, or a prediction?
2. What evidence supports it?
3. What evidence complicates it?
4. Is the sentence specific, or does it condemn the whole self?
5. What would be a more accurate and compassionate sentence?

The purpose is not to force positivity. It is to reject a lie by replacing it with truth.

“I failed at this attempt” is more accurate than “I am a failure.”

“I am exhausted after prolonged disappointment” is more accurate than “I am lazy.”

“I need support” is more accurate than “I am weak.”

Research on emotion-regulation training suggests that skills such as awareness, acceptance, self-support, and modification can reduce depressive symptom severity, although these practices should not be treated as a replacement for individualized care (Berking et al., 2019). Related research also finds that self-compassion and cognitive reappraisal can help explain the relationship between emotional pain and depressive symptoms (Meilasari & Utami, 2022).

Grace Is Not Excusing the Problem

Grace toward oneself is not denial. It does not excuse harmful behavior or prevent accountability.

Grace separates behavior from identity.

It allows a person to say, “I made a serious mistake,” without concluding, “I am beyond repair.”

It allows a person to say, “I have been hurt,” without concluding, “I am permanently damaged.”

It allows a person to say, “I cannot change this situation alone,” without concluding, “I have no value.”

This distinction is central to restoring emotional movement. When a person stops attacking themselves, some energy becomes available for observation, support, treatment, problem-solving, grieving, and change.

That process may include logging negative emotions, identifying the information beneath them, examining the interpretation, measuring the intensity, and developing a response. It may also include medication when a physician determines that it could help stabilize symptoms and make therapy more effective. Medication decisions belong with a qualified medical professional.

When Support Must Become Immediate

Self-harm and suicidal thinking can enter when a person has declared the environment the winner and themselves the loser. This is not a character defect. It is a serious signal that immediate professional support is needed.

If you recognize yourself in persistent hopelessness, severe self-criticism, thoughts of self-harm, or thoughts that life is not worth living, speak with a licensed mental-health professional. If you may act on suicidal thoughts or cannot stay safe, call or chat with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline in the United States, call emergency services, or go to the nearest emergency department. Do not remain alone with imminent danger. Tell a trusted person clearly what is happening.

Professional treatment can provide assessment, safety planning, psychotherapy, and medical evaluation. You do not need to prove that your pain is severe enough to deserve help.

Depression Is Not the End of the Sentence

Depression can resemble apathy because the person’s visible effort has stopped. The inner struggle may remain intense.

The work of recovery begins by noticing what the apparent apathy may contain. Anger. Grief. Exhaustion. Shame. Fear. Hopelessness. A blocked emotional goal.

Then comes the careful work of identifying the sentences that give those emotions their shape.

The sentence dump is one beginning. Accurate emotional labeling is another. Therapy provides a setting in which those interpretations can be examined with clinical care, context, and accountability.

Dr. Greg Stewart explains the broader I³ framework in his TEDx talk. His book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity, Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions, develops the framework in greater depth.

The most painful sentence in depression may be, “I am the problem.”

It is not the final truth.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of depression across three age cohorts. https://www.apa.org/depression-guideline

Berking, M., Eichler, E., Luhmann, M., Diedrich, A., Hiller, W., & Rief, W. (2019). Affect regulation training reduces symptom severity in depression: A randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE, 14(8), e0220436. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220436

Meilasari, A., & Utami, M. S. (2022). The role of self-compassion to depression in teenagers mediated by emotion regulation. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 49(2). https://doi.org/10.22146/jpsi.67752

Psychology Today. (n.d.). Depression and self-criticism. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/self-talk-science/202211/depression-and-self-criticism

Psychology Today. (n.d.). How do depression and anger interact? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/overcoming-destructive-anger/202011/how-do-depression-and-anger-interact

Modern Psychological Studies. (2010). When counting sheep becomes counting worries: Insomnia, rumination, and depression, 15(2). https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol15/iss2/9/

The Open Psychology Journal. (2022). Examining the influence of self-compassion education and training on mental health and well-being: A systematic review, 15. https://www.openpsychologyjournal.com/VOLUME/15/ELOCATOR/e187435012210190/FULLTEXT/

Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research. (n.d.). Psi Chi Journal, 28(3). https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.psichi.org/resource/resmgr/28_3_Journal_Fall_FINAL.pdf

Alfayez, H. (2026). Examining the relationships between mindfulness, emotion regulation, depression, and anxiety: A structural equation modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1738432. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1738432

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

What Your Anger Is Actually Afraid Of: The Fear Underneath Every Blowup

You did not become furious because of the forgotten chore, the unanswered message, the repeated interruption, or the child who disobeyed you for the third time.

Those events may have triggered your anger. They may not explain it.

Anger often arrives with force because something beneath it feels threatened. In Dr. Greg Stewart’s I³ framework (Information, Interpretation, and Intensity) anger is not random emotional noise. It is the result of information interpreted as a blocked goal, intensified until the mind decides to take matters into its own hands.

The central claim of Chapter 6, “That Which Threatens Me,” is direct: anger is downstream of fear.

Fear turns inward. It asks, “What will happen to me?”

Anger turns outward. It declares, “Someone must change this.”

The movement from fear to anger is a movement from defensive negative energy to offensive negative energy. You no longer wait for the threat to pass. You prepare to confront it, control it, or force it to change.

That is why anger can feel powerful. It gives energy to a frightened mind.

Anger Begins With an Unmet Expectation

Anger usually follows a broken expectation.

Something happened that you did not expect. Something failed to happen that you expected. A person did not call. A child did not listen. A partner did not understand. A stranger behaved carelessly. A plan fell apart.

The tangible goal became blocked.

Perhaps your goal was for the room to be clean, the conversation to be respectful, the appointment to begin on time, or the person beside you to keep a promise. These goals are real. They matter. Yet they are not the final destination of your emotional life.

Ask the more penetrating question:

What emotional goal was blocked?

Every action attempts to achieve an emotional goal. The visible behavior is often only the surface expression of a deeper need.

When you screamed at your children, the tangible problem may have been disobedience. The deeper emotional goal may have been security, competence, or significance. You wanted to feel like a successful parent. Their behavior interrupted that interpretation.

The anger, then, was not only about what they did. It was about what their behavior seemed to say about you.

It may have said:

• “I am failing.”
• “I have no control.”
• “They do not respect me.”
• “I am not important.”
• “I cannot keep my family safe.”
• “My efforts do not matter.”

This is the interpretation gap between the event and the intensity of the response. The information may be small. The interpretation may be enormous.

Move Below the Dotted Line

In the emotional-management flow described in I³, a dotted line separates the first four emotions (insecurity, anxiety, fear, and worry) from anger.

That line represents a change in focus.

Above the line, the mind is focused internally. It feels vulnerable, uncertain, exposed, or threatened. Below the line, the mind shifts externally. It searches for someone or something to blame, correct, punish, or control.

The practical move is to drag the goal below the line and bring the focus back inside.

Do not stop at the tangible goal.

Name it accurately:

• “I wanted my child to obey” becomes “I wanted to feel capable and respected as a parent.”
• “I wanted my partner to answer” becomes “I wanted to feel secure in the relationship.”
• “I wanted the plan to succeed” becomes “I wanted to feel significant and competent.”
• “I wanted them to apologize” becomes “I wanted confirmation that my pain mattered.”

Chapter 6 offers security as a useful starting point for many women and significance as a useful starting point for many men. These are not rigid categories. They are entry points. Use the language that best describes your own emotional goal.

Then find synonyms. Security may mean safety, steadiness, belonging, protection, or trust. Significance may mean value, importance, respect, competence, or worth.

Precision matters. Vague goals produce vague interpretations. Accurate goals reveal the fear beneath the anger.

The Cat, the Dog, and the Rattlesnake

Watch a cat confronted by danger. Its back arches. Its fur rises. It hisses.

Watch a dog face a perceived threat. It barks, bares its teeth, and moves forward.

Watch a rattlesnake encounter danger. It rattles.

Each creature produces an intense display. Each display serves a protective purpose. Each attempts to create distance from the threat.

At the surface, these responses look aggressive. At the core, they are afraid.

Human anger follows a similar pattern. The raised voice, tightened jaw, sharp accusation, slammed door, or cold withdrawal may be an attempt to protect an emotional goal of safety, value, belonging, or control.

The anger is real. The fear is real. The fear does not excuse harmful behavior. It explains why the reaction may be so intense.

The same principle appears in the scene from Batman Begins after young Bruce falls into a dry well. His father asks, “Do you know why the bats attacked you, Bruce?” The answer follows: “It’s because they were afraid of you.”

The bats did not attack because they possessed superior strength. They attacked because they perceived a threat.

Anger often works the same way. The person who appears most intimidating may be reacting to an internal sense of danger.

Ask Better Questions

When anger rises, do not begin with, “How do I make them stop?”

Begin with:

1. What am I afraid of?
2. What is the worst that can happen if this happens?

Most people answer with another emotion:

• “I will feel rejected.”
• “I will feel embarrassed.”
• “I will feel like a failure.”
• “I will feel powerless.”

Keep going.

A negative emotion is not what tangibly happens. It is your response to what tangibly happens. Continue asking the same question until you reach the most probable, realistic, and logical result.

If your child talks back, the worst tangible outcome may be a difficult conversation and a need to repair the relationship. If someone fails to answer your message, the tangible outcome may be uncertainty, not abandonment. If a plan fails, the tangible outcome may be inconvenience, delay, or the need to create another plan.

These outcomes may matter. They may deserve action. But they may be a one or two on the scale of importance while your response has reached a seven or eight.

That difference is inflated intensity.

Research supports the value of this pause. The American Psychological Association distinguishes anger from aggression: anger is an emotion, while aggression is behavior intended to harm someone or something (American Psychological Association, 2024). The emotion deserves attention. The behavior requires accountability.

Anger Can Point to an Old Wound

Current events often awaken older pain.

Your anger may point to:

• An insecurity you have never examined.
• A need for another person to validate your value.
• A lie you believe about yourself.
• A lie you believe about someone else.
• A past betrayal that has made trust difficult.
• A history of being ignored, controlled, humiliated, or dismissed.

This does not mean every angry reaction is irrational. Some situations involve genuine injustice, disrespect, danger, or boundary violations. Anger can identify a problem that requires a clear response.

It does mean that anger is not always an accurate measurement of importance.

Research on appraisal shows that anger commonly involves perceived harm, responsibility, and the belief that a different choice could have prevented the outcome (Mayiwar & Björklund, 2021). Your mind does not merely register what happened. It decides what happened means, who caused it, and what should happen next.

That is the I³ sequence:

• Information: What actually happened?
• Interpretation: What did I decide it means?
• Intensity: How much emotional energy did that interpretation produce?

Change the interpretation, and intensity can change with it.

A PLOS ONE study found that cognitive reappraisal reduced anger, while rumination maintained it. The difference was not the event. The difference was the mental work performed after the event (Peuters et al., 2019).

Do not rehearse the offense until it becomes your identity. Examine it. Name the blocked emotional goal. Test the interpretation. Choose the next action with greater accuracy.

The Work Beneath the Outburst

The goal is not to become emotionless. The goal is to become internally accurate.

When anger appears, pause long enough to identify the threat. Regulate your body before attempting a difficult conversation. Step away from intimidation, name the emotion, and return to the tangible facts.

Then ask:

• What did I expect?
• What was blocked?
• What emotional goal was underneath it?
• What am I afraid this says about me?
• What is the most realistic tangible consequence?
• What response fits the actual importance of the event?

This work requires courage because it moves beneath power and into vulnerability.

Everyone carries hurt. Everyone has been afraid. Everyone has interpreted a moment through the lens of old pain. Interior mastery does not deny that history. It refuses to let history govern every present response.

Study Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk, “The Hidden Power of Negative Emotions”, and explore the I³ framework in his book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity, Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

For counseling support, call 469-485-0387. You can also learn more about Becoming More Counseling, Coaching, & Consulting.

References

American Psychological Association. (2024). Anger. https://www.apa.org/topics/anger

Hada, A., Imura, M., & Kitamura, T. (2021). Parent to baby emotions: Parental immediate emotional reactions towards infant crying. The Open Psychology Journal, 14. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350102114010338

Levitt, A., & Sciutto, M. J. (2006). Effectiveness of treatment interventions for adults suffering from anger disorders: A literature review. Modern Psychological Studies, 12(1), Article 5. https://scispace.com/pdf/effectiveness-of-treatment-interventions-for-adults-4mc2qrdf19.pdf

Mayiwar, L., & Björklund, F. (2021). Fear from afar, not so risky after all: Distancing moderates the relationship between fear and risk taking. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 674059. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.674059

Peuters, C., Kalokerinos, E. K., Pe, M. L., & Kuppens, P. (2019). Sequential effects of reappraisal and rumination on anger during recall of an anger-provoking event. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0209029. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209029

Pereira, J. R. B., & Deemer, E. D. (2023). A test of a cognitive appraisal model of the influence of perceptions of seriousness and self-compassion as influencing impostor experiences. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 28(3). https://www.psichi.org/page/283JNFall2023-A-Test-Of-A-Cognitive-Appraisal-Model

Tsilimparis, J. (2026, July 19). Why anger masks fear. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-magic-in-the-tragic/202607/why-anger-masks-fear

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Empty the RAM: The Sentence Dump That Clears Your Mind in One Sitting

Your mind can become crowded without making a sound.

A conversation ends. A message goes unanswered. A decision remains unresolved. Then the same sentences begin circling:

I should have said something different.

They must be upset with me.

This will never work.

I will not recover from this.

The sentences repeat because your mental model has placed them in working memory. They continue requesting attention. Your processing speed slows. The emotional intensity rises.

Chapter 6 of Dr. Greg Stewart’s book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity, Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions, presents a direct response: empty the RAM.

The technique is simple. It is not shallow. It is not forced positivity. It is a disciplined method for bringing unconscious interpretations into view, testing them against truth, and choosing a more appropriate response.

Emotions Begin With Sentences

The I³ framework (pronounced I cubed) rests on three elements: information, interpretation, and intensity.

You receive information. You interpret it. Your interpretation generates emotional intensity.

As Chapter 6 explains:

“Emotions don’t produce themselves; they come from sentences in our minds.”

Those sentences may be opinions, interpretations, conclusions, suggestions, or predictions. They may come from the unconscious, subconscious, or conscious mind. They may be accurate. They may be distorted. They may be partially true and emotionally exaggerated.

The distinction matters because the same information can produce different emotional experiences depending on the interpretation attached to it.

A friend does not respond to your message. The information is limited: there has been no response yet.

The mind may add:

They are angry with me.

I am being rejected.

I always ruin relationships.

No one will stay.

The emotional reaction does not come from the unanswered message alone. It comes from the sentences added to the message.

This is Lock 2 of I³: Interpretation. It is also where the Panama Canal Rule becomes practical. A ship cannot pass through the canal without moving through each lock in order. In the same way, emotional management requires you to move through information, interpretation, and intensity rather than attempting to control intensity without examining interpretation.

The Sentence Dump: Step One

When you are deeply distressed, do not begin by arguing with every thought.

Begin by recording them.

Open a document. Use a notebook if that is more accessible. Write every sentence that comes to mind about the current topic. Let the mental model flow freely. Do not evaluate the sentences while writing. Do not correct grammar. Do not make the page respectable.

Write until there is nothing left to write.

You may record:

• “I cannot handle this.”
• “This proves I am not good enough.”
• “They will never respect me again.”
• “I should have known better.”
• “Nothing will change.”
• “I have to fix this immediately.”
• “If I make one mistake, everything will collapse.”

Keep going.

The first purpose is not to produce wisdom. The first purpose is to remove the material from active mental processing and place it where you can examine it.

That is the cathartic force of the exercise. The sentences are no longer hidden in the mind, competing for attention. They are visible. They can be read. They can be organized.

Research on expressive writing similarly suggests that putting emotionally charged experiences into words can support cognitive processing, meaning-making, and emotional clarity. The evidence is modest and varies by person and context, but writing is most useful when it moves beyond raw venting toward understanding and reappraisal (American Psychological Association, n.d.; Farber, 2012; PLOS ONE, 2013).

Do Not Confuse Relief With Truth

The sentence dump may create immediate relief. That relief is valuable, but it is not the final step.

Now evaluate each sentence.

Some sentences are extreme lies. They can be dismissed and deleted.

Others are more deeply embedded in your belief system. They may have been repeated for years. They may be connected to identity, value, worth, or past trauma. They cannot always be deleted by force.

Use the technique Dr. Stewart calls reject by replacing.

The best way to reject a lie is to replace it with truth.

Suppose the sentence is:

“I’ll never get a job.”

Do not replace it with an equally ungrounded statement such as, “I will definitely get the perfect job tomorrow.”

That is not truth. It is wishful thinking.

Replace the lie with several accurate sentences:

• “I do not have a job today.”
• “I have had difficulty finding work.”
• “The process may take longer than I want.”
• “I can review my résumé.”
• “I can contact people who may know of opportunities.”
• “I can apply for positions that fit my experience.”
• “A delayed result is not the same as a permanent result.”
• “My employment status does not determine my value or worth.”

Some of these sentences are negative. That does not make them harmful. Accuracy is the standard.

The goal for emotional management is not positivity. It is truth.

Cognitive reappraisal follows the same principle. It changes the meaning assigned to an event rather than pretending the event did not occur. Research associates reappraisal with reduced negative emotion and healthier psychological functioning, although its effectiveness depends on context and the person’s ability to apply it (The Open Psychology Journal, 2018; Betanzos, 2024).

Three Causes of Inflated Negative Emotion

Negative emotions are natural, helpful, and necessary. Fear can warn you. Anger can identify a blocked goal. Sadness can signal loss. Anxiety can direct attention toward uncertainty.

The aim is not to eliminate negative emotion. The aim is to experience the right type and amount of emotion for the situation.

Chapter 6 identifies three common causes of inflated negative emotional energy.

1. Lies

Lies are the most common cause. They include catastrophizing, mind-reading, overgeneralizing, and treating predictions as facts.

“I know they hate me.”

“This always happens.”

“I cannot survive this.”

Such sentences may feel convincing while remaining unverified.

2. IVW: Identity, Value, and Worth

A situation becomes more emotionally intense when you take it personally at the level of identity, value, or worth.

A mistake becomes, “I am a failure.”

A rejection becomes, “I am unwanted.”

A disagreement becomes, “I have no value.”

The event may deserve attention. Your worth does not need to be placed on trial.

3. Carryover From Trauma

Past experiences can intensify present emotion. The current situation may resemble an earlier injury, and the nervous system may respond to both at once.

This does not mean the current feeling is false. It means the intensity may include emotional energy carried forward from the past.

When writing reveals trauma-related material, do not force yourself to process it alone. Pause. Ground yourself. Seek a qualified mental-health professional when the exercise produces panic, dissociation, flashbacks, or an inability to return to the present.

A Daily Practice for Interior Mastery

Do not wait for a crisis to develop self-awareness.

Log negative emotions as they happen. Label them correctly. Then take each one apart.

Use this sequence:

1. Name the emotion.
   Choose the most accurate word: anger, fear, worry, sadness, shame, disappointment, resentment, or grief.

2. Record the information.
   What objectively happened? Separate observable facts from assumptions.

3. Write the sentences.
   What did your mind immediately conclude?

4. Identify the interpretation.
   Which sentences are opinions, predictions, conclusions, or suggestions?

5. Test the sentences.
   What evidence supports them? What evidence limits them?

6. Reject by replacing.
   Write accurate sentences that account for the full situation.

7. Choose an RHWR path.
   Select the most reasonable, healthy, wise, and responsible response available.

8. Pursue the emotional goal.
   Decide what emotional state would help you respond well. You may seek clarity, courage, patience, grief, repair, or appropriate restraint.

This practice develops interior mastery. It moves you from automatic interpretation to deliberate response.

Empty the RAM, Then Build a Strategy

The sentence dump is not an escape from responsibility. It prepares you to assume responsibility accurately.

First, release the mental congestion. Then examine the sentences. Replace the lies with truth. Separate the current situation from old emotional carryover. Distinguish identity from circumstance.

Then build a strategy.

Ask:

• What is within my control?
• What is not within my control?
• What information do I still need?
• What action would be reasonable?
• What response protects my values?
• What emotional goal will help me move forward?

This is the Panama Canal Rule in practice. Move through the locks in order. Do not demand calm before examining interpretation. Do not demand certainty before acknowledging information. Do not treat intensity as proof.

The sentence dump gives your mind room to think again.

Learn more about the I³ framework through Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk, The Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions. You can also purchase the I³ book on Amazon.

For additional support, explore professional counseling at Becoming More.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Expressive writing. Speaking of Psychology.

Betanzos, T. (2024). Emotion mindsets and emotion regulation. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research.

Burgoyne, B., & Grant-Marsney, H. (2024). The impact of parent-child interactions on emotion regulation in adulthood. Modern Psychological Studies, 30(1). ScholarWorks.

Farber, S. K. (2012). Expressive writing for physical and mental health. Psychology Today.

Frontiers in Psychology. (2015). Reappraisal writing relieves social anxiety and may be accompanied by changes in frontal alpha asymmetry. Frontiers in Psychology.

PLOS ONE. (2013). Expressive writing, cognitive processing, and health-related quality of life. PLOS ONE.

The Open Psychology Journal. (2018). Cognitive reappraisal is more effective for regulating emotions when sadness is experienced as an emotion than as a mood. The Open Psychology Journal.

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

26,000 Views! Watch my TEDx talk: Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions

Twenty-six thousand people have now watched Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk, “Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.”

That number represents more than a digital milestone. It represents 26,000 people who decided that anger, fear, shame, sadness, and anxiety deserve more than dismissal. They deserve understanding.

Each viewer brought a private experience to the talk. Some may have watched after an argument. Others may have carried years of shame, disappointment, or fear. Many may have wondered why a single moment could produce such a powerful reaction.

The answer begins with a different way of viewing negative emotions.

They are not proof that something is wrong with you. They are not merely obstacles to eliminate. They are natural human signals. They carry energy. They often reveal that an important emotional goal has been blocked.

Negative Emotions Are Signals, Not Enemies

People pursue emotional goals every day. We seek love, comfort, significance, safety, belonging, dignity, and worth.

When the path toward one of those goals appears blocked, negative emotion often follows. Anger may signal a violated expectation or threatened value. Fear may signal danger or uncertainty. Shame may expose a wounded sense of identity. Sadness may reveal loss.

The emotion does not automatically tell you what happened. It tells you that something matters.

This distinction matters because suppression rarely creates understanding. Psychology Today notes that chronic emotional suppression can drain mental energy, harm relationships, and allow distress to emerge through anxiety, depression, frustration, or aggression (Linder, 2024). The American Psychological Association likewise describes emotions as important sources of information that influence attention, judgment, and behavior (American Psychological Association, n.d.).

The goal is not to obey every emotion. The goal is to listen carefully enough to understand what the emotion is communicating.

A smoke detector may be loud and unpleasant. It may also save your life. The sound requires investigation. It does not require panic.

The same principle applies to your emotional life.

The I³ Framework: Information, Interpretation, Intensity

Dr. Stewart’s framework, pronounced I cubed, provides a disciplined way to examine emotional energy:

1. Information
2. Interpretation
3. Intensity

These three elements work together. Each one answers a different question.

1. Information: What Do You Know?

Begin with the facts.

What happened? What was said? What did you observe? What remains unknown?

The Panama Canal Rule provides the governing image. A ship cannot pass through the next lock until the current lock has filled. In the same way, you should not rush into interpretation or emotional intensity before gathering sufficient information.

The rule is simple:

Do not form a final opinion or emotional response before you have the available facts.

This does not mean waiting for perfect information. Perfect information is rarely available. It means refusing to build a complete emotional conclusion from partial evidence.

A delayed response does not always mean rejection. A critical comment does not always mean contempt. A change in plans does not always mean that you are unimportant.

Gather the information before you assign meaning.

2. Interpretation: What Meaning Did You Assign?

Information does not produce emotion by itself. Interpretation gives information meaning.

Two people can experience the same event and respond differently because their mental models interpret the event differently. One person sees a difficult conversation as evidence of failure. Another sees it as an opportunity for honesty and repair.

Cognitive reappraisal research examines this process directly. Reappraisal changes the personal meaning assigned to an event, which can alter the resulting emotional response (Wang & Yin, 2023). The objective is not artificial positivity. It is accurate interpretation.

Ask:

• What story am I telling myself?
• What am I assuming about another person’s motives?
• What evidence supports my conclusion?
• What evidence complicates it?
• Is there another rational, healthy, wise, and right interpretation?

This is the purpose of the RHWR path. Before choosing a response, evaluate whether your interpretation and action are:

• Rational
• Healthy
• Wise
• Right

A sound interpretation does not deny pain. It places pain inside a truthful frame.

You may have been treated unfairly. You may also retain the power to respond with dignity. You may have failed. That failure may still become part of a redemptive future. You may feel rejected. The feeling may be real even when the conclusion that you are worthless is false.

3. Intensity: How Much Emotional Energy Is Needed?

Once you have examined information and interpretation, assess intensity.

How much emotional energy does this moment deserve? What level of response will help you address the actual problem? What action will move you toward your emotional goal without creating a second problem?

The answer is not always “less emotion.” Sometimes a serious situation requires strong emotion and decisive action. Anger can provide energy to establish a boundary or correct an injustice. Fear can direct you away from danger. Guilt can motivate repair.

The issue is not the existence of emotional energy. The issue is whether the energy is accurate, proportionate, and wisely directed.

Research supports this distinction. Cognitive reappraisal often reduces negative emotional experience more effectively than expressive suppression, but its usefulness depends on whether the new interpretation is realistic and applicable to real life (Wang & Yin, 2023). Reframing is not the same as pretending. It is the disciplined work of bringing emotion into alignment with reality.

Your Hardest Emotions May Contain Your Next Assignment

Negative emotions often expose what needs attention.

Anger may point toward a boundary. Fear may point toward preparation. Shame may point toward ownership and repair. Sadness may point toward grief, comfort, or connection.

The emotional goal beneath the emotion deserves careful examination.

Ask:

• What did I want to feel?
• What did I believe would give me that feeling?
• What blocked that path?
• What story did I tell myself as a result?
• What wise response remains available?

This process moves you from reaction to interior mastery.

It also requires patience. Research in Modern Psychological Studies has examined how early parent-child interactions may influence emotion regulation in adulthood, reminding us that emotional patterns often develop over time and may require deliberate practice to change (Burgoyne & Grant-Marsney, 2024).

Change does not require self-condemnation. It requires honest attention.

Self-compassion strengthens that attention. In the Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, Potts and Weidler (2015) found that cybervictimization was associated with self-judgment, isolation, and overidentification with painful experience. Their findings illustrate how suffering can become fused with identity. A person may move from “I experienced something painful” to “I am the pain.”

The distinction is essential.

You are not required to deny what happened. You are required to resist allowing what happened to become the final definition of who you are.

Watch the TEDx Talk

Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk explores these principles through personal experience, clinical insight, and the language of the refining fire.

The message is direct: your negative emotions may not be trying to destroy you. They may be exposing the places where fear, insecurity, unexamined hurt, or misplaced worth have gained influence.

Walk into the emotion. Examine it. Separate the facts from the story. Find the interpretation that is rational, healthy, wise, and right. Then direct the emotional energy toward a response that restores rather than damages.

Watch “Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions” on TEDx.

For a deeper study of the framework, read Dr. Stewart’s first book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

Continue the Work

Some emotional patterns are difficult to examine alone. Counseling can provide a safe place to understand recurring pain, anxiety, anger, shame, grief, or relational conflict. Coaching can help you apply emotional insight to personal goals and sustained growth. Consulting can help organizations create healthier systems for human development and emotional well-being.

Becoming More Counseling, Coaching, & Consulting offers support for people who are ready to understand themselves more clearly and move forward with greater strength.

Visit Becoming More to learn more. You may also call 469-485-0387.

Twenty-six thousand viewers have taken the first step by choosing understanding over suppression.

Now take yours.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Understanding emotions. https://www.apa.org/topics/emotions

Burgoyne, B., & Grant-Marsney, H. (2024). The impact of parent-child interactions on emotion regulation in adulthood. Modern Psychological Studies, 30(1). https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol30/iss1/4/

Linder, J. N. (2024, March 5). Pitfalls of suppressing emotions and pros of processing them. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindfulness-insights/202312/pitfalls-of-suppressing-emotions-and-pros-of-processing-them

Out, C., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2020). Gradual positive and negative affect induction: The effect of verbalizing affective content. PLOS ONE, 15(5), e0233592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233592

Potts, S. K., & Weidler, D. J. (2015). The virtual destruction of self-compassion: Cyberbullying’s damage to young adults. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 20(4), 264–275. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.psichi.org/resource/resmgr/journal_2015/Winter15JNPotts.pdf

Purwandari, E., Rahayu, S. A., & Taufik, T. (2024). Need-satisfaction as a mediator of teaching style and school-bullying intentions. The Open Psychology Journal, 17, e18743501293932. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/VOLUME/17/ELOCATOR/e18743501293932/FULLTEXT/

Wang, Y.-X., & Yin, B. (2023). A new understanding of the cognitive reappraisal technique: An extension based on schema theory. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 17, 1174585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1174585

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

The Size of What Upsets You Is the Measure of Your Maturity

A person insults five people in a line. The insult is the same. The words are the same. The tone is the same.

Yet the responses differ.

One person erupts in rage. Another begins to cry. A third argues. A fourth becomes visibly uncomfortable but remains composed. The final person hears the insult, shakes his head, and continues with his day.

The stimulus has not changed. The response has.

This difference reveals an important principle from Chapter 5 of Dr. Greg Stewart’s I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity, Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions: The size of what upsets you is often a measure of your maturity.

This statement requires care. It does not mean that serious pain should be minimized. It does not mean that trauma, grief, injustice, betrayal, or abuse should be treated as small matters. It means that our emotional response is shaped not only by what happens but also by how we interpret the event and how much emotional energy we assign to it.

That is the heart of I³, pronounced “I cubed.” Information matters. Interpretation matters. Intensity matters.

When those three elements are examined honestly, maturity becomes more than an age or appearance. It becomes the capacity to respond to life with proportion, resilience, and clear judgment.

The stimulus is not the whole story

People often assume that events carry their emotional meaning automatically.

Someone does not return a call. A friend becomes distant. A family member makes a cutting remark. A stranger criticizes your appearance. A message goes unanswered.

The mind receives information. Then it interprets that information.

Silence becomes rejection. A delayed response becomes contempt. A mistake becomes proof of personal failure. A criticism becomes evidence that you are worthless.

This is the interpretation gap. It is the distance between what you know and what you have concluded.

Research on stress and emotion supports this distinction. The meaning assigned to an event can influence the emotional and physiological response that follows it. Reappraisal, or intentionally considering an event from another perspective, is associated with more adaptive emotional outcomes (Kalia & Knauft, 2020; Troy et al., 2022).

The event remains real. The interpretation becomes more accurate.

That difference can reduce unnecessary emotional intensity.

Maturity is not the absence of emotion

Maturity does not mean that you never feel anger, sadness, fear, embarrassment, or disappointment.

A mature person may feel deeply. The difference is that emotion does not automatically become behavior.

You can feel anger without becoming cruel. You can feel disappointment without becoming punitive. You can feel fear without treating uncertainty as catastrophe. You can feel hurt without turning the injury into your identity.

The American Psychological Association defines resilience as the process and outcome of adapting successfully to difficult experiences through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility. The APA also emphasizes that resilience can be cultivated through practice, coping strategies, and social resources (American Psychological Association, 2022).

This definition matters. Resilience is not emotional numbness. It is not pretending that nothing hurts. It is the ability to recover, adjust, and continue responding to reality.

Psychology Today describes resilience in similar terms: a resilient person is not untouched by adversity but finds a way to heal, change course, and keep moving toward meaningful goals (Psychology Today, 2026).

Maturity, then, is not measured by how little you feel. It is measured by how responsibly you handle what you feel.

Resilience and tough-mindedness

Two qualities help explain the different responses of the five people in the line.

Resilience is the ability to recover from or adjust easily to adversity.

Tough-mindedness is a realistic and unsentimental outlook. It does not demand that life be fair before it permits peace. It does not confuse discomfort with disaster. It does not make every insult a declaration of war.

Tough-mindedness does not require hardness toward people. It requires honesty about circumstances.

A tough-minded person can say:

• “That was unkind, but it does not define me.”
• “This is painful, but it is not permanent.”
• “I made a mistake, but I am not a mistake.”
• “I do not like this situation, but I can decide what I do next.”
• “I need more information before I decide what this means.”

This is not forced positivity. It is disciplined interpretation.

The research literature increasingly connects resilience with emotion regulation, cognitive flexibility, and the ability to recover after emotional activation. A recent study in Frontiers in Psychology identified positive cognition, goal focus, and cognitive reappraisal as important connections between resilience and emotional regulation (Xiang et al., 2025).

That finding aligns with the I³ framework. Interpretation influences intensity. Intensity influences behavior. Behavior influences the consequences that follow.

The right amount of emotional energy

Intensity is not the enemy.

A person needs emotional energy to set boundaries, protect loved ones, confront injustice, leave harmful situations, and pursue meaningful goals. Anger can provide courage. Sadness can reveal attachment. Fear can signal danger. Disappointment can clarify what matters.

The objective is not to eliminate intensity. The objective is to assign the right amount of emotional energy to the situation.

Dr. Stewart’s Panama Canal Rule offers a useful image. A canal lock should not be filled before the previous lock has been secured. In the same way, emotional intensity should not be elevated before information and interpretation have been examined.

First, ask what you actually know.

Next, ask what you are assuming.

Then, decide how much emotional energy the situation deserves.

This sequence protects you from giving a minor event the emotional weight of a catastrophe.

It also protects you from giving a serious event an artificially small response. Mature intensity is proportionate intensity. It does not minimize real harm. It refuses to magnify ordinary difficulty into personal destruction.

Ask the harder question

Chapter 5 offers a demanding question:

Has there ever been anyone who has either had it harder or experienced something worse than I am, and yet came out stronger or was successful?

This is not a competition of suffering. Your pain does not become insignificant because someone else has suffered more.

The question serves another purpose. It interrupts the belief that your present difficulty has the final word.

Someone else’s recovery does not erase your struggle. It demonstrates that struggle and strength can coexist. A difficult history does not make growth impossible. A painful season does not establish a permanent identity.

Research on resilience also cautions against oversimplifying this process. People respond to adversity differently, and resilience depends on context, resources, timing, controllability, and the nature of the event (Troy et al., 2022). A person who has endured hardship is not required to remain composed at every moment. Recovery may take time. Professional support may be necessary.

The point is not to shame yourself for reacting strongly. The point is to become curious about the reaction and ask whether it accurately matches the situation.

Do not confuse suppression with strength

The composed person in the line is not necessarily the healthiest person. Outward calm can conceal inward distress.

This distinction matters. Suppression attempts to hide emotional expression without necessarily changing the underlying emotional experience. Reappraisal changes the meaning assigned to the event. These are not the same process.

Research published in PLOS ONE found that habitual cognitive reappraisal attenuated perceived chronic stress, while expressive suppression intensified the relationship between adversity and stress (Kalia & Knauft, 2020).

Strength does not mean forcing yourself to look unaffected.

Strength means acknowledging what happened, identifying what it means, and choosing a response that serves your values rather than your impulse.

Sometimes maturity looks like a calm conversation. Sometimes it looks like a firm boundary. Sometimes it looks like leaving. Sometimes it looks like asking for help.

Practice measured intensity

Use this sequence the next time something upsets you.

1. Separate information from interpretation

Write down only what you know.

Do not include motives, predictions, or conclusions.

“Your message was not answered” is information.

“They are deliberately disrespecting me” is an interpretation.

2. Identify the emotional meaning

Ask what the event seems to say about your identity, value, or worth.

Does it make you feel rejected, powerless, foolish, unseen, or unsafe?

Naming the meaning often reduces its control.

3. Test the conclusion

Ask:

• What else could this mean?
• What evidence supports my conclusion?
• What evidence challenges it?
• Would I interpret this situation the same way tomorrow?
• Am I responding to the event or to an older wound?

4. Assign proportionate intensity

Decide what the situation deserves.

Not every offense requires confrontation. Not every disappointment requires withdrawal. Not every uncertainty requires a crisis response.

Give the situation enough attention to respond wisely. Do not give it more power than it has earned.

5. Choose recovery over retaliation

Ask what action will help you become stronger, clearer, and more grounded.

You may need to speak. You may need to wait. You may need to forgive. You may need to grieve. You may need to establish distance.

Choose the action that restores your integrity.

Your response is still developing

The size of what upsets you is not a permanent verdict on your maturity.

It is information.

It reveals where your identity, value, and worth may still depend on other people’s words. It reveals which interpretations require examination. It reveals where emotional energy is being spent without producing wisdom.

Approach that information without contempt for yourself.

Maturity develops through repeated practice. You learn to recover. You learn to distinguish danger from discomfort. You learn to let silence remain silence until more information arrives. You learn that a person’s insult may reveal more about the speaker than about you.

You learn to feel the emotion without surrendering your judgment.

That is the work of interior mastery.

To explore the complete I³ framework, watch Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk and read I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity, Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

References

American Psychological Association. (2022). Resilience. https://www.apa.org/topics/resilience

Kalia, V., & Knauft, K. (2020). Emotion regulation strategies modulate the effect of adverse childhood experiences on perceived chronic stress with implications for cognitive flexibility. PLOS ONE, 15(6), e0235412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235412

Modern Psychological Studies. (2026). Modern Psychological Studies journal archive. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/

Psychology Today. (2026). Resilience. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/resilience

The Open Psychology Journal. (2026). The Open Psychology Journal. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/

Troy, A. S., Willroth, E. C., Shallcross, A. J., Brunner, A., Friedman, R., & Jones, M. C. (2022). Psychological resilience: An affect-regulation framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 547–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020122-041854

Xiang, Y., Lu, C., Wei, S., Hao, J., Sun, X., & Chen, Z. (2025). The relationship between psychological resilience and emotion regulation in Chinese adolescents: A psychological network analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1552109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1552109

Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research. (2026). Grit, resilience, and thinking about dropping out of college. https://www.psichi.org/page/JN2026-027-Grit-Resilience-And-Thinking-About-Dropping-Out-Of-College

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

From Devastating to Disappointing: The One Word That Changes How Much Power Others Have Over You

Someone disappoints you. They fail to call. They withdraw. They choose someone else. They break a promise. They reveal themselves to be less honest, less loyal, or less caring than you believed.

Then your mind adds a sentence:

“This is devastating.”

That sentence may feel accurate. Yet it carries more than pain. It places the experience inside your identity, your value, and your worth.

Chapter 5 of Dr. Greg Stewart’s book I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions offers a more precise alternative:

“This is disappointing.”

The difference is not a denial of pain. It is a change in location.

Devastating describes something that has entered the center of your inner world.
Disappointing describes something that happened outside of you.

That single shift can reduce the power another person has over your emotional life.

Devastating Feels Internal. Disappointing Names the Event.

Disappointment is painful because something mattered. You hoped for affection, loyalty, pursuit, respect, or repair. When reality fails to meet that expectation, sadness and frustration naturally follow.

Psychology Today describes rejection sensitivity as a pattern in which ordinary or ambiguous social cues are interpreted as outright rejection. A delayed response, a change in tone, or a canceled plan can become evidence of personal failure or unworthiness (Psychology Today, 2026).

The event may be real. The interpretation may still be inaccurate.

Consider the difference between these two statements:

• “It is devastating that they treated me this way.”
• “It is disappointing that they treated me this way.”

The first statement suggests that the other person’s behavior has become an injury to your core identity. The second acknowledges the behavior while keeping the behavior outside the self.

This is the heart of the distinction. Their conduct may reveal their character, their limitations, their priorities, or their lack of readiness. It does not automatically reveal your worth.

Research on self and identity emphasizes that people construct meaning by connecting experiences to their developing sense of self (McAdams et al., 2021). When every relational disappointment becomes part of your identity story, the experience gains unnecessary permanence.

You are not required to make another person’s failure an autobiography.

The Interpretation Gap Turns Pain Into a Verdict

Dr. Stewart’s I³ framework, pronounced “I cubed,” separates emotional experience into three elements:

1. Information: What happened.
2. Interpretation: What you believe it means.
3. Intensity: How strongly you feel and respond.

The Interpretation Gap appears between the event and the meaning assigned to it.

The information may be simple:

“They did not pursue a relationship with me.”

The interpretation may become much larger:

“I am not worth pursuing.”

That interpretation increases intensity. The disappointment becomes humiliation, despair, anger, shame, or devastation.

Research in PLOS ONE describes negative interpretation bias as the tendency to interpret ambiguous situations in threatening or negative ways. The authors note that such biases can influence emotional responses, although their effects vary according to context and other stable emotional tendencies (Gawlik & Coifman, 2026).

The practical lesson is direct:

A strong emotion does not prove that the interpretation is true.

The American Psychological Association’s literature on emotional intelligence similarly describes emotional intelligence as the ability to perceive, understand, and regulate emotional information so that it can guide thought and action (Ackley, 2016).

That ability begins with a disciplined question:

“What happened, and what am I making it mean?”

The first question gathers information. The second exposes interpretation.

Do not confuse the two.

Wanting Pursuit Is Healthy. Needing It Is Costly.

Chapter 5 also presents an important distinction between want and need.

You may want someone to pursue you. You may want them to express affection, initiate contact, honor their commitments, and demonstrate genuine interest.

Those desires are not weaknesses. They may represent healthy standards for a meaningful relationship.

The emotional danger begins when desire becomes dependence:

• “I want them to pursue me.”
• “I need them to pursue me.”

The first statement expresses preference. The second transfers authority.

When you need another person to validate your worth, their choices become emotional commands. Their attention elevates you. Their distance diminishes you. Their approval becomes a temporary certificate of value.

This creates a fragile emotional formula:

My worth depends on their response.

A stronger formula sounds different:

I want their love, but I do not need their love to know that I am worthy of love.

This does not lower your standards. It clarifies them. You can still decide that a person’s behavior is unacceptable. You can still establish boundaries. You can still leave an unhealthy relationship.

The change occurs inside you. You no longer treat another person’s choice as the author of your identity.

The work of emotional maturity is not to stop wanting connection. It is to stop making connection the condition of your worth.

The Panama Canal Rule: Do Not Fill Lock Three First

The I³ framework uses the Panama Canal Rule to explain emotional sequencing. A ship cannot pass through Lock Three until Locks One and Two are secured.

In the same way, intensity should not be filled before information and interpretation have been examined.

When someone disappoints you, proceed in order.

Lock One: Information

Identify the observable facts.

• What did the person say?
• What did the person do?
• What did the person not do?
• What do you know directly?
• What remains unknown?

Do not build a conclusion from silence. Silence is information about the absence of communication. It is not automatically information about rejection, contempt, or your worth.

Lock Two: Interpretation

Name the story your mind created.

• “They do not care.”
• “I am replaceable.”
• “I was foolish to trust.”
• “No one will ever choose me.”
• “This proves something is wrong with me.”

Then ask:

“Is there another reasonable interpretation?”

Perhaps their behavior reflects avoidance, immaturity, fear, selfishness, confusion, or incompatibility. Some interpretations may still require boundaries. None requires self-condemnation.

Lock Three: Intensity

Only after examining the first two locks should you decide how much emotional energy the situation deserves.

The goal is not emotional numbness. The goal is proportion.

A three-out-of-ten event does not require a ten-out-of-ten response. If the reaction is extreme, ask what older pain, unmet need, or identity belief has joined the present moment.

Disappointment Can Protect Your Identity

The word disappointing does not excuse cruelty. It does not require you to remain available to someone who repeatedly harms you. It does not turn betrayal into a minor inconvenience.

It gives you a more accurate object of attention.

You can say:

“Their actions were disappointing, and I need distance.”

You can say:

“The relationship did not meet my standards, and I will not continue it.”

You can say:

“I wanted them to choose me. They did not. That hurts. It does not define me.”

This kind of language preserves both truth and dignity.

Research in the Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research found that ostracism can threaten belonging, self-esteem, control, and a sense of meaningful existence. The impact can be especially strong when the rejection comes from someone psychologically close (Leiro & Zwolinski, 2014).

The pain is real. The solution is not to pretend otherwise.

The solution is to keep the pain from becoming a verdict.

Research in Modern Psychological Studies also suggests that emotional disclosure and friendship-based support do not produce a simple, universal pathway to higher global self-worth. The relationship between emotional support, negative experiences, and self-worth is more complex than a single conversation or moment of reassurance can resolve (Smith & Medvin, 2016).

Support matters. Yet your worth cannot permanently depend on another person’s ability to provide it.

A More Stable Emotional Sentence

The next time someone disappoints you, replace the first sentence your mind produces.

Instead of:

“It is devastating that they were the way they were.”

Try:

“It is disappointing that they were the way they were.”

Then add:

“Their behavior gives me information. It does not define my identity.”

This is not a slogan. It is an interpretive discipline.

Emotional intelligence requires accurate perception, meaningful self-awareness, and the ability to manage emotional intensity without suppressing the message of the emotion. Research in Frontiers in Psychology describes emotional intelligence as involving the perception, understanding, management, and use of emotional information (Pérez-González et al., 2020).

The Open Psychology Journal likewise presents emotional intelligence as a multidimensional construct involving self-awareness, self-management, empathy, and relational understanding (Chatterji et al., 2023).

These capacities allow you to hold two truths at once:

1. I wanted something meaningful, and I did not receive it.
2. The absence of that desire does not reduce my value.

That is interior mastery.

The Strength Behind the Shift

The movement from devastating to disappointing is a movement from fusion to separation.

You separate:

• Their choices from your identity.
• Their limitations from your worth.
• Your desires from your dependencies.
• The event from the interpretation.
• The interpretation from the intensity.

You may still grieve. You may still feel anger. You may still need to establish a firm boundary. But the other person no longer occupies the center of your emotional life.

You wanted them to pursue you. They did not.

You wanted them to understand you. They did not.

You wanted them to become the person you believed they could be. They did not.

That is disappointing.

It may be painful. It may require a season of grief. It may change the relationship permanently.

It does not have the authority to define who you are.

Learn more about the I³ framework through Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk, and explore the full process in his book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

References

Ackley, D. (2016). Emotional intelligence: A practical review of models, measures, and applications. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68(4), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000070

Chatterji, N., Manohar, S., & Verma, B. (2023). Assessing the influence of graduate characteristics on employer satisfaction: A multi-dimensional analysis. The Open Psychology Journal, 16. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/VOLUME/16/ELOCATOR/e187435012308030/PDF/

Gawlik, E., & Coifman, K. (2026). Negative interpretation bias and emotional responses to positive contexts. PLOS ONE, 21(7), e0353912. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0353912

Leiro, J., & Zwolinski, J. (2014). How are prosocial responses to ostracism related to thwarted psychological needs? Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 19(2), 82–92. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.psichi.org/resource/resmgr/journal_2014/Summer14JNLeiro.pdf

McAdams, D. P., Trzesniewski, K., Lilgendahl, J., Benet-Martínez, V., & Robins, R. W. (2021). Self and identity in personality psychology. Personality Science, 2, Article e6035. https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6035

Pérez-González, J.-C., Saklofske, D. H., & Mavroveli, S. (2020). Editorial: Trait emotional intelligence: Foundations, assessment, and education. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 608. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00608

Psychology Today. (2026). Rejection sensitivity. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/rejection-sensitivity

Smith, N. D. W., & Medvin, M. B. (2016). The role of self-disclosure in buffering negative feelings within adolescent friendships. Modern Psychological Studies, 21(2), Article 3. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol21/iss2/3/

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Stop Outsourcing Your Self-Worth: Why Other People Should Never Be in Your Value Formula

A delayed reply arrives. A friend becomes distant. Someone you love stops pursuing you with the same energy. No explanation appears.

The silence begins.

Then your mind supplies an interpretation:

I am not important to them. I must have done something wrong. Perhaps I am no longer lovable.

This is the interpretation gap: the space between what you actually know and what your mind concludes. The information may be simple. The person has not called. The interpretation becomes personal. Your emotional intensity rises.

Chapter 5 of Dr. Greg Stewart’s book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity , Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions, confronts this pattern directly. At some point, every person must consciously remove every other human being from the formula of their value and worth (Stewart, n.d.).

This does not mean that relationships are unimportant. It means that relationships cannot serve as the final authority on your dignity.

Your worth cannot depend on pursuit

Many people carry an unspoken equation:

If they pursue me, I matter. If they validate me, I am valuable. If they like me, I am worthy.

That equation creates an unstable emotional life. It gives other people control over your internal condition. Their attention raises you. Their silence diminishes you. Their criticism becomes a verdict.

The American Psychological Association summarized research showing that people who base their self-worth on external sources, including appearance, approval, and performance, report more stress, anger, relationship conflict, and other mental health concerns (Dittmann, 2002). The problem is not receiving approval. The problem is requiring approval to remain emotionally intact.

Psychology Today describes a similar pattern as an external-validation model. When people depend on praise to feel secure, the absence of praise can produce anxiety even when nothing objectively negative has occurred (Rosenhaft, 2023).

The remedy is not emotional isolation. The remedy is internal authority.

Say the sentence clearly:

I do not need them to pursue or validate me. I want them to, but I do not need them to.

Wanting is healthy. Needing is dangerous.

Healthy relationships involve safety and pursuit. You should want relationships in which people are reliable, attentive, affectionate, and willing to move toward you. You should notice when someone consistently withdraws, dismisses, or mistreats you.

Removing another person from your value formula does not redefine a healthy relationship. It refines your response when the relationship fails to provide what you desire.

You can say:

• “I want to be pursued.”
• “I want to feel chosen.”
• “I want my feelings to be understood.”
• “I want mutual effort.”
• “I want safety and emotional presence.”

You can also say:

• “Their failure to provide these things does not determine my worth.”
• “Their lack of interest may reveal a relational mismatch.”
• “Their rejection may hurt me without defining me.”
• “Their interpretation of me is not the whole truth about me.”

This distinction protects both discernment and dignity. It prevents you from calling an unhealthy relationship healthy merely because you no longer need anything from it. It also prevents you from calling yourself worthless because another person did not recognize your value.

Research published in Frontiers in Psychology found that self-esteem and emotional expression influence relationship satisfaction. People with stronger self-esteem may communicate more openly, while emotional expression can contribute to relational satisfaction (Yang et al., 2025). Stable self-worth does not weaken relationships. It allows you to participate in them without turning every interaction into an examination of your value.

The interpretation gap turns silence into rejection

Information is not interpretation.

A person has not responded. That is information.

“They do not care about me” is an interpretation.

The interpretation may be accurate. It may also be false. You do not know until you have more information.

The space between those two statements is the interpretation gap. When your value depends on another person’s response, the gap becomes dangerous. Your mind rushes to fill the silence because uncertainty feels unbearable.

The smoke detector principle helps explain this reaction. The brain often prefers a false alarm to the possibility of missing a threat. A delayed response may be neutral, but your nervous system may treat it as evidence of abandonment. A brief change in tone may become proof of disapproval. A canceled plan may become evidence that you are unwanted.

The I³ framework provides a disciplined sequence:

1. Information: What do I know without interpretation?
2. Interpretation: What meaning am I assigning to the information?
3. Intensity: What emotional and physical response follows?

Consider the difference:

• Information: “They have not returned my call.”
• Interpretation: “I am not important to them.”
• Intensity: anxiety, shame, anger, or desperation.

The interpretation creates much of the intensity. That does not make the emotion imaginary. It means the emotion contains information about the meaning you have assigned.

Pause before you treat that meaning as fact.

Other people see only part of you

No person has complete access to your history, motives, pain, resilience, or private effort. Every opinion about you is formed through another person’s information, personality, experiences, assumptions, and limitations.

That is the interpretation gap between who you are and how you are perceived.

A person may undervalue you because they do not understand your strengths. Someone may reject you because your values do not fit their preferences. Someone may mistreat you because of their own unresolved wounds. None of these possibilities automatically proves that you are worthy of continued access to the relationship. They do prove that another person’s response cannot serve as a complete measurement of your human value.

Research on social exclusion demonstrates how quickly rejection can threaten belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence (Leiro & Zwolinski, 2014). Research published in PLOS ONE likewise connects ageism and social devaluation with poorer health outcomes across populations (Chang et al., 2020). Social feedback affects people deeply. That is precisely why you must distinguish its emotional impact from its authority.

A reaction can hurt without being true.

Remove people from the formula, not from your life

The goal is not detachment. The goal is interior mastery.

You still need people. Human beings require belonging, affection, support, and meaningful connection. A recent article in The Open Psychology Journal found a positive relationship between self-esteem and life satisfaction among Argentine emigrants living in Spain (Ferro et al., 2026). Connection matters. Recognition matters. But neither should become the foundation upon which your entire identity rests.

The distinction is simple:

People may contribute to your joy. They must not determine your worth.

Practice removing other people from your value formula in four areas.

1. Remove their pursuit from your identity

If they pursue you, receive it with gratitude. If they do not, assess the relationship honestly. Do not convert their absence into a statement about your value.

2. Remove their validation from your emotional survival

Welcome encouragement. Learn from constructive feedback. Do not require constant reassurance to remain steady.

3. Remove their preferences from your self-definition

Someone’s preference is not a universal judgment. It is one person’s interpretation, shaped by one person’s history.

4. Remove their approval from your boundaries

You may disappoint someone and remain a good person. You may say no and remain worthy of respect. You may leave a relationship that lacks safety and pursuit without proving that you are unlovable.

Modern psychological literature consistently distinguishes between internal sources of self-respect and contingent sources of self-evaluation. Your value becomes more stable when it rests on character, integrity, responsibility, and alignment with your principles rather than on fluctuating approval (Modern Psychological Studies, n.d.).

Apply the Panama Canal Rule

The Panama Canal Rule offers a practical image for emotional regulation. A canal controls the movement of water through a series of locks. It does not deny the water. It regulates the passage.

Use the same discipline with emotional information.

Do not allow one person’s silence to flood your entire identity. Place the experience in a lock. Observe it. Name it. Determine what it means and what it does not mean.

Ask:

• What happened?
• What am I assuming?
• What else could be true?
• What does this reveal about the relationship?
• What does this not reveal about my worth?
• What response reflects my values?

This is not forced positivity. It is accurate interpretation.

When you practice the Panama Canal Rule, you allow yourself to want love without begging for it. You allow yourself to desire pursuit without collapsing when it does not occur. You allow disappointment to remain disappointment rather than turning it into self-condemnation.

The sentence that restores your freedom

Repeat this sentence until it becomes familiar:

I do not need them to pursue or validate me. I want them to, but I do not need them to.

Let the sentence create space between desire and dependence.

You may want someone to choose you. You may want to be admired. You may want a reply, an apology, an invitation, or a tender word. These desires are human. They become destructive only when you make them conditions for your worth.

Your identity is larger than another person’s response.

Your value is deeper than another person’s interpretation.

Your worth is not a vote.

To explore the I³ framework in greater depth, watch Dr. Greg Stewart’s TEDx talk on the inner strength behind negative emotions. You can also read the full framework in his book, I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity , Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions.

For professional counseling support, visit Becoming More Counseling or call 469-485-0387.

References

American Psychological Association. (2002). Self-esteem based on external sources has mental health consequences, study says. Monitor on Psychology, 33(11). https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec02/selfesteem

Chang, E. S., Kannoth, S., Levy, S., Wang, S.-Y., Lee, J. E., & Levy, B. R. (2020). Global reach of ageism on older persons’ health: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 15(1), e0220857. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220857

Ferro, O., Simkin, H., & Nieri, L. (2026). Satisfaction with life and its relationship with acculturation, self-esteem, and personality of Argentine emigrants living in Spain. The Open Psychology Journal, 19. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/VOLUME/19/ELOCATOR/e18743501440888/FULLTEXT/

Leiro, J., & Zwolinski, J. (2014). How are prosocial responses to ostracism related to thwarted psychological needs? Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.psichi.org/resource/resmgr/journal_2014/Summer14JNLeiro.pdf

Modern Psychological Studies. (n.d.). Modern Psychological Studies. Publication resource on contemporary psychological research.

Rosenhaft, A. (2023). Stop relying on external validation. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/from-both-sides-of-the-couch/202310/stop-relying-on-external-validation

Stewart, G. (n.d.). I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity : Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions. Amazon. https://a.co/d/cQ93cyo

Yang, Y., Wu, Y., & Song, J. (2025). The influence of individual and partner self-esteem on relationship satisfaction: Evidence from freshman using actor-partner interdependence model. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1673074. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1673074

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart

Stop Being Bullied: The Case for Taking Responsibility for Your Own Emotional Power

Someone says something cruel. You feel the heat rise in your face. Your mind replays the words. Hours later, the insult still occupies the room inside you.

The other person has gone on with the day. You remain emotionally captured.

Bullying is wrong. Cruelty is wrong. Harassment is wrong. Responsibility for harmful behavior belongs to the person who chooses it.

Yet another responsibility remains. It is yours.

You are responsible for understanding what happens inside you after the insult. You are responsible for choosing your next action. You are responsible for deciding whether another person’s words will become a permanent authority inside your mind.

This is not blame. It is power.

The missing message: stop being bullied

Much of the public conversation rightly focuses on stopping bullying behavior. Children and adults need clear protection from intimidation, humiliation, exclusion, threats, and abuse.

We also need a second message:

Stop being bullied internally.

The external bully may be difficult to control. Your internal interpretation is more available to you.

Research consistently connects bullying victimization with lower well-being, anxiety, depression, diminished self-esteem, and reduced perceived control (PLOS ONE, 2023). These effects are serious. They should never be minimized.

But research also identifies resilience, self-efficacy, emotional regulation, and supportive relationships as protective factors. These capacities do not excuse the bully. They help restore the targeted person’s agency.

The American Psychological Association emphasizes that effective responses to bullying include support, safety, reporting, and constructive coping (American Psychological Association, n.d.). Taking responsibility for your emotional power belongs in that same framework.

Separate blame from responsibility

Blame asks, “Who caused this?”

Responsibility asks, “What is mine to manage now?”

The bully is responsible for the insult. The bully is responsible for the threat. The bully is responsible for the choice to harm.

You are responsible for your emotional response, your boundaries, your support system, and your next wise action.

That distinction matters. Without it, you may make one of two errors.

First, you may blame yourself for being mistreated. That is false and destructive.

Second, you may place all emotional power in the environment. You may decide that peace is possible only when the bully changes, apologizes, understands, or disappears.

That position leaves your well-being in someone else’s hands.

Healthy responsibility says:

“Their behavior is theirs. My interpretation and response are mine.”

Psychology Today has described emotional boundaries as a way to distinguish your feelings and responsibilities from another person’s feelings and responsibilities (Psychology Today, 2025). A boundary does not control another person. It clarifies what you will permit, how you will respond, and when you will leave or seek help.

Why the insult has emotional power

In Chapter 4 of I³: Information, Interpretation, Intensity – Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions, Dr. Greg Stewart presents a direct question: Why does this person’s opinion have power over you?

When an insult triggers you, consider three possibilities.

1. The criticism is true, but you do not want it exposed

Perhaps someone identifies a weakness you already recognize. The appropriate response is not humiliation. It is honest self-regard.

See the truth. Accept your present condition. Decide what requires attention. Apologize when necessary. Make a plan. Work.

Truth can refine you. It does not have to imprison you.

2. The criticism is false, but you believe it

A false statement can still wound you if it agrees with an insecurity already living inside you.

Someone says, “You are worthless.” The statement is untrue. But if your internal interpretation says, “Perhaps I am,” the emotional intensity rises.

The solution is not to debate every critic. The solution is to examine the belief the critic activated.

Ask:

• What did I hear?
• What did I immediately conclude?
• What evidence supports that conclusion?
• What evidence contradicts it?
• What would I say to someone I love in the same situation?

This is the work of closing the interpretation gap.

3. The statement is gossip

Gossip often carries the illusion of authority. Someone says that someone else said something about you, and you begin defending yourself against an audience that may not exist.

Return to the facts. Do not build a courtroom around hearsay.

If a specific person has a concern, that person can address it directly. You do not need to carry every opinion through your day.

The I³ sequence: information, interpretation, intensity

The I³ framework: pronounced “I cubed”: offers a disciplined way to examine emotional escalation:

Information → Interpretation → Intensity

Information is what happened.

Interpretation is the meaning you assigned to what happened.

Intensity is the emotional energy generated by that meaning.

Consider a simple example:

• Information: Someone looks at you and laughs.
• Interpretation: They are laughing at me because I am embarrassing.
• Intensity: Shame, anger, anxiety, and the urge to retaliate.

The interpretation may be correct. It may also be incomplete. Perhaps the person received a message. Perhaps they remembered something unrelated. Perhaps they were laughing at you. The information alone does not settle the meaning.

This is the Panama Canal Rule. Do not dam the emotion. Channel it through examination.

Ask what you know. Identify what you inferred. Then choose the right emotional response.

That response may include sadness, anger, caution, or grief. Emotional mastery does not mean feeling nothing. It means refusing to inflate a feeling beyond what the facts justify.

“Nothing bothers me, unless it should”

This mental model does not mean that nothing matters. It means that every emotional reaction deserves examination.

Some things should bother you.

Threats should bother you. Repeated harassment should bother you. Violence should bother you. Abuse should bother you. These situations require protection, documentation, support, and decisive action.

Other things may not deserve the same intensity.

A stranger’s opinion may not deserve an afternoon of rumination. A careless remark may not deserve a permanent revision of your self-image. A critic’s insecurity may not deserve residence in your mind.

The RHWR grid helps you evaluate the situation:

• Is my interpretation rational?
• Is my response healthy?
• Is my next action wise?
• Is it right, meaning consistent with my values and responsibilities?

Use the grid before you use your voice. Use it before you send the message. Use it before you accept the insult as a definition.

The doctor-checkup reframe

Imagine a person receiving a medical diagnosis. The diagnosis may be painful. It may require treatment. But the patient does not become more healthy by attacking the doctor for naming the condition.

The same principle applies to personal criticism.

If criticism exposes a genuine weakness, receive the information. You do not need to enjoy it. You need to use it.

If a person says, “You are too aggressive,” examine your conduct. If you have harmed someone, acknowledge it and change.

If a person says, “You are worthless,” there is no useful diagnosis in the statement. It reveals more about the speaker’s conduct than your value.

This is the central mental model:

The issue is not what they think of you. The issue is what you think of you.

Self-regard requires an objective view of strengths and weaknesses. It does not require perfection. It requires accuracy.

A response that removes the fuel

In the chapter’s example, two girls insult one another by calling each other ugly or fat. One girl responds to the insult by agreeing in an unexpected way:

“I agree. I have connected with a nutritionist and signed up for a gym membership.”

The bully is stunned because the insult no longer produces the expected injury.

This example is not a universal script. Do not confront a dangerous person merely to prove emotional strength. Do not agree with abusive language that places you at risk. Do not treat a child’s safety concern as a character-building exercise.

The principle is more important than the wording.

When you no longer need to defend your worth against every accusation, the aggressor loses access to your identity. You can answer calmly, disengage, document the behavior, report it, or leave.

That is emotional power.

Take action without taking blame

If bullying is occurring, use practical protection.

Tell someone trustworthy. Save messages and records. Stay near people who support your safety. Use clear boundaries when it is safe to do so. Leave escalating situations. Seek professional or emergency assistance when threats, violence, stalking, or abuse are present.

Do not confuse inner responsibility with solitary endurance.

Resilience is not isolation. Research associates resilience with supportive relationships, self-efficacy, adaptive regulation, and the belief that constructive action remains possible (Frontiers in Psychology, 2022; Open Psychology Journal, 2015).

Your goal is not to convince yourself that the environment has no effect. Your goal is to refuse to give the environment total authority over your interior life.

You can say:

“I gladly and willingly free you from all burden, concern, or responsibility for my negative emotions.”

Then add the necessary second sentence:

“I accept responsibility for my interpretation, my boundaries, my actions, and my healing.”

This is not surrender. It is reclamation.

Begin the refining work

Insecurity often survives because it remains vague. Give it information.

Write down the exact words. Separate fact from interpretation. Name the fear beneath the reaction. Identify the emotional goal. Decide what response is rational, healthy, wise, and right.

Then act.

Perhaps you need to apologize. Perhaps you need to report the behavior. Perhaps you need to leave the relationship. Perhaps you need to challenge an old belief. Perhaps you need to accept a truth and begin changing.

The refining fire does not destroy what is valuable. It removes what cannot remain.

Interior mastery is possible. Peace is possible. The environment may still contain cruelty, ignorance, and injustice. It does not have to govern your identity.

Read Dr. Greg Stewart’s book, I³: Unlock the Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions, for a deeper examination of information, interpretation, intensity, emotional goals, and the disciplined management of negative emotion.

You can also watch Dr. Stewart’s TEDx talk, “The Inner Strength Behind Your Negative Emotions”.

For professional counseling support, visit Becoming More Counseling.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Bullying prevention and intervention. https://www.apa.org/ed/schools/primer/bullying

Beck, B. (2003). Birth order and locus of control. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.psichi.org/resource/resmgr/journal_2003/Fall03_Beck.pdf

Frontiers in Psychology. (2022). Research on bullying, emotional regulation, resilience, and locus of control. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.988003/full

Open Psychology Journal. (2015). The cause or consequence of peer victimization in childhood? Effects on perceptions of control and loneliness. The Open Psychology Journal. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/contents/volumes/V8/TOPSYJ-8-78/TOPSYJ-8-78.pdf

PLOS ONE. (2023). Research on peer victimization, internalizing symptoms, self-esteem, and psychological well-being. PLOS ONE. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0282224

Psychology Today. (2025). How to build better boundaries. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anxiety-in-high-achievers/202501/how-to-build-better-boundaries

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

White, L., Hammonds, F., & Valkyrie, K. T. (2014). Bullying: Bullies, victims, and witnesses. Modern Psychological Studies, 20(1). https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol20/iss1/2/

Try Marblism! They are an incredible staff! Click here: https://marblism.com?via=dr-greg-stewart