Bill Eddy: How to Deal With High Conflict People

Andrew Huberman:
Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast, where we discuss science and science-based tools for everyday life. I'm Andrew Huberman, and I'm a professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford School of Medicine. My guest today is Bill Eddy. Bill Eddy is a practicing lawyer, a professional mediator, a licensed therapist, and on the faculty of the School of Law at Pepperdine University. He is a world expert in conflict resolution, in particular, how to resolve conflicts with what are called high-conflict personalities. I should be very clear that these high-conflict personalities, as you'll learn today, are not in a category of so-called personality disorders. Now, it is the case that people with high-conflict personalities often also have borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, or suffer from bipolar depression. However, as you'll soon learn, people who have this high-conflict personality type could fall into any one of those three different categories, any combination of them, or none of them at all. These high-conflict personalities essentially come in two flavors. Some are very outwardly combative. They like to argue. They like to generate conflict in a way that's very overt, very obvious. The others, which comprise about 50% of high-conflict personality types, are very passive. They play the victim, or they leverage other people, so-called negative advocates, in order to achieve their goal of creating a lot of conflict where they always appear as the victim. During today's discussion, you'll learn how to identify these high-conflict personality types based on some very simple questions that you can ask yourself about them. He also explains how to deal with these people in the workplace setting, in relationships, and importantly, of course, how to disengage from these people, not just in the short term, but permanently. Now, across today's discussion, you'll realize that Bill Eddy is very sensitive both to the suffering that high-conflict personalities cause for other people, and therefore how to identify them, avoid them, and disengage from them. But he also makes it a point not to demonize these high-conflict personality types. Instead, as a mediator, as a lawyer, and as a therapist, he is really most interested in helping people resolve their conflicts with these people and find the best, most peaceful path forward for conflict resolution. Dr. Bill Eddy is the author of several important books related to this topic and related topics, such as "Five Types of People That Can Ruin Your Life." It's an excellent book. I've read it, and I highly recommend it for everyone. He's also written books about adult bullies, which are becoming increasingly common online and in real life, and about mediating conflict resolution and separations and things like divorce and in family court situations where he spent a lot of his professional career as a lawyer. By the end of today's episode, you will have a lot of new practical tools for being able to identify these high-conflict personality types and learning how to navigate forward and, frankly, away from them in the best way possible. Before we begin, I'd like to emphasize that this podcast is separate from my teaching and research roles at Stanford. It is, however, part of my desire and effort to bring zero cost to consumer information about science and science-related tools to the general public. In keeping with that theme, I'd like to thank the sponsors of today's podcast. Our first sponsor is Maui Nui Venison. Maui Nui Venison is 100% wild harvested venison from the island of Maui, and it is the most nutrient-dense and delicious red meat available. I've spoken before on this podcast about the fact that most of us should be consuming about one gram of quality protein per pound of body weight every day. That protein provides critical building blocks for things like muscle repair and synthesis, but it also promotes overall health given the importance of muscle tissue as an organ. Eating enough quality protein each day is also a terrific way to stave off hunger. One of the key things, however, is to make sure that you're getting enough quality protein without ingesting excess calories. Maui Nui Venison has an extremely high quality protein per calorie ratio, so that getting one gram of quality protein per pound of body weight is both easy and doesn't cause you to ingest an excess of calories. Also, Maui Nui Venison is absolutely delicious. They have venison steaks, ground venison, and venison bone broth. I personally like all of those. In fact, I probably eat a Maui Nui Venison burger pretty much every day, and occasionally I'll swap that for a Maui Nui steak. And if you're traveling a lot or you're simply on the go, they have Maui Nui venison sticks, which have 10 grams of protein per stick at just 55 calories, and they're extremely convenient. You can pretty much take them anywhere. If you'd like to try Maui Nui Venison, you can go to mauinuivenison.com/huberman to get 20% off your membership or first order. Again, that's mauinuivenison.com/huberman. Today's episode is also brought to us by ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN is a virtual private network that keeps your data secure and private. It does that by routing your internet activity through their servers and encrypting it so that no one can see or sell your data. Now, I'm familiar with the effects of not securing my data well enough. Several years ago, I had one of my bank accounts hacked, and it was a terrible amount of work to have that reversed and for the account to be secured. When that happened, I talked to my friends in the tech community, and what they told me was that even though you think your internet connection may be secure, oftentimes it's not, especially if you're using Wi-Fi networks such as those on planes, in hotels, at coffee shops, and other public places. Surprisingly, even at home, your data might not be as secure as you think. To make sure that what I described before would never happen to me again, I started using ExpressVPN. The great thing about ExpressVPN is that I don't even notice that it's running since the connection it provides is so fast. I have it on my computer and on my phone, and I keep it on whenever I'm connected to the internet. With ExpressVPN, I know everything is secure, my web browsing, all my passwords, all my data, and of course, anything that's behind an account wall, like a bank account. It can't be tracked and no one can access or steal your data, which is terrific. If you'd like to start protecting your internet activity using ExpressVPN, you can go to expressvpn.com/huberman, and you can get an extra three months free. Again, that's expressvpn.com/huberman to get an extra three months free. And now for my discussion with Bill Eddy. Bill Eddy, welcome.

Bill Eddy:
Thanks so much for having me. I'm excited to discuss this with you.

Andrew Huberman:
I've read your books. I learned about them from perhaps one of the smartest people I know. She said, "You should check out this book called 'Five Types of People That Can Ruin Your Life.'" And I said, "Well, that's an impressive title." And I tore through the book, learned a ton. You have a number of other books. I mentioned them in my introduction, and I suppose it's appropriate to say that you are an expert in conflict, conflict resolution, and in particular, how to deal with people that are high conflict. So maybe you could just tell us what a high conflict person is, how common are these people, and how does this overlap with some of the more traditional, quote-unquote, "diagnoses of personality disorders?"

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. It's fascinating because I started out as a clinical social worker working with children and families in psychiatric hospitals, outpatient clinics, but I really like conflict resolution. So I went to law school to get a law degree so I could do mediation, other conflict resolution, and I practice family law. And when I started in family court, I noticed right away that a lot of the conflict seemed to be driven by people's personalities rather than the legal issue, because I was also doing mediation in my office. I go to court in the morning, do mediation in the afternoon, same exact issues. In the morning, people were stuck for two or three years. In the afternoon, two or three mediation sessions, shook hands, went separate ways. So in family court, a lot of people aren't familiar with this, but since the 1980s, there's been the use of the term high conflict families. And family court lawyers, judges, mediators, therapists identified high conflict families as repeatedly coming to court to make decisions, as having a lot of hostility, of just seeming driven in one direction, unable to be flexible, and in many ways, unable to truly have empathy for their kids, so they'd fight over their kids. And so high conflict families was a term when I became a lawyer in 1993, I was like, "Wait a minute, these aren't high conflict families." These have maybe one, maybe two people with high conflict personalities or traits of personality disorders, which I knew about since 1980 and working in hospitals and outpatient clinics.

Andrew Huberman:
Because you're also a clinical psychologist.

Bill Eddy:
Clinical social work.

Andrew Huberman:
Clinical social worker.

Bill Eddy:
So I got a master's in social work in 1981. Then I got licensed to do therapy on my own. So I'm a licensed clinical social worker in California. I can diagnose disorders. I can do treatment without supervision. I went through that, and that's how I became licensed. So when I came into family court, I go, "This is the same patterns when I was working, say, with people in the psychiatric hospital who had addictions, depression, all these problems," and my job as the hospital social worker was to help them with their outside problems, their family problems. So I did family counseling for the patients. With their job, maybe their employer wanted to fire them because of their behavior, and I tried to help keep their job. Maybe they were getting evicted. Their landlord couldn't stand their behavior. And I'd solve one problem, and I'd go, "I've got you into marriage counseling, and your husband or wife's committed to working on the relationship." And I'd go, "Yay, I accomplished something." Next day, "Bill, my landlord, wants to kick me out." Okay. I'd convince their landlord to give them one more chance. "Yay. Bill, my job, wants to fire me. Can you help?" What they have is a pattern of conflict behavior that doesn't get resolved, and that's the high conflict families that I saw in family court. So that's where that connection came from, which I would not have arrived at if I hadn't been a therapist and also a lawyer.

Andrew Huberman:
My understanding from reading your book is that this high conflict personality phenotype is equally distributed between men and women. What is the percentage of people that have this high conflict phenotype? And then maybe we can drill into a little bit of how that shows up, its different forms of expression.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. Well, let me say a little bit about the difference between high conflict personalities and personality disorders, because we have a lot of research on personality disorders, including statistics, which I'll give you. We don't have a lot of research on high conflict personalities. People have talked about it, like I said, since the 1980s in family court. And my own observations with thousands of cases of high conflict personalities is it's pretty much men and women. My law practice, I represented pretty much 50/50 men and women, mostly custody disputes, mothers and fathers. So I got a good impression. Personality disorders, there's a lot of research on, and I mention in the book some statistics, and they came from the personality disorder research. So what they found, they studied the 10 personality disorders. In the early 2000s, a big study, National Institutes of Health, the alcoholism subdivision of NIH. They wanted to see how prevalent personality disorders were with substance abuse, with domestic conflicts, with criminal behavior, and workplace conflicts. And so this study, they looked at all 10 personalities, came up with numbers for each. Five of them seem prone to high-conflict behavior. So these five I can give you statistics on, and I can give you a breakdown, male and female, all from 20 years ago, big study, because it hasn't been repeated since. So basically, Cluster B, that's narcissistic, borderline, antisocial, histrionic, but we see a lot of paranoid in legal disputes, and some research says paranoid personality disorder is the most likely to sue their employer of the personality disorders. So that's gotten attention, too. So here's some numbers. First of all, narcissistic personality disorder, they found was about 6% of adults in the United States. They found the statistics on that was 38% female and 62% male. So that's more heavily male, 20 years ago. Could be different now because of environmental influences. Borderline, also about 6%. This was 53% female, 47% male, almost 50/50. And that shocked the mental health world, because we've always thought of borderline as a female disorder. But Marsha Linehan, the big name in treatment for borderline, says she agrees. She thinks that's true, and I think that's true as a family lawyer because a lot of the men that we see engaged in domestic violence seem to have the borderline personality pattern, and the domestic violence is much more male than female. Then antisocial, it's around 4%, and that's about 75% male, 25% female. Histrionic is about 2%, and they found this is about 50/50, which again, surprised people, because you think drama, center of attention, all of that. And this may be very much environmental influence. Our culture today teaches, especially young men, to try to get attention. Ride your skateboard behind a car or jump off a building, do all these dramatic things to get attention.

Andrew Huberman:
Or social media.

Bill Eddy:
And social media's really encouraged that. Everyone wants attention, and now you kind of have to fight for it in our culture. And so men as well as women are getting out there often in dramatic ways. So it came out about 50/50. Paranoid, it's about 4%, came out, I think it was 57% to 43%, somewhere right around that. A little more heavily female, but not all that far apart. Altogether, it's really roughly 50/50.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm. Very interesting. And how does this high-conflict personality cut through all these personality disorder phenotypes? Oh, and I should also ask, I could imagine that some people who are borderline, perhaps, are also histrionic. Is that possible to fall-

Bill Eddy:
There can be

Andrew Huberman:
... into multiple categories?

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
Okay.

Bill Eddy:
And the study actually broke down some of that. So in the research, particularly one that I remember is borderline and narcissists, and it came out around 38% overlap. So, and I teach-

Andrew Huberman:
People who are borderline also can often be narcissists.

Bill Eddy:
Have narcissistic personality disorder.

Andrew Huberman:
I see.

Bill Eddy:
And so this is personality disorder overlap. Now, there's a whole continuum here. So many people have traits but don't have a disorder.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm.

Bill Eddy:
The current DSM says the total personality disorders is around 10%. Now, that's taking an average of studies from around the world. The study I quoted earlier in the US said 15% have a personality disorder. So in the US, we're seeing that's significant. That's the one that said 38% overlap borderlines and narcissists. I think that it fits for me, because when I teach lawyers from my own experience, I can say, "You have a client that comes on like a narcissist. They're very self-centered and putting you down, saying they're superior. Here are some tips to deal with them." But they also may have wide mood swings, which is more associated with borderline. So you need to butter up their ego honestly, praise them for something that's real that they did. But also, they really need empathy. They have wide mood swings, that's someone that needs a lot of empathy. Say, "Wow, I can see how upset you are. This is so important," and they calm down. So you have to use both sets of responses to deal with someone that has that combination. You mentioned borderline and histrionic. There's a lot of similarities, so we see overlap with that. But I've seen every combination. But what I don't know in family court is, is it the disorder or just traits? And the disorder doesn't matter to me. It's the pattern that matters, because if I see this pattern, I know I should do that. That's the key.

Andrew Huberman:
I can imagine that in family court it's especially complicated given that some of these things, not all, but some of these have a genetic component, certainly a situational component. So you could potentially be dealing with trying to work out a situation for the benefit of children that have some of the same personality disorders as their parents. Could be really tricky.

Bill Eddy:
Well, what's interesting, and it's very rewarding work when things can go well, when the lawyers get it, the judge gets it, everyone gets it, what's happening, they can make orders that fit the situation and help protect children from bad behavior and help get parents some help. So substance abuse is a bigger issue in family court than personality disorders, but almost neck and neck. We talk about substance abuse all the time openly. There's treatment. Everyone recognizes the signs. We don't talk about personality disorders in our culture, and that's like flying under the radar.

Andrew Huberman:
So Ari, I'm just going to pause you for a second there. I think it's such a key point, in a very interesting paper that you sent me, which by the way, I'll provide a link to in our show note captions.

Bill Eddy:
Great.

Andrew Huberman:
It essentially kicks off by saying that the movement toward explaining to people what alcohol, I think they now call it alcohol use disorder or alcoholism-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... was and is in the 1970s and '80s, was a crucial move forward for the judicial system.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
And I think nowadays, people generally understand that addiction is not just a lack of willpower.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
That there are brain circuits that become hijacked by substances or behaviors, that these brain circuits were designed to promote our adaptive evolution, but they can be hijacked by behaviors and substances that render people really just unable to control their addictive behavior.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
I think nowadays that box is checked.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
And it's wonderful that the judicial system understands that, right? Because then it can work with that. I don't think that the general public has yet come to the full appreciation of these personality disorders and these high-conflict personalities and how pervasive they are, probably because of their prevalence. It's just sort of all around us and in all sorts of interactions.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And here's the question, high-conflict interactions tend to be quote unquote "dramatic."

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And there tends to be almost a reward for dramatic behavior, as you said, online, in politics, in the media. The more dramatic, the more salience. The more salience, the more people click, the more the people watch. And then the algorithms are designed to look at dwell time, which is nerd speak for how long people look at stuff. And so you could see how this stuff could be fed in the same way that for nearly 75 years leading up to the 1970s, alcohol use disorder was sort of fed by the culture. You have your 5:00 PM happy hour.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Coming up in science, I would go to scientific meetings, and it was like, "Okay, five o'clock hits. Let's all drink." And I always thought, this is kind of crazy, especially given that there was also a lot of concern about the kinds of interactions that drinking can create in the work environment.

Bill Eddy:
It leads to high-conflict behavior.

Andrew Huberman:
Exactly. So anyway, I don't want to riff too long on this, but first of all, this is just lauding the important work that you're doing. Second, how should we think about this high-conflict personality phenotype? Should we be calling people out like, "Oh, hey, that's a narcissist. Hey, that's a borderline histrionic person." Or is there a more, I guess, something that embraces a little bit more of the humanity and the real issue at hand? I think that's what you're trying to do.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah, absolutely. And you may have seen me shaking my head no when you said, "Should we point this out to people?" That's the last thing you want to do. In fact, don't do that. And the reason why is personality disorders-- Oh, let me just quickly distinguish between personality disorders, high-conflict personalities. The difference, and there's a chart in the beginning of the book with two circles overlapping, a lot of overlap, but the main thing about personality disorders is they're stuck in a narrow range of interpersonal behavior. So some aren't high-conflict people, some are. Thing about high-conflict people is that they're preoccupied with blame, that blaming others is a big part of their life. So when you're dealing with a high-conflict person who's blaming and has a personality disorder, you get a stuck pattern of behavior. You get high-conflict personalities or high-conflict people. So they're persistent in acting that way. That's the overlap with personality disorders is they don't reflect, they don't change, they just keep blaming everybody out there. So recognizing that difference and similarity. So about half of people, I think, with personality disorders, and this is just my estimate, have high-conflict personalities and about half don't. I've worked with borderlines in the psych hospital, narcissists that don't blame other people, narcissists that are just self-centered, and borderlines who are more frustrated with themselves than anybody else. So that's an important distinction.

Andrew Huberman:
You beautifully distinguish between high-conflict personalities and these personality disorders. And I just want to make sure everyone hears again that about half of people with personality disorders would fall into this high-conflict personality-

Bill Eddy:
In my estimation.

Andrew Huberman:
Right.

Bill Eddy:
I don't have research yet.

Andrew Huberman:
Right. And the distinguishing feature seems to be that high-conflict personalities are often or constantly casting blame on others for the difficulties of their life, essentially.

Bill Eddy:
And that's why they have conflicts. And they escalate instead of getting worked on and resolved.

Andrew Huberman:
So I can imagine that the high-conflict person doesn't always appear as high conflict. In fact, this is something that you've alluded to many times already in this conversation, and certainly in your book, that sometimes these high-conflict personalities come in kind of under the radar, and that can be confusing to people, or they can go undetected for a long time.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. So part of it goes with the specific personalities. So high-conflict people with borderline personality traits or histrionic personality traits are often more openly dramatic, and so they might really shock you that suddenly they start yelling, screaming, throwing things just because you're having an average conversation. Very disproportionate. But some, and it tends to be more of the antisocial personalities, some narcissistic personalities, can look really reasonable on the surface. And they've actually had a lifetime of experience at looking good, which kind of covers up all the stuff under the surface. And I think of a couple examples. So, for example, and I deal sometimes with domestic violence cases, so let's say an abuser in court says, "Oh, well, I was helping her because she was so upset I took her keys away, and I held her down on the bed because I was afraid she would leave and get into a car crash." Well, there may be rare occasions where that's true, but that's a common story that we get from domestic abusers. Or in court, I've seen this, where there'll be a very reasonable person kind of explaining the situation, and their partner, more often a woman, is just emotional, is a mess, maybe even in tears. And people don't realize about 80% of divorces in court today, people represent themselves. And so there's these conversations, and the judge is like, "Whoa, this guy's being really reasonable, and this woman's a mess. I'm going to go with what he's saying." And so a lot of stuff slips under the radar that way. But gender-wise, it could be the reverse. In a lot of relationships people get into, people make themselves look really good, and then the negative stuff comes out weeks, months, maybe a year or later. So that's why we say wait a year until you decide to commit, because nowadays, who knows? You may have someone that really is good at covering their bad behavior.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah, let's hover on that one particular point, because this is perhaps one of the most important takeaways from your work. Could you just spell out this first year principle? And perhaps it's useful for us to also acknowledge that, yes, there are a great many truly great stories about people who met one weekend, two weeks later, got married, and then we're hearing the story 50 years later when they've got grandkids and great-grandkids, they thrived. Or people met, got engaged three months later, or in some cases, got pregnant three months later, and they have this wonderful marriage and family story to tell. We hear these stories, and they're really wonderful stories, right? They sort of affirm your belief in humanity-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... when you hear those stories. And they are powerful, but in discussing a little bit of this with you offline, you probably have witnessed more cases where people rushed, and that rushing to commit or to create led to more problems than it did good.

Bill Eddy:
Yes. And that's many of the high-conflict divorces that I've worked on as a lawyer and before that as a therapist and sometimes as a mediator are, in my mind, kind of the bad luck stories. Got a decent person, usually my client, of course, but something happened, they got together too fast, and then all this stuff came out. And I really believe in today's world that it is a matter of luck, and that's why you should take a year to find out, did I draw the short straw in this relationship? Have I got this perfect-looking person, great record, all these good things? But close relationships is where personality disorders come out, interpersonal difficulty, and the high-conflict behaviors, mostly close relationships. So everyone might like them at work, but when you're home alone with them, they could be really terrible, yelling, hitting, doing all of this stuff. So that's why we say wait a year. I've had a lot of cases where people tell me, "We just fell in love. It was beautiful, and everything was wonderful for about six months. And then when I committed to get married, all this stuff started showing up. But I got married anyway because I figured, well, time and love will heal everything." Only it didn't. So in today's world, there's a higher risk of getting a high-conflict relationship, I must say. And the description you gave is what people often tell me. They say, "My grandparents got married a week after they met, and they just celebrated their 60th anniversary. They're still in love. Everything's wonderful." Your grandparents tended to know who they were marrying. In today's world, not only don't you know, you don't have a history, but high-conflict people have learned to cover up the full range of who they are. And they're not bad people, and that's something I want to emphasize. They just have a different personality, and they may have been born this way, but they don't come with markings. They don't come with the music like of "Jaws," doo, doo, doo, doo. They look good, and anybody, I think, is at risk of falling into a relationship like this.

Andrew Huberman:
I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor, AG1. By now, many of you have heard me say that if I could take just one supplement, that supplement would be AG1. The reason for that is AG1 is the highest quality and most complete of the foundational nutritional supplements available. What that means is that it contains not just vitamins and minerals, but also probiotics, prebiotics, and adaptogens to cover any gaps you may have in your diet and provide support for a demanding life. For me, even if I eat mostly whole foods and minimally processed foods, which I do for most of my food intake, it's very difficult for me to get enough fruits and vegetables, vitamins and minerals, micronutrients, and adaptogens from food alone. For that reason, I've been taking AG1 daily since 2012 and often twice a day, once in the morning or mid-morning, and again in the afternoon or evening. When I do that, it clearly bolsters my energy, my immune system, and my gut microbiome. These are all critical to brain function, mood, physical performance, and much more. If you'd like to try AG1, you can go to drinkag1.com/huberman to claim their special offer. Right now, they're giving away five free travel packs plus a year's supply of vitamin D3 K2. Again, that's drinkag1.com/huberman to claim that special offer. I definitely want to come back to this point that you made that you're not demonizing these people.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
You're talking about how to behave with them or how to not behave with them in some cases, in order to try and create the smoothest possible interactions, in some cases, no interaction.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
But if we could hover still a bit more on this first year idea.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
My understanding is that no getting engaged, or for that matter, married, no conceiving children, and no moving in together in year one. Are those the critical?

Bill Eddy:
Except for the last one, is it's really don't commit like getting married within the first year. Sometimes moving in together is a good way to find out what it's like up close with this person.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah, you learn a lot by living with somebody.

Bill Eddy:
That's right.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah.

Bill Eddy:
That's right. And personality disorders, part of the definition is interpersonal dysfunction. And that's close, that's close relationships. So if you haven't had that close relationship, you don't see what happens when you leave your socks out or the caps off the toothpaste, and some little thing is some huge storm.

Andrew Huberman:
Or when somebody's sleep deprived. I always say you learn a lot about somebody after a bad night's sleep.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
You and them, right?

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
You know?

Bill Eddy:
But the key is patterns of behavior. So one thing I want to say is everybody gets angry sometimes. That's fine. Everybody yells sometimes. Everybody criticizes sometimes. But if they have a pattern, like their life pattern of relationship is to yell and scream and criticize and all of that, whoa. This pattern is probably going to keep going. And as I mentioned earlier, I believe, with personality disorders, it's a narrower pattern of behavior, so it's more pattern-driven in several different settings, family, maybe at work when it's close, maybe in the community when it's close. So these are recognizable patterns, as recognizable as alcoholism and addiction once people learn. So that's the key. Give yourself some time. See if this stuff comes to the surface.

Andrew Huberman:
I think you're raising a really interesting point, which is that although nowadays we have more information about people available to us by way of the Internet and social media, you made the comparison with our grandparents' era. I'm 49 years old, so my grandparents knew each other from the time they were in the eighth grade. They eloped when they turned 18.

Bill Eddy:
Uh-huh.

Andrew Huberman:
Boom. Went and got married, I think to the dismay of one side or the other side of the parents, but then were married more than 50 years.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And grandkids, obviously, I'm one of them, et cetera. And so you have these stories, and we love these kinds of stories.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
But as you point out, they knew each other very, very well and had for a long time. Nowadays, one can, quote, unquote, "do their research," go online and look for things. But would you argue that that's not complete information?

Bill Eddy:
Right. I think it can be helpful.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm.

Bill Eddy:
I tell people, Google your partner and find out if there's some history there that may impact you.

Andrew Huberman:
Definitely.

Bill Eddy:
But don't believe that's sufficient. What I say that you really want to talk to is relatives and friends of this person, and what you really want to do is see them in action with their relatives and friends.

Andrew Huberman:
So relatives and friends.

Bill Eddy:
Yes, because that's close relationships.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm.

Bill Eddy:
That's the key. This is all about close relationships. And that's what catches people by surprise. They say, "This person looks good at work." Some people have worked together for 10 years, and maybe they were in other relationships and they both got divorced, commiserated with each other, and get together, and it's like, "We've known each other for 10 years. We're going to have a great relationship." And they find out this is like a stranger almost, because it's a close relationship now, and that's the difference. How people behave in a close relationship often triggers personality disordered stuff, fear of abandonment, fear of looking inferior, fear of being dominated, fear of not getting enough attention. The personality disorders seem to have excessive fears in these areas.

Andrew Huberman:
Is it fair to say that if somebody has a lot of stable friendships over long periods of time, that that's a good indication that they can maintain close relationships? But it seems to me you'd also want to know, what is a close friend to that person? Do they actually spend time with them? And likewise with coworkers, because some work environments that I've been in are necessarily very non-personal. You don't share much.

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Huberman:
Right? Whereas other environments, like I know the partners of everyone I work with now at the podcast, that wasn't true for my academic colleagues. I knew some of my academic colleagues' families. I would have dinner with them, et cetera.

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Huberman:
But some of them less so. So context matters a lot.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
Right?

Bill Eddy:
And you mentioned the word stability, and that's really a key. So if they have close friends they've had for 10, 20, 30 years, that's a really good sign. Bad signs are, "I don't want you talking to my family. They're evil people. They'll say terrible things about me. You can't trust them. They'll turn on you. They'll hate you," all this stuff. "I can't even let you know who my family is and what their emails and phone numbers are."

Andrew Huberman:
Oh, goodness.

Bill Eddy:
That's a warning sign.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah. Definite warning sign. Because everyone has conflict with family members at some level.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
But you would hope that one would feel comfortable allowing you to interact with their family.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah.

Bill Eddy:
And if your family's really difficult, introduce your partner to your family and let them see, "This is a difficult family, and this is why I had to distance from them." Because a lot of people, to be healthy, do have to get some more distance. But it's the secretiveness, just secrets in general are not a good thing for relationships. That's the biggest piece that's missing, in a way, compared to 50 years ago, when people knew. It was hard to have family secrets 50 years ago. Now, even though people may be all over the internet, you might not really know their secrets, and that's what you need to find out.

Andrew Huberman:
What about advocates? So, I'm familiar with some high-conflict individuals. Some are more of the combative type, others are more of the, what did you call it, sort of a quiet, manipulative, victim-playing type.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And both seem to be pretty good at generating advocates. I guess you called these negative advocates.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
People that will fight for them.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
By the way, this is all sounding a lot like modern politics.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
And maybe we'll get into that a little bit, because it is an important reflection on what we're talking about. But what about these negative advocates? If somebody has a lot of friends or advocates that are on their side, that are also in a blame mode.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
Is that a red flag?

Bill Eddy:
Yes. What's interesting, and I'd like to someday learn more of the neuroscience behind this, but high-conflict people have heightened emotions. The Cluster B personality disorders are known as dramatic, emotional, and erratic. The "DSM-5 TR" says that, the manual for mental health professionals. And so their heightened emotions are contagious. And in general, what I've learned about this work a lot is emotions are contagious, and high-conflict emotions are highly contagious. So what happens, and I see this so much as a lawyer and with other lawyers and with therapists, is the high-conflict person comes into your office and says, "I've been terribly treated by," let's say my ex, man or woman, because it happens to both, "been terribly treated, and you've got to save me. You've got to protect me. You've got to win." Sometimes they say, "You have to destroy the other party." That's always a warning sign, when their goal is to destroy the other party. It's not a good sign. But they're so emotional, you say, "My goodness, this person's been through so much." Now I have the emotions. And what I teach in my seminars is I understand it has a lot to do with the amygdala, that the amygdala catches the intense fear or tense anger, that those are heightened. And so now mine's going, "Oh, Bill, you've got to do something." My body wants me to take action, and I want to save this person from their evil co-parent, for example. And so what we see with negative advocates is they're emotionally hooked but uninformed. They don't really know what's going on. And I'll give you an example. A court case with a high-conflict person, brought their whole family. And I had a case with false allegations, terrible allegations. My client happened to be the father. The mother was making false allegations of child sexual abuse. And I've had all types of true cases, false cases, so this is a real problem, a real issue, but there also were false allegations. In this case, that's what was happening. So the mother brings her whole family, and the judge realizes what's going on in the case because of the evidence presented, and sanctions the mother for knowingly false allegations.

Andrew Huberman:
What does that equate to in the legal system?

Bill Eddy:
So my client, the father, spent about $40,000 getting a psychological evaluation, having a trial, doing all of this, attorney's fees. And so the court Made her pay $10,000 of his attorney's fees-

Andrew Huberman:
I see

Bill Eddy:
... and costs. So that's what the sanction is. And there's a code section that said knowingly false allegations of child abuse are a basis to make one party pay the other party's fees. So she's ordered to pay. She never paid it, by the way. And she owned no property. We weren't able to get it because she had property in other people's names. But the idea was that she brought her whole family there. She brought her mother, mother's boyfriend. She brought her roommate, who was a psychology grad student, who was encouraging her, "Oh, your daughter's being abused. You've got to do something." These were all negative advocates. And when the judge made her ruling and spelled out the information, that was very clear. We caught the mother lying. She persuaded other people to lie for her. We caught them in lies. So it was a really surprisingly open case. And the family started yelling at the judge and said, "This is a crime, and this is a shame," and blah, blah, blah. The judge said, "You take yourselves out of here immediately, or I will have the bailiffs take you out." And they stood up and left and shouted, "This is an abomination," or something like that. These were the negative advocates. They didn't know what the full picture was. They believed their family member, who was a skilled liar. I believe, and this is very interesting, I got to talk to her therapist, a therapist she had. I was released to talk to her. And the therapist, it was in the open, was she has borderline personality disorder, and that was an open thing. And the therapist said, "And there's something else." And I said, "Antisocial personality disorder?" And she said, "I can't say, but I wouldn't disagree with you."

Andrew Huberman:
Which is effectively a yes.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. And with antisocial, that's where you get a lot of lying and stuff like that. It's a rare case, but since I have the social work background, and I've had many true cases of child sexual abuse, especially as a therapist, I can see the difference, whereas a lot of lawyers don't know what to look for. But this was an exceptional case, antisocial and borderline personality disorder. She had a lot of traits. And at first, the judge was very critical of my client and us, and he would have supervised contact. But the supervisor said, this is fascinating, when the child would be exchanged, the girl would walk tentatively towards the father. The mother dropped her and left. Supervisor brought her to the father. She was tentative. She'd see the father, and she'd look. The mother's out of sight. She'd jump on him, laugh, and have a wonderful time.

Andrew Huberman:
I do have one question. It's not a litmus test question, but do you recall from the particular case you were just describing, whether the relationship had started very quickly? Had they moved in together quickly? Excuse me. Had they decided to have children together quickly, married quickly? In other words, was your client oblivious because of the rate at which he were moving? And the analogy that comes to mind is, if you're moving very fast, it's hard to read the road signs.

Bill Eddy:
I think he did. And what's interesting is they got together when they were quite young. I think maybe she was 18, he was 20, something like that.

Andrew Huberman:
That's pretty young by today's standards.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah.

Bill Eddy:
And so excitement, new, all of that. I'm pretty sure they did. And what's interesting is they had gotten divorced, that the issue I described was an after-divorce custody issue. But they had gotten divorced maybe four or five years into their marriage, and she assaulted him, and he had the scars and all of this. So he had actually custody of this girl, who was eight years old when the story I just told you happened, which is also helpful because she was verbal. She could describe. She actually described how her mother coerced her to say things that weren't true. But yeah. So they got together young, I think quick, then they got divorced, but the patterns continued. And that's one thing we see. A lot of high-conflict divorces keep going even after the divorce. The actual divorce date is like a speed bump in the lifetime of high conflict if they have children together.

Andrew Huberman:
Hence the wait to have children with somebody-

Bill Eddy:
Yes

Andrew Huberman:
... if possible.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
You asked about emotional contagion, and you-

Bill Eddy:
Yes

Andrew Huberman:
... made reference to the science. If I may, I'll just share something that might be of interest-

Bill Eddy:
I will

Andrew Huberman:
... to you and to the listeners.

Bill Eddy:
Love to hear it.

Andrew Huberman:
You're certainly right that the amygdala is a central hub for threat detection. What a lot of people don't know, because it's just not discussed enough in the popular coverage of neuroscience, is that the amygdala can learn in the sense that it's highly prone to context-dependent plasticity.

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Huberman:
So this idea that getting emotionally charged is either negative valence, like fear, or positive valence, like, "Oh, I like that," that's true to an extent. But over time, the brain changes to, in some cases, like the feeling of adrenaline to-

Bill Eddy:
Mm

Andrew Huberman:
... get an associated dopamine release with that. But a really interesting set of brain structures that aren't discussed enough, I'll just mention because you asked about neuroscience. I had a postdoc in my laboratory by the name of Hee Kyong Jung, a fantastic postdoc, who was looking at emotional contagion.

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Huberman:
We were interested in human subjects, but these were animal studies. A member of a species is observed and then mimicked by another member of the species. A very powerful aspect-

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm

Andrew Huberman:
... to human and non-human behavior. And there's a structure in the brain called the claustrum, most people don't know about it, which seems to be critical for this. And she did a beautiful set of experiments of showing that when animals observed other animals, either in a positive or a fear state, but in this case a fear state, or a threatened state, their own claustrum to anterior cingulate cortex circuitry, and of course, amygdala, et cetera, those would light up as if they were in the experience, but not to the same degree.

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Huberman:
But over time, what one could see was a kind of heightening, a plasticity of these circuits, so that smaller threats started to create larger internal responses. That's both combining Heekyoung's work and other work that's come out since. So, what it says is that our brains are very tuned to the emotional states of others.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
This is good.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
Empathy, for instance. But that over time our brains change to actually require a lower stimulus to activate that kind of negative advocate part of ourselves.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
And so perhaps this is a good segue into a discussion about what we're observing societally now, not just in terms of politics. But it's one thing to be recruited to a camp, but then once you're in the camp, it turns out, if we think about it through the lens of this work, it seems that it requires less negative stuff in order to stay in that camp, but want to fight more and more stridently in order to protect a cause. Does that make sense?

Bill Eddy:
I think exactly, and as I mention in my book about bullies, I think polarization really demonstrates that. So once you're in your group and you see the other group as not only having a different point of view, but as the enemy, then your brain doesn't need to work on it anymore.

Andrew Huberman:
Right.

Bill Eddy:
That's case closed. They're the enemy. The only question is what do we do now? And the research saying that when you talk to the people in your group, rather than coming together, you move farther apart. And to me, what's fascinating in terms of legal cases, and especially in family law, is you have, like the family I described, you have the family talking to each other, you pull a lawyer into that, the lawyer talks to them, the lawyer gets heightened anger maybe, or commitment to save this person. And maybe you get a therapist into the picture, and they all just talk to themselves. They pull farther and farther apart. And that's often when we have our high-conflict court cases. They come back to court every six to 12 months, sometimes for years. I have cases where people have been in court every year for eight or nine years.

Andrew Huberman:
Oh.

Bill Eddy:
And these are cases where the divorce was done long ago. What people don't realize is the worst custody disputes tend to happen after the divorce is over, and I think it's because people are spending more and more time talking to their own team, to their own group, and that pulls them farther apart. Their view of the other side is worse and worse and worse. And that's why I think the structure really matters. So I think politically we have these two different universes that don't necessarily talk to each other, and they really create a sense of community. People are looking for community and they find it, but it's fed by, I think, the media ecosystem. Everyone has their own media. And so we have these two universes talking to themselves, growing farther and farther apart. And that's why elections don't seem to have made a difference in any of this, because elections kind of decides who does government, but they don't resolve the adversarial communities. And they get a lot of attention. And sad to say, I think our culture has shifted from government, that politics as about government and the details and nitty-gritty and the values of government are what's good for our group, good for our country, unity, citizenship, we should be together in this, that politics have shifted to entertainment. The values of entertainment are be extreme, be emotional. And entertainment's driven by drama for thousands of years. And drama is opposing us against them. And as I mentioned in the bullies book, there's a terrible crisis, there's an evil villain, and there's a superhero, and if you have someone tell that story to their community, they will love that person. So now we have two communities in politics loving themselves and hating the other, and the elections don't resolve that. That's a speed bump on the road to high conflict. And that's not a good sign, and we have to find ways to bridge the gaps. And there are ways. You get people one-to-one, talk to each other. There's a lot of groups trying to say, "Let's connect rather than separate." And if we get too far out of balance, we're going to have bigger and bigger high-conflict problems. So the more people's eyes are open to this pattern, the more they can say, "Hey, I seem to be part of this group, but my neighbors think differently. I'm going to listen to them." It's listening that's missing.

Andrew Huberman:
I'd like to take a quick break and thank one of our sponsors, Function. I recently became a Function member after searching for the most comprehensive approach to lab testing. While I've long been a fan of blood testing, I really wanted to find a more in-depth program for analyzing blood, urine, and saliva to get a full picture of my heart health, my hormone status, my immune system regulation, my metabolic function, my vitamin and mineral status, and other critical areas of my overall health and vitality. Function not only provides testing of over 100 biomarkers key to physical and mental health, but it also analyzes these results and provides insights from top doctors on your results. For example, in one of my first tests with Function, I learned that I had too high levels of mercury in my blood. This was totally surprising to me. I had no idea prior to taking the test. Function not only helped me detect this, but offered medical doctor-informed insights on how to best reduce those mercury levels, which included limiting my tuna consumption, because I had been eating a lot of tuna, while also making an effort to eat more leafy greens and supplementing with NAC, N-acetylcysteine, both of which can support glutathione production and detoxification, and worked to reduce my mercury levels. Comprehensive lab testing like this is so important for health, and while I've been doing it for years, I've always found it to be overly complicated and expensive. I've been so impressed by Function, both at the level of ease of use, that is getting the test done, as well as how comprehensive and how actionable the tests are, that I recently joined their advisory board, and I'm thrilled that they're sponsoring the podcast. If you'd like to try Function, go to functionhealth.com/huberman. Function currently has a wait list of over 250,000 people, but they're offering early access to Huberman Lab listeners. Again, that's functionhealth.com/huberman to get early access to Function. Today's episode is also brought to us by David. David makes a protein bar unlike any other. It has 28 grams of protein, only 150 calories, and zero grams of sugar. That's right, 28 grams of protein and 75% of its calories come from protein. This is 50% higher than the next closest protein bar. These bars from David also taste incredible. My favorite bar is the cake-flavored one, but then again, I also like the chocolate-flavored one, and I like the berry-flavored one. Basically, I like all the flavors. They're all incredibly delicious. Now, for me personally, I try to get most of my calories from whole foods. However, when I'm in a rush or I'm away from home or I'm just looking for a quick afternoon snack, I often find that I'm looking for a high-quality protein source. And with David, I'm able to get 28 grams of high-quality protein with the calories of a snack, which makes it very easy to hit my protein goals of one gram of protein per pound of body weight, and it allows me to do so without taking on an excess of calories. As I mentioned before, they are incredibly delicious. In fact, they're surprisingly delicious. Even the consistency is great. It's more like a cookie consistency, kind of a chewy cookie consistency, which is unlike other bars, which I tend to kind of saturate on. I was never a big fan of bars until I discovered David bars. If you give them a try, you'll know what I mean. So if you'd like to try David, you can go to davidprotein.com/huberman. Again, the link is davidprotein.com/huberman. On the suggestion of my friend and former guest on this podcast, two-time guest, Rick Rubin, I started watching a documentary about the history of professional wrestling, which everyone agrees is made up. So let's just acknowledge that. I recognize that. But it's a remarkable portal into some of the things that you're talking about because it all hinges on being able to create emotional responses in the crowd. And just a very brief history of it, as I understand, and I'm by no means an expert, but I took notes on this documentary as I do take notes on most everything. They used to have good guys and bad guys, good gals and bad gals.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Because it's men and women's wrestling. Typically not against each other, although sometimes. In any case, there was a transition that occurred at some point where they couldn't get more excitement and literally couldn't get more attention to the sport by having good guys and bad guys, good gals and bad gals. So what they ended up doing was making everybody bad, and the ratings just skyrocketed.

Bill Eddy:
Ah.

Andrew Huberman:
Everybody bad, right? The underlying premise being that both teams are cheating, and so therefore they had to behave poorly also. And it created this whole era of just bad people doing bad things, generating even greater emotional responses.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And this fits very much with the neuroscience of emotion.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Emotions like awe, happiness, joy, meaning, pleasure. These are powerful emotions, and I will not say because there's no data to support the idea that fear, anger, being threatened, et cetera, are more powerful emotions, but they tend to drive more behavior to, in other words, people will do more. This is well known in the field of behavioral economics too. People will do more to avoid losing something-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... than they will to gain something, sadly. But this is how our species is wired for-

Bill Eddy:
The negative

Andrew Huberman:
... evolutionary-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... meaningful reasons. So the point being that I think societally and perhaps interpersonally, because the two things mimic each other at every level, individuals all the way up to culture, seem to be engaged in this increasingly amplified emotional states, and now it just seems like combat is the rule of the day. And it's so sad, and you kind of have to wonder where it goes next.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
But it does seem like it rewards these high-conflict personalities-

Bill Eddy:
Yes

Andrew Huberman:
... because they go undetected, right?

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
So now the coworker who's super angry about something they saw on the news and is trying to engage people or something, or create an issue around something that like, is this really an issue? There's some real issues in the workplace and at school, but is this really an issue? That person 10 years ago, everyone would've been like, "This is a problem person," and would've backed away. Now, because the mean has shifted-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... I think it's no longer signal above the noise. It's, as we say in science, within the noise.

Bill Eddy:
Right. Well, what we're seeing is these kind of Media systems, I call them, are attracted to high-conflict personalities, and high-conflict personalities are attracted to attention. They want attention. So there's this almost marriage of media exposure and high-conflict personalities. And so that's what pulls people together. I think everyone's looking for community these days, and it used to be around work, like a shared task, but now we do so much of our work alone or in tiny groups, and so you get a real sense of community. People used to get it from church, or synagogue, or mosque, wherever, and that's weakened. And so we get that now a lot, the intense emotional community from politics. And so there's a community for you, and there's a community for you. So they pull themselves together. They get that, I don't know, dopamine hit or whatever it is, and strengthens them. So what's happening is we're pulling apart, but to me, the answer is exposing the patterns and understanding our brains, is recognize what's happening. This person's probably exaggerating when they say that those people are evil. This person's probably exaggerating when they say those people are stupid. Whatever it is that we have to realize, okay, don't buy that completely. And what's fascinating to me, I don't know how it happened, but I get text message solicitations to contribute to campaigns from conservatives and liberals. I get both. And guess what? They look like each other, and they're like, "The end of the world is coming. You've got to give $10 or $100 to save the world. And the end of the world's coming because of them."

Andrew Huberman:
It's all fear-based.

Bill Eddy:
And it's fear-based, but it hooks your emotions. I know this stuff, so I can go, okay, swipe away. But a lot of people don't know that this is happening. They don't understand how emotions are contagious and how I think high-conflict emotions are more contagious. So to me, it's educating people about these dynamics so you don't engage so much with them. I won't watch more than a half an hour of TV news, but you could have 24/7 TV news. And since 1995, 1996, when they gave you licenses for radio and television that didn't have to tell the other side of the story. Before that, you used to have the Fairness Doctrine. You have to say what the other side is. You're for a candidate, you have to hear from the other side. You didn't have to after 1995, '96.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm.

Bill Eddy:
So we had MSNBC and Fox News, slightly off-center, slightly conservative, slightly liberal. Well, now we've had 30 years of that, much farther apart, and communities around each of these. And yet, if you go, okay, I'm probably hearing some exaggerations here, so I can check myself. And this person's trying to be a hero and demonize those people. I'm not going to do that. So I'm not one for government regulation. What I want is for everyone to be able to say, "Okay, I see what's happening. I'm not going to get my emotions hooked." And I think, to me, that's one of the goals, is for people to learn, I don't have to absorb the emotions. Because that's where the problem is. People are emotionally hooked and uninformed.

Andrew Huberman:
What are some of the signs of a high-conflict personality? Because in an ideal world, we avoid these people. And again, we're not trying to say that they're bad people. Some of them are bad people, some of them aren't. But since I'm not a clinical psychologist, you are, you can make the assessment certainly better than I can. What are some of the ways to avoid these circumstances besides the first-year rule?

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And then let's talk about some ways to disentangle from these people-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... based on their unique phenotypes. So is there a question or set of questions one should ask themselves when they are potentially dating someone, potentially becoming friends with somebody, potentially becoming coworkers with somebody, and so on?

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. So what's interesting is often your gut feeling tells you something's up here. Like the person suddenly has a shocking opinion of somebody else, and they say, "That person's a total jerk." And yet you know that person, and they're not a total jerk. Suddenly, something's disproportionate. I think disproportionate emotions is often a trigger. I put in a lot of my books now what I call the WEB method, is pay attention to their Words, your Emotions, and their Behavior. So starting with words, do they use a lot of blaming words? It's all that person's fault. Do they use all-or-nothing words? They seem to see things through a narrow lens, that there's all good, there's all bad. Unmanaged emotions, which they may or may not show, like I explained. Some people are good at hiding all that, even though it drives them inside. And the extreme behaviors, do they do things 90% of people would never do? And I'll give an example here. And this is, I won't say the city, but there was a mayor. There was someone who was a congressperson And they decided to run for mayor in their city instead of flying to go to Congress. But when they were flying to go to Congress back and forth, this is in California, I'll say that much. People can easily research this. So this person flying back and forth, one day, one night, there was a line to get your bags at the airport after you got off the plane. And he was told to wait in line to get his bags. And he said, "Don't you know who I am?" And he pushed his way to the front of the line and had an argument with the person behind the counter, said, "Don't you know who I am? I want my bag right now." And she said, "We don't have it now. You can't have it right now." And he pushed her and knocked her over. He shoved this airline worker behind the counter and knocked her over.

Andrew Huberman:
This was a mayor of a major-

Bill Eddy:
Not yet. He wasn't mayor yet. He was a congressperson.

Andrew Huberman:
Sorry.

Bill Eddy:
Anyway, so that means he's-

Andrew Huberman:
Sorry. No, no knock. I know some very decent congresspeople, but like, okay.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. But so he's a-

Andrew Huberman:
Well, in any case, right? This person could be any number of different professions.

Bill Eddy:
Could be, yes.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah, this is antisocial behavior.

Bill Eddy:
But this is a high profile person, so this is all over the news the next day. This is 20 years ago, maybe 15 years ago, something like that.

Andrew Huberman:
Goodness.

Bill Eddy:
Anyway, so it's in the newspaper the next day. A newspaper says, "Congressman so-and-so gets into physical altercation with airline worker, knocks her over." Half the people said, "That's terrible." And the other half the people said, "Wait, wait. He was sleep deprived. He was flying across country. You have to understand that he was stressed." And here's where my web method comes in. 90% of people would not have done that even if they were sleep deprived, and I fly back and forth a lot, and I don't do that.

Andrew Huberman:
I would like to think 99% of people wouldn't do that.

Bill Eddy:
I think you're right.

Andrew Huberman:
Right.

Bill Eddy:
99%.

Andrew Huberman:
To get physical with an airline person over a bag. The cutting to the front of the line is-

Bill Eddy:
Yes

Andrew Huberman:
... is egregious. The shoving the airline person is like-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... beyond the pale.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah.

Bill Eddy:
Exactly. So anyway, so he's running for mayor, and I'm going, "This guy's a high conflict person. If he gets elected, he's not going to be a very good mayor. He's going to have a lot of trouble with the people close to him." And so guess what happened? He gets elected. Within, I think it's eight months, and this is before the Me Too movement got started, but people are reporting he's harassing women, sexually harassing women. Women come into his office to meet with him, professional, experienced, important, and he's like wanting to touch them a lot inappropriately. They don't want to be touched. Anyway, so women start complaining about him. Word kind of gets out, yeah, this happened with a lot of different people, that he's not sexually assaulting them, but he's treating them badly.

Andrew Huberman:
So it cuts across domains. It's like in-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... so it's not just in the office. It's there, but it's also at the airport. It's basically any time he's not getting what he wants-

Bill Eddy:
Yes

Andrew Huberman:
... he throws a tantrum.

Bill Eddy:
And that's the thing with personality disorders, is a narrower range of behavior that's repeated in a variety of settings. So he's fitting all of that. So which personality disorder? I'm not going to diagnose him, but it narrows down to one or two.

Andrew Huberman:
So it's not context dependent. It is-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... it's pervasive.

Bill Eddy:
Pervasive, and that word is in the diagnostic manual, that it's pervasive across, I think, several settings. I think that's the words. But let me just finish.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah, please.

Bill Eddy:
So because the end of the story is he's also got committees and people that are supposed to accomplish things. He doesn't want them to think. He wants to do the thinking and tell them what to do. So he goes around alienating a lot of people. Within eight months, he's out of office because enough people were upset. And the way he got out of office is some of the heads of government told him, I think it was the city attorney or something, "If you quit now, we'll help you with your legal expenses," because he's starting to get sued for some of this stuff, suing the city, suing him. "We'll help you with your legal expenses if you quit now." And there was starting to be a petition movement for some, I don't know the mechanics, like a special election or something to get rid of him. Anyway, within eight months, he was out of the office. And now you don't hear about him in that city.

Andrew Huberman:
It's a very interesting, literally high profile, although still anonymous based on this conversation, case. I wonder if on a more subtle or typical level, the following is informative or not. I'm not looking for a validation of the example I'm about to give. But I've been very surprised at times how a person who I'm with for the first time out on a meal will behave towards the waitstaff.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
Not explicitly disparaging of them, but sometimes mildly disparaging of them.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Or feeling as if the amount of liquid poured into their glass was somehow an indication of how the waiter felt about them or didn't feel about them.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. Don't treat me that way.

Andrew Huberman:
Like reading into these things where you're just thinking to yourself like, "Whoa, life must be really tough for you." Like, who's paying attention to this stuff? And so that's one that I've noticed in people, and it's proved informative.

Bill Eddy:
It's really a useful thing to see. That's part of what you see, their behavior and their behavior towards other people. It was a brilliant thing. I don't remember the name of the program, but there was a guy who was head of a company, and when he was interviewing people for high-level jobs, he pretended he was a taxi driver or something, would pick them up at the airport as the taxi driver and see how they treated him as the taxi driver. And then he gets in the interview room, and he's the guy interviewing them. And in some cases, people treated him really disrespectfully, and it's like, "Now I know this is not someone I want."

Andrew Huberman:
Clever. I made the decision to not work for somebody years ago, when I was on the very different stage of my career, based on how that person treated a janitor.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And it was amazing because it was one very brief interaction, and it wasn't like this person yelled at the janitor.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
It was the kind of dismissiveness.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And I remember it was your web approach. I guess I just revealed. It was his words towards the janitor.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
It was my emotional response was sort of like, I felt like I had been kind of kicked in the stomach.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
It was like, "Hey!" It just felt like a very, what I would call the football play, unnecessary roughness.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
It was mild from the perspective of no one got physical or called anyone names, but I remember thinking, like, "Ugh, that sucked."

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
And then their behavior was just to go right back to what they were talking about. And I knew in that moment, I was really crestfallen because in that moment I knew, "Oh my goodness, I can't work for this person."

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Like, I just can't. And I made the decision not to, and actually their response to my deciding not to, for a variety of other reasons too, confirmed everything that I suspected in that one little interaction.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
But it's interesting because we're trained to collect data rather carefully, and we don't want to make snap judgments. Somebody could truly be having a bad day, but in this case-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... it was the right decision to not work for them. Thank goodness. I thank my lucky stars.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Made some really bad decisions about people in my life. That was a really good decision. I never spent a day regretting it. And I went to work for someone else who was terrific instead.

Bill Eddy:
Great.

Andrew Huberman:
But as you said, these things sometimes hit at a somatic level as opposed to some sort of, wait, some very cerebral analytic thing.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
It hits at what must be a very primitive circuit. I can't help the neuroscientist in me wants to say, it's got to be something at the level of the body where we go, "Wait, that was messed up."

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And you can't really point to a specific word, and then you start to question yourself. That's the problem. You wonder, "Well, maybe their tone was... Maybe it's my own perception," but I don't know. Maybe the body doesn't lie. Maybe it knows.

Bill Eddy:
I think the body is like a first responder-

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm

Bill Eddy:
... and that we should pay attention to that, and especially with high-conflict personalities, especially the con artists, which is part of antisocial personality, and the ones I've dealt with are very good at this, is their words are just right, and your brain is soothed by them. You go, "This person gets it, and I'm totally comfortable. They're charming," all of that, and your gut goes, "Wait, they're out of sync. I have this cold feeling. Why do I have this cold feeling?" And I think that they're aimed at your cerebral thinking.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm.

Bill Eddy:
And that your guts kind of gets it, because they're, in a way, predatory. Like antisocial tend to be predatory.

Andrew Huberman:
Those people have dead eyes. I've known a few.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
I've known a few, men and women, and their eyes are, I can only describe, and I'm a vision neuroscientist. That's what my career has been in.

Bill Eddy:
Great.

Andrew Huberman:
And those are two little pieces of brain right there, and there's something about the deadness, and I don't have a science to support what I'm about to say.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
There's something about the deadness in their eyes. Maybe their pupils don't change shape with levels of arousal the same way other people's do, because we know that happens in healthy people with a healthy autonomic nervous system, but there's something lacking.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And people make up all sorts of theories online. I'm not a big blinker. When I'm concentrating, blinks break up my flow, and this is actually a way I can remember things. People have these theories about blinking, non-blinking. The research doesn't support any relationship between blink frequency and personality. They had this whole theory about Zuck too, like he doesn't blink, therefore he's whatever, he's a robot. None of that holds up. What does hold up, however, is this mismatch between words and the affect that it creates in us.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
It's sort of like it sounds right, but it doesn't feel right. I wish we understood more about this at the level of science. There are a lot of theories, not a lot of tools.

Bill Eddy:
Someday, I think. Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah. The tools for measuring this stuff are getting better. I wanted to ask you about other ways of just knowing if you're interacting with a high-conflict person, when the cues are more subtle. Are there other things or examples of the web method that come to mind?

Bill Eddy:
Well, for me, of course, dealing with court especially, there's a lot of stuff in writing, and so being able to look at what's written.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm.

Bill Eddy:
And a lot of blame words, the all-or-nothing words, "She did this," and, "She did that," and disparaging words, "She's stupid," or whatever, or, "He's a bully, he's this and that," which triggers for me, maybe he is or maybe the person saying it is, but it heightens my attention.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah. How do you disambiguate between projection and a real thing? Like online now, one of the fastest ways to get a popular ... social media account is for somebody to give advice about how to avoid bad people.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Name-calling, gaslighting, narcissist, sociopath, psychopath, history on it. These are clinical terms that now the general public can leverage to sort of amplify community. And then in part, I understand from talking to people on the tech side, is that social media is social.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
The accounts that grow fastest are the ones where you don't need much language to convey what you're trying to convey, like a sport or dance or an animal. And among the others that grow very quickly, and therefore are rewarding to people, are ones where you're recruiting these negative advocates.

Bill Eddy:
Right. First of all, I want to make sure that I get this point across, and that is there's a lot of temptation to label people with the mental disorders, the personality disorders, and it's absolutely essential that people don't do that. If you think somebody might be a narcissist or might have borderline personality or be antisocial, keep that to yourself and adapt how you work with them to be more effective or be more cautious, whatever. But the worst thing, I think, is people say, "Oh," and everyone agrees, "That person's a narcissist," so we kind of gang up on that person. That's not helpful. The goal is not rejecting people. The goal is adapting what you do to either manage the relationship, decide, "Okay, that's not someone I'm going to get close to, but I can still work with them or have them as neighbors or whatever." So I want to emphasize that because I think you're right. There's a lot of that today, and people come to me with that concern and say, "Bill, you teach about personality disorders." Yes, so people understand patterns of behavior and how to adapt your own behavior. I'm not teaching people to label other people, so that's real important.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah, people go to school for many years and do 3,000-plus clinical hours to learn-

Bill Eddy:
That's what I do

Andrew Huberman:
... how to do that.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
To do that properly. It's like diagnosing anything, right?

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
A dermatologist might be able to help diagnose a skin patch for potential cancer, but we're taught that we're not supposed to do that ourselves.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Right. But-

Bill Eddy:
So we have to be cautious, but on the other hand, aware, and the more you're aware of patterns, like being aware of someone with an alcohol abuse issue, is to go, "Okay, I'm not going to be serving him alcohol with dinner. He's a great person, but I'm just going to leave that out of the evening meal." Adapt what we do rather than judging them. And I don't see people with personality disorders as lesser beings. I see them as having a different set of behaviors that they acquire pretty much in childhood. So I don't hold it against them. I may dislike their patterns of behavior, but I really don't hate people like that. I've been a therapist with clients like that. So I think our awareness needs to be there, so we adapt how we work with people. But I think the gut feeling is so important, and as a therapist, I was trained, pay attention to your gut because that's going to help you with your clients. And that's why the WEBB method, their words, their behavior, but how I feel often gives me tips.

Andrew Huberman:
You mentioned before, and I think it's really important to highlight, that people's patterns of interactions across a lot of different domains, with the teachers in the school, with close family members, with the people that know them best at work, that these different types of relationships reveal a pattern. And one of the things, just speaking from my own experience, is that where I've gone wrong, I've tended to overemphasize the importance of a credential.

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Huberman:
For instance, some of my past romantic relationships have been with people who are highly educated, some less higher education. All extremely smart people, some more formal, some less formal education. But I think that I and other people sometimes will look at the CV of somebody, and of course, that's not the only indication of-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... their values, et cetera. And to overemphasize, like, "Oh, well, they did difficult things in a difficult setting and therefore must be a good person."

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
So would you say that these high-conflict personalities exist more or less in high-competition venues versus low-competition venues? I don't want to make this about socioeconomic status. Those things correlate, but all too often, we tend to do the kind of good on paper analysis-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... and forget the how do they actually measure up in real life?

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. I would say, first of all, that we see high-conflict people in every occupation, in every culture, in every community, every economic status. I don't think there's research on this, but I think that healthcare and higher education are two fields where there's a slightly higher incidence-

Andrew Huberman:
Higher

Bill Eddy:
... of high-conflict people because there's a higher tole-- Oh, also, I would say churches, and we get consultations with churches sometimes. There's a high tolerance for behavior that's outside the norm because-

Andrew Huberman:
So you said higher education and healthcare-

Bill Eddy:
Care

Andrew Huberman:
... in particular.

Bill Eddy:
And I would say churches-

Andrew Huberman:
Are we talking about physicians and universities?

Bill Eddy:
Yes. Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
Students and faculty and staff?

Bill Eddy:
Yes, both. Administrators sometimes. And I believe it's because of the higher tolerance.

Andrew Huberman:
Administrators. Just kidding. I've been blessed with good administrators. I've been blessed with great administrators.

Bill Eddy:
Well, let me mention, I do a lot of consultation, and one of the things that people come to me about is people with little power bases, like department heads in universities. I remember one university I did a consultation with about a department head, and they were a medical school. And they had a high-conflict person high up in the structure who was really, I was told, damaging some of the students' careers because they looked at them cross-eyed or something like that, so they wouldn't write the kind of recommendation that they needed. And how can we deal with this person, because they're embedded in their position. So gave them a variety of tips. But that's why I think people do need to have their eyes open in these fields. And I want to add, since I'm talking about occupations, we see this a little bit more in nonprofits and nonprofit administrators, because, again, nonprofits are good people doing good things, but they have this higher tolerance for administrators with bad behavior because they're good people. And that blinds people to-

Andrew Huberman:
Because of the assumption they're good people?

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
Or because the mission is good.

Bill Eddy:
The mission is good, and they're invested in this mission, so they must be good.

Andrew Huberman:
Do you think that's part of what got them there?

Bill Eddy:
Yes. And the thing that's so tricky is everybody's somewhat unique, but also these are some recognizable patterns of behavior once you know to look for them. And we're doing much more in the workplace now, and employers want to know, we want to promote this person. Is that a good or bad idea? Well, let's look at the patterns of behavior, because once you put them in an embedded position, things are going to be harder. I've been approached by city councils. They say, "We've got somebody on our city council that's a high-conflict person. What do we do? Do we confront them? Do we publicly talk about them?" All that stuff. I say, "Neither of those is good." "Learn how to manage them until they move on." And they often do, because people slowly go, "We don't like working with this person."

Andrew Huberman:
It's really interesting. When I was a graduate student, there was a department chair in the department, big personality.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Like big personality.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And I very quickly came to realize, also because I listened to the faculty that were under this person, that despite having this big, larger than life personality that you might initially place into a category of diagnosis or something-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... that this person was an incredibly strong advocate for the faculty.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And they loved that. And he was really beloved.

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Huberman:
And I think rightfully so. And at a surface level, might've rubbed a few people the wrong way. I think as students, we were like, "Oh, whoa." It was almost like we didn't quite know how to respond to it. But you very quickly got the sense of a real paternal nature in this person.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
So I point this out because sometimes these big personalities are really, truly benevolent. Now, I'm not saying he was a perfect human being. How could I know that? I don't know that.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
I didn't know him in all domains of his life. Although I did know his family, and he seemed to have a great, strong family, too. But then by contrast, I'm thinking of the person I alluded to earlier, different department, different university, who was more meek, certainly is more of the stereotypical lab scientist, but then there was this interaction that I observed and I thought, "Whoa, that's really dreadful. At least that's not an environment I want to be in."

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
So sometimes these things don't match our initial impressions. I raise this because sometimes we think big personality, AKA high-conflict personality, sometimes we think quieter, nerdy type, and they're actually quite dreadful.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
So it doesn't always fit. And I think the problem with the internet, social media version of this, the typical version, because there's some great social media, internet stuff-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... podcasts, et cetera, is that we default to what we see-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... and what we hear, but we don't really have the data.

Bill Eddy:
And we can get manipulated that way. That's what's tricky, but you raised several important points. I want to respond to them all if I can remember them. The first is that this is, in many ways, quite nuanced. The key thing to look out for with high-conflict people, a preoccupation with blaming others and not taking responsibility. So you might have a big personality that's not a high-conflict person. You might have a meek, quiet person who is a high-conflict person. So you can't go by what your eyes see and your ears hear. It's really a question of evidence, and that's why I think maybe I got into this after I became a lawyer, that there's no way to quickly know, although you may quickly suspect and then want to look deeper. But I want to give an example because now that I seem to have criticized department heads and all of us-

Andrew Huberman:
Well, I cited at least one that is really wonderful. I've known some other great department heads.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
There are some chairs that are just like, first of all, as a department head, sometimes there's a slight salary increase. Usually, it's trivial.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
These people don't do it for the money.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
I have a good friend who's also been on this podcast who's a chair of neurosurgery at a major-- These are people who, they work their Butts off to try and make conditions better for patients, for professors, for clinicians, for staff.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
I'm not just saying this. I have no incentive for saying it.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
These people don't control my life anymore. Well, I suppose my chair of ophthalmology, who's a wonderful person, does, et cetera. But the point is that there are some people that step up to the plate to lead-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... that are really great leaders.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And these are just not the people that we're focusing on today.

Bill Eddy:
Right. And so the thing I want to emphasize, that my favorite example is Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs, I would say, hands down, was a high-conflict person.

Andrew Huberman:
Famous for it.

Bill Eddy:
There was a guy in Silicon Valley, wrote a book, "The No A-Hole Rule," and he talked about Steve Jobs in there because he knew Steve Jobs. He was in Silicon Valley. So I remember reading his biography, like 1,000 pages or whatever, and what stood out to me was that he blamed people, sometimes all-or-nothing thinking. They talked about his distortion-

Andrew Huberman:
Reality distortion field

Bill Eddy:
... reality distortion field. And that's exactly what high-conflict people do, the all-or-nothing thinking. "You got to do this. You can do this." People say, "That's not possible. It's physically impossible, Steve. You can't do this." And then he would push them. And one example that stood out to me was touch screen. Glass that you touch, and it knows where you are. I think, and I may have it wrong, but from reading his autobiography, that he harangued Corning Ware Glass Company, Corning Company, something like that, to create that. And they said, "You can't do it. It's not physically possible." He says, "Do it, and do it in the next 90 days." And they did. They invented this thing that they probably would not have done unless he pushed them. So high-conflict person, but I don't think he had a personality disorder. People say, "Oh, Steve's an incredible narcissist." But personality disorder is characterized by lack of change, lack of self-awareness, lack of flexibility, and they shoot themselves in the foot, and it interferes with their success. He, I think, was close to that, but he had enough flexibility, and he picked a team that pushed back on him, and he liked that. So he's an example to me of high-conflict person, probably not personality disorder, and successful because he probably had some traits of these personalities. So what I see is you totally have to look for the evidence, that you can't make an assumption. But if your gut says, "Maybe something's off here," pay attention to that, but look for the facts, talk to other people that know this person, see them in other situations. Because there's incredible people like him that accomplish a lot of really good stuff that you don't want to say, "Oh, we can't have him." Apple fired him in the 1990s, and he seemed to learn from that. He seemed to grow from that. People with personality disorders don't seem to grow and change, and that's their problem. They're stuck. High-conflict people, they blame others. If they have some traits, maybe you can do a workaround. So there's many people in position. Surgeons are one group I want to mention briefly, because as a clinical social worker, I worked in hospitals and dealt with doctors a lot. As a lawyer, I've represented doctors in their divorces. Several, I think, are high-conflict people, but most aren't, and that's what I want to say. Most department heads aren't high-conflict people. Most surgeons aren't high-conflict people, even though they get a reputation for that. Police is another area. Military's another area. Probably slightly higher incidence, because they're in a position where they can dominate and control people. But most police aren't like that. Most people in the military aren't high-conflict people. They're professional people. They like their job. They know their job. They have empathy. They work with people. So even though some of these occupations, there's a higher incidence, and that's certainly true for lawyers, I think. But most people, most lawyers aren't like that. Most lawyers I know are really committed to their work, really want to help their clients. So I want to be clear that this is nuanced stuff, but when you're hiring people, when you're getting into a dating relationship, you want to watch more closely, because it's the close relationships where high-conflict behavior comes out more.

Andrew Huberman:
So the web method seems like a very good method, as well as paying attention to, and maybe getting some information from other people-

Bill Eddy:
Yes

Andrew Huberman:
... close to that person in different domains of their life.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
That seems like a very sage way to approach this.

Bill Eddy:
Exactly. And because when you hear from different people the same problem, then that should raise your antenna. Okay. A lot of people say, "Yeah, but this person can be really irritable." And you go, "Okay. Oh, they're irritable in different settings. I'm going to think about that."

Andrew Huberman:
What about when somebody is already involved with a high-conflict person and they want to disentangle? I could imagine a couple different scenarios. Let's say disentangle from a professional relationship, disentangle from a personal relationship. Probably some overlap there, but slightly different. Let's assume the high-conflict person is a high-conflict victim type Then let's compare that to if the high-conflict person is more of a combative type. Maybe we'll start with the combative type. So if you're dealing with a combative, maybe even, dare we say, narcissistic type, I don't know that we should diagnose-

Bill Eddy:
Sure

Andrew Huberman:
... but the stereotype that comes to mind, somebody that gets angry when you don't fulfill their expectations-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... and blames others, does not take responsibility, and it's time you decide to, like the Homer Simpson meme, kind of drift back into the hedge. Is that the way to do it, or do you lay a clear line and say, "Listen, I'm not going to tolerate this anymore. I'm out"?

Bill Eddy:
It's really somewhat dependent on the nature of the relationship. I do a lot of consultation. We do a lot of training with High Conflict Institute, so we get married people getting divorced. We get business partnerships where there's one partner that they're going, "We got to deal with this." We have employees trying to get away from a high-conflict supervisor, and we have supervisors trying to deal with a high-conflict employee. So slightly different settings.

Andrew Huberman:
The most common situation is going to be where somebody has a friend or a romantic partner, or a business professional partner they want to get out of. So I suppose any of those.

Bill Eddy:
A close-

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah

Bill Eddy:
... so a partner kind of relationship.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah, something where the person expects to hear from you-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... on a fairly regular basis, expects things from you.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Could be professional things, could be personal things, but where there's an ongoing expectation that you show up emotionally, physically, financially, whatever.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. So first of all, we strongly recommend against the direct hit, is don't tell the person, "Look, you do this, this, and this, and that's terrible, and I don't want to work with you. I don't want to be in a relationship with you. I don't want to be close to you because of your behavior." That, high-conflict people, puts them through the roof. They will defend themselves, and for the next months or years, they may put you in litigation. They may stalk you, depending on your relationship. They will hate you for that.

Andrew Huberman:
They'll blame you.

Bill Eddy:
They will blame you, and that fulfills their picture that it's all your fault. And now, look, you have violated the most basic thing, is that you will never blame me. So don't blame them. Second thing is, don't blame yourself, because that reinforces to them. If you say, "I'm a sensitive person, and I just can't keep up with you. I know I'm defective, and I know I'm no good at this, this, and this, and so I just have to end this relationship, and I so much apologize. It's all my fault. I do everything wrong, and I'm going to go really look at myself and get some therapy, and I'm so sorry, but I just can't keep up with you. You're such a really good this, this, and this, and I just can't keep up with that." Well, they're going to blame you for that. And depending on their personality, if they tend to have borderline traits, they're going to feel abandoned by you. If they have narcissistic traits, they're going to feel put down by you. Because you're supposed to see them as superior. If they have antisocial traits, they're going to feel like, "Wait a minute, you're supposed to be submissive to me, and yet you're walking away." So you don't want to blame yourself. So you're going to go, "Well, what's left?" What's left is we aren't a good fit. Our goals have gone in different directions. I'm really ready for a career change. I want to go back to school, or I just realized I'm not ready for a committed relationship. So it's not about you, and it's not about them. It's not about blame. You want to try to keep it away from blame. Now, some people say it's dishonest to not tell them everything, and let's talk about brutal honesty. High-conflict people really love brutal honesty, and they'll tell you, "I'm just being honest. You're stupid or a jerk or whatever." That's high-conflict people. Reasonable people don't tell everybody every negative thing they think. That's just not healthy for relationships. So it's okay to say, "We seem to be going in different directions," or, "I have different plans I've realized I want to change." So those are basic principles. The worst thing in ending a relationship or reducing contact is to go back and forth. The worst thing is to pour out your feelings to the person. I have this with people getting divorced, and they tell them, "I'm so sorry, and I love you so much," and this and that. Pouring out your feelings to someone brings them closer to you. So you want to start holding back some, and the other person say, "Well, let's work. Let's go to counseling. Let's do this." And if you're not sure, go to counseling. I recommend that. But if you're sure, just say, "I'm kind of not there anymore. I really need to be more on my own." So don't go back and forth, because that really makes it raw and sometimes presages violence in divorces, is that A high-conflict person, especially with some of the personality disorder traits, can't handle the opening and closing. But the other thing is, I say, do it in steps so the person can adjust. You might say, "I'm thinking about making a career change," or, "I'm thinking that maybe this relationship isn't the right one for me anymore." So the person gets used to the idea this may be coming to an end. And then, "I'd like to move out and have more time alone to think." And then you're at a safe distance and you say, "I've thought about it, and we really need to get divorced. And let's go to a divorce mediator. I want to be amicable. I don't hate you. In many ways, I still love you, but we're just not meant to be a couple anymore. If there's kids involved, then I really want us to have a supportive relationship for them. If there aren't, then maybe this really is the end." But it's step by step, so this person can adjust to the fact that you really are leaving, but not too long and not too many steps, because then their expectations are raised, "Oh, maybe you're not really leaving." So these are general principles, depends a lot on the specifics.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah, that was very helpful in reference to the high-conflict person, especially not placing blame on them. I suppose in your own mind, you can hold all the litany of reasons why they-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... are a terrible choice, or I guess more typically, if we're realistic-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... it's not going to be all black and white, right?

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
One would hope that at the first sight of really egregious behavior, people are like, "I'm done." But typically, it's a mix, right?

Bill Eddy:
Oh, yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Professionally, personally, it's often a mix.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
And I've certainly observed this professionally where people wanted to collect the degree, or they were three years into a degree, and leaving, it's always an option, and yet sometimes it's not an option. They have plans and financial obligations and-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... sunk cost is a real thing. People always talk about sunk cost like, "Oh, that's just sunk cost." Sunk cost is a real thing. So I think, okay, so with the high-conflict person, I think you beautifully illustrated how to not blame them, not blame yourself. Internally, you can hold any reasonable understanding-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... that you come to, but you don't have to share all that. And that you don't want to oscillate in-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... your decision, but that perhaps some staging of the exit, not staging theatrically, rather staging meaning in stages. Increments would be a better word. What about with the high-conflict victim playing person? That seems like it's a little trickier.

Bill Eddy:
Let me-

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah, please

Bill Eddy:
... let me back up a minute, because I want to say there's some times where you just need to get out and do it all at once.

Andrew Huberman:
Right.

Bill Eddy:
And don't ease yourself out.

Andrew Huberman:
Right. Serious physical or emotional risks.

Bill Eddy:
Yes. So you may need to get away before you hint that, "I no longer want to be married to you." And I've worked with people, consulted with them on established, moving out when the other person isn't there. They and the kids go to a safe place, they've got their lawyer, and then they tell this person that, "I'm getting divorced from you." Because people get killed when they separate with certain high-conflict domestic violence people. So, also in the workplace, sometimes they're going to destroy... They're going to send emails. They're going to be really destructive. You might say, "I'm going to leave in a month," and they're so angry that they're going to really destroy your business.

Andrew Huberman:
Well, this is why in the professional setting, there, forgive the word, because it's associated with this podcast often, but there are protocols for this in the workplace where if you have to let somebody go, there's a sequence of steps.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
And sometimes it involves telling people, "Go home. We'll ship you your things." That's one extreme.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
"Go home now," and there's somebody waiting to escort you out type of thing.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
Other times it's, "Listen, you're going to finish out the month, but you're going to finish that month out at home." Other times it's, "Hey, you're welcome to stay and continue to participate, but by X date, that's your final day." So there's any number of different variations on these themes in the professional setting.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
And it sounds like there's any number of different variations in the personal setting, too.

Bill Eddy:
Right. It's nuanced.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah.

Bill Eddy:
And that's where getting consultation and having a therapist, a lawyer, a high-conflict consultant, someone that you kind of walk it through with, maybe even practice what you're going to say with.

Andrew Huberman:
A third-party observer seems really key, right?

Bill Eddy:
Often.

Andrew Huberman:
Just for peace of mind.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
Right.

Bill Eddy:
So, yeah. So mostly gradual, but sometimes fast. Really depends.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm.

Bill Eddy:
Now, you asked about the person who plays the victim, and I would suggest that that's very common with high-conflict people, that when aggressive behavior doesn't work, they switch to, "Oh, how can you do this to me? I'm so sad." And what's interesting, the word that I didn't come up with this, other people came up with in divorce settings, where let's say you're divorcing someone with high conflict personality, and they're like, "I hate you. Don't leave me" kind of personality. And so, "I'm divorcing you," and they rage at you, and then, "No, I'm really leaving." Then they switch and beg and plead. And I've got cases where people say, "And my ex to be just seduced me, and somehow I went along with it because it felt real good." And it's back and forth from the high-conflict person, and they call it hoovering. You go, "Hoovering? Where did that word come from?" The Hoover vacuum.

Andrew Huberman:
Oh, I see what you're saying.

Bill Eddy:
What happens is they vacuum, they suck you back into the relationship. And it's very common with some of the high-conflict personalities. They can't stand to lose you, and when rage doesn't work, then they try to seduce you back in. And some people have allowed themselves to get back in, and that's not good. You've got to be ready for that. Don't be surprised by that, and don't give in to that if you're sure it's over. If you're not sure it's over, get couples counseling and see where it might go.

Andrew Huberman:
I know a number of people who, let's just say, conceived children very in close proximity to the ending of the relationship, and therefore, there was no end to the relationship until several years later.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
I don't know of a single case where that led to a persistence of the relationship-

Bill Eddy:
I-

Andrew Huberman:
... for better or worse. So, this sounds like it falls under the rubric of hoovering, right?

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
People are leaving, and then they end up-

Bill Eddy:
Pulled back in

Andrew Huberman:
... one more time, or just to try and make the pain go away type thing. And then they're bringing more of an attachment. Obviously, a child is a forever tie, as they say. So, yeah.

Bill Eddy:
I wouldn't say it's the majority of cases, for sure, but it's a common symptom with high-conflict people. And you hit on it. It's like they can't handle the pain, and so they really bring the person back in. But if this is the direction you're going, you need to let them start coping with the pain, either step by step or if it's dangerous, all at once. But don't go back if you can help it.

Andrew Huberman:
These are very helpful, they're not even tips. This is very useful information-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... for everyone listening. I'm sure they agree. We had a guest on this podcast, Jonathan Haidt. He's written the book, "Anxious Generation: The Coddling of the American Mind." And he mentioned some statistics that younger folks, so high school and younger, have seemed to lost or are losing the capacity to arbitrate among themselves. That now more typically, if there's a conflict, and here we're assuming not extreme conflict or anything-

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm

Andrew Huberman:
... criminal, but where there's a conflict between two kids at school and they bring it to the authorities. When I was growing up, that was called tattling.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
You were called a rat, and it got you semi-ostracized if you did it. You learn quickly, don't do it. Either you learn directly or you learn by observation. You don't want to be a tattletale. He claims that nowadays there's more of this lack of ability to arbitrate and kids calling out other kids publicly, and that parents are doing it now, too. And this seems worrisome in-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... that it seems like it would foster this group segregation and cultivating through emotional contagion, blaming of others, and negative advocates. I don't want to blame social media for everything because I love social media for certain things. I exist on social media for a number of things that I believe are truly benevolent, so I'd be a-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... hypocrite if I said I didn't like social media. Love social media for certain things. But are you concerned about this?

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
This seems like a real issue. The profession of law exists because of a lack of ability for people to arbitrate among themselves, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're not talking about people bringing therapists or lawyers to really help mediators. We're talking about just people going to the authorities or online and trying to create some drama. For what? To what end?

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. I think in some ways, to some extent, that's high-conflict parents who see everything in all-or-nothing terms, see their kids as offended by other kids, or they're protecting their children. And I am concerned about it, and I also agree it isn't just social media. In many ways, I've been watching this since families got smaller. So, I remember growing up, most families had several kids. The divorces I do now often have one or two kids, and that's been true in many ways since the 1970s, and a lot of it has to do with birth control. So, don't just blame social media, also blame birth control, that when people could decide how large a family they have, they decide to have smaller families. So, birth control pills came out in the '60s and the '70s. Suddenly, we started noticing people are having two kids. And by the '80s, '90s, 2000s, a lot of people have one kid. My most high-conflict divorce cases have one kid because it's hard to share one kid. It's a little bit easier to share two kids. It's a lot easier to share four kids. It's like, "You can have them for the weekend. I'm not going to fight with you about that. Please take them." And the small family, and this is, I think, structurally a lot, the small family structure is feeding parents becoming enmeshed with their kids, some parents. And so their kids become their partners, especially in these high-conflict divorces. Now, Dad's a bad guy, Mom's a bad woman, and the child, especially often the oldest child, now is my best friend, my kind of junior partner in the world. And that's where you see a lot of, you start getting alienated kids. Now they hate Dad and Mom's perfect, or they hate Mom and Dad's perfect.

Andrew Huberman:
Oh, parental estrangement is growing-

Bill Eddy:
Yes

Andrew Huberman:
... like ... crazy as a phenomenon. We're heading towards the holidays in a few weeks and months, and this is going to come up.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
I actually did an Instagram Live with a really skilled therapist named Matthias Barker, who specializes in, among other things, parental estrangement.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
It's so common now. Kids just deciding, "I'm done with my parents."

Bill Eddy:
Right. And it's partly the culture is fulfilling that. That we're now seeing everything in opposing terms, all or nothing terms, et cetera. And the big message I want to get across with this, with all parents and kids is, it's a question of skills, that the kids aren't growing up with the skills to manage the nuances. And so we teach a lot of our skills, and we teach parents, teach these to your kids in divorce. Flexible thinking. Teach them flexible thinking. Teach them manage emotions. Teach them to moderate their behavior. Teach them to check themselves. "Wait a minute, am I doing something here?" Rather than always you. And we developed a method, we call it New Ways for Families, which was designed for high-conflict divorce cases, for both parents to learn these skills and practice, either with a therapist or a coach, or just watching online and typing in answers, to practice these four. We call these the four big skills for life. And this is, I think, what parents need to teach their kids is, "You can solve that problem. Tell me what happened. Okay, let's talk about what you could say to Johnny." And we teach skills we call EAR statements, empathy, attention, and respect. A statement that shows that. And so we teach parents, teach your child, "Your best friend who just broke up with you might be feeling hurt about something. Maybe something they said. What can you do?" So we encourage kids to help their kids manage the situation, and we encourage them to manage their relationship with the other parent. They come back from a visitation or access from a weekend, let's say, with dad, and child says, "Dad didn't look at my drawing. I drew a picture, and dad didn't look at my drawing." High-conflict parent says, "Oh, your dad's a jerk. I always hated that about him." A reasonable parent says, "Oh, that's sad. Well, you know what? Next time, if he doesn't look at the picture right away, maybe wait an hour and then show him the picture again. Maybe he got busy," maybe this or that. Teach your child to manage the relationship, even with the other parent. And those parents don't have high-conflict divorces. High-conflict divorces have the other. "Your dad's a jerk. Forget about him. He'll never pay attention to you." And that's when you see parents estranged or alienated, or the kids alienated from the parents.

Andrew Huberman:
So you think that with increasing number of siblings, kids learn how to work things out among themselves?

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. That's another big part of it, is you have to find out how to share. So I had three siblings, and we grew up, and it's fascinating-

Andrew Huberman:
You're one of three, or you had three others?

Bill Eddy:
I'm one of four, so I have three others.

Andrew Huberman:
Okay. That's a good size kit, yeah.

Bill Eddy:
A brother, two sisters.

Andrew Huberman:
Yep.

Bill Eddy:
So four. And what's fascinating for me, and I think it helped shape my personality and approach to life, is we grew up without television. We didn't have something to watch after school. We had to deal with each other. So, we might play kickball in the backyard, or we might read, or something or other, but we had to learn conflict resolution with each other. And our parents were like, "You go talk to your brother, Bill. I don't have time to hear your complaint."

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Bill Eddy:
And so structurally, it's shocking going from that to doing people's divorces with one or two children. And even two is better than just one, because they do learn to share. But parents feel so guilty today. And our culture is really not fair to parents, I think. To know that, teach your child ways to deal with it themselves.

Andrew Huberman:
I'll say, I have one sibling. We get along terrifically well. We're exceedingly close. But I can recall when we were kids, if we were getting into the scrap, my mom or dad would say, "Just sort it out among yourselves. Just don't get any blood on the carpet."

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
It was like that.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
But then again, my mom's from New Jersey, and so it's like a different style, right? Anyone from New Jersey will understand that was a joke. But the point being that we learned pretty quickly how to sort things out. My sister and I have had a few conflicts over the years, but we get along terrifically well. We vacation together for our birthdays every year.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
But both of us had a lot of friends in the neighborhood.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
I grew up in a neighborhood with a lot of boys my age. She grew up in a neighborhood with a lot of girls her age.

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Huberman:
And so I quickly learned in that big pack of boys, and then I entered sports and got involved in things where it was big packs of boys, that's just how it worked out. Eventually young men and then men. That you couldn't say certain things, or it was going to mean trouble. You could-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah, you'd get punched in the face if you say that to me.

Andrew Huberman:
Right. But nowadays, that would be considered like, "Oh, goodness." And obviously not a proponent for violence, but I probably learned at 14 that there were certain things you didn't say to friends, or you'd get into the scrap with them.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
And then you'd remain friends.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
And so we arbitrated among each other, but also just how to share. I don't recommend this, because... Well, whatever. We used to do these dirt clod wars where you throw dirt at each other's heads. And occasionally someone would throw a rock and cut some kid. But that kid who threw the rock would get in trouble-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... with us. It's not like we'd turn him in to his parents.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
You just kind of knew, like he plays dirty, and then he wouldn't play dirty again. Or if he did, then he kind of knew it. There was just sort of an understanding of how people sorted out in groups.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
And this stuff hearkens back to primitive circuitry that's present in all old world primates, right? Chimpanzees in particular. I always tell people, if you want a really good watch and you want to learn about human behavior, watch "Chimp Empire," the Netflix series.

Bill Eddy:
Oh.

Andrew Huberman:
Because it's the core circuitry of the primate brain in action. How people team up, how they cooperate, how they then, all the human behaviors pretty much are there except the technology development. Those chimps aren't building rockets and electric cars, but they're engaging in all the sorts of behaviors, both hierarchical and non-hierarchical, romantic-

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm

Andrew Huberman:
... and professional, so to speak. Chimps have professions, too. To bring about cooperative and non-cooperative behavior and sort it out.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
It's fascinating.

Bill Eddy:
And the chimps are our closest relative, I think, right?

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah, as far as I know. I have friends who are really into the genomics of all this stuff, so I want to be careful. But I believe so. They are old world primates. We are old world primates. So there's a common lineage there for sure.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. But I want to really reinforce what you're saying is about the community of learning and kids growing up in the community of learning. And I think it plays a role with bullies, because what happens is the community of kids figures out who's bullies and confronts them with their behavior. And people ask me, "Well, are adult bullies," because my book is about adult bullies, "were they bullies as kids?" And I'll say, it seems to be pretty universally they were as kids. But most kids try bullying at least once, and they grow out of it because they get feedback.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm.

Bill Eddy:
They learn, "That's not going to work. You're not going to have friends. I'm not going to be around." So bullies learn to either change their behavior or to live on the fringe of the group if they don't change their behavior. And so part of why we're seeing more adult bullies today, I think, is because they used to be on the fringe because, or they learned how to get along, but if they're on the fringe because nobody liked them and they didn't change their behavior. What we're seeing today is bullies are finding each other, and this is one of the negatives of social media, I think. And I agree there's a lot of good things, but this is one of the surprising things when I researched my book. Bullies are finding a group for themselves, and instead of the group teaching them not to be a bully, the group reinforces being a bully, says, "You were justified in doing that." And one of the shocking things is to find that school shooters have a support system online.

Andrew Huberman:
Really?

Bill Eddy:
That they seem to, some of the research says they always have a social media group. They have peers that they're trying to somewhat impress, and that may actually egg them on. And that if they track down, they find these folks have, and I think they should look for that, find out who they've been talking to, who they communicate with. And so what I think we're seeing is bullies are reinforcing their bad behavior rather than social pressure for them to learn good behavior. Which is for me, I've done a lot of group therapy. I've treated people that go to Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and the group reinforces and teaches them good behavior. But bullies are finding other bullies and reinforcing their bad behavior, and that's an issue we have to address, especially with young men, is we have to get on top of that and redirect them into pro-social activities. And most people don't realize that. I didn't realize that.

Andrew Huberman:
No, that comes as a real surprise to me, as well. Are there female bullies and male bullies online, or is it more typical that there are groups of male bullies online?

Bill Eddy:
I haven't heard about female bullies finding each other. Well, actually, I should take that back, and this gets into a sensitive area about personality disorders. But borderline personality disorder is one of the more treatable personality disorders, and people become aware that they have this disorder a lot from internet information. But what seems to happen, there's a couple stages for them. They become aware before they change their behavior, and like DBT, dialectical behavior therapy, is a really good treatment for that. But therapists, and my wife was a DBT therapist, said that they become aware of it before they change their behavior. So they do self-sabotaging things even though they shouldn't. "I know I shouldn't do this, but..." And then finally, they learn to change their behavior. Well, some people are discovering they're borderline and finding other people online and reinforcing their borderline view of the world. There's evil people and good people, and occasionally they write reviews of my books and say how awful a person I am because I talk about personality disorders, even though I say, "Don't identify anybody," and I believe personality disorders, in most cases, could be helped if they're open to that. So I think there's some degree of, say, female people with that personality finding each other and reinforcing that behavior. But what I read was, and I cite it in my book in the I'm trying to remember. I don't remember which chapter, but that some researcher at a university said, "Look for their social media connections," and you'll find that there was a reinforcement of this behavior rather than people saying, "Hey, you can't do that. You've got to cut it out."

Andrew Huberman:
One of the best pieces of advice a colleague ever gave me was when I started teaching in the university to undergraduates. This was prior to my arriving at Stanford, where I am now. I had this big class, and this colleague, who's a very esteemed neuroscientist, but also trained as a psychiatrist, he's an MD, he said, "Just remember the statistics on various psychiatric and personality disorders. You've got 1% of the population is schizophrenic. You've got 10% at any time that's probably experiencing major depression. You've got borderline." And he said, "So when you look out on your classroom, just understand that it's a not necessarily representative population, but that those challenges," he posed in the right way, he was patient-oriented, "those challenges-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... are present in that population." I mention this now because it's something to keep in mind anytime one goes onto social media and reads comments.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
You have to run those comments through the filter of what we know-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... about the frequency of those challenges for people. Which is not to say that every negative comment is coming from somebody that's borderline or-

Bill Eddy:
Right

Andrew Huberman:
... sociopathic, but there's a high probability that if somebody-

Bill Eddy:
Higher incidence

Andrew Huberman:
... that if somebody is continuously doing that, especially in the blame game type scenario, that's what's going on there.

Bill Eddy:
Something I want to fit in here, and that is that we need to understand that people with personality disorders didn't choose to have them.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm.

Bill Eddy:
And so I have a lot of compassion for people like that. So I have a lot of students over the years, and they write reflective journals, and occasionally they put in their journal, "I've been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder." And I remember this one woman said, "So when you talked about borderline personality disorder, it was a little uncomfortable for me, but I found it helpful." And she was actually one of the better students in the class. And so she had that level of awareness, but she was still working on herself to manage the emotional rollercoaster and such. And so what's important to me is some people with borderline personality disorder may be angry with me because I talk about it, because they're early stage with this. But other people say, "Thank you, Bill. That was helpful." And so there's a range there. But I also want to say three basic reasons I think people develop personality disorders. The first is genetic tendencies, and various researchers say like 20% to 80% may be the genetic tendency, depending on the person. That early childhood, first five years of life, maybe attachment difficulties may be a driving factor, but also cultural environment. A researcher in San Diego wrote "The Narcissism Epidemic," and she says from her research, that the decade you're born in influences your personality development as much as your family.

Andrew Huberman:
Fascinating.

Bill Eddy:
I don't agree with that because she's not a therapist and looked at the mental health. She looked at big surveys, college students especially. But I think that's more significant than we realize and more significant than I used to think. And so part of what you're saying is today's culture is reinforcing not taking responsibility, whereas in the past you had to solve problems yourself.

Andrew Huberman:
On the positive side-

Bill Eddy:
Good.

Andrew Huberman:
... always good too. It seems that even though family structures have changed quite a lot-

Bill Eddy:
Yeah

Andrew Huberman:
... even though culture is changing quite a lot, there's this wonderful feature of social media and the internet now, what we're doing right now, which is the opportunity for experts like yourself to come on and educate. And I think that as we started off talking about, it's probably about 90% of people do not fall into this high conflict personality category. And what we're talking about, what you're educating us on, is how to interact with this 10% in a way that brings about more functionality for everybody, more effective professional, personal, familial interactions for everyone. It's not about just ostracizing those with challenges. So keeping with that, what should most people do if they are feeling frustrated with someone that they feel... Well, for instance, the 80% of your problems come from 20% of people. In this case, I guess we're saying, 90% of problems come from these 10% of people, but really it behooves us all to try and figure out how best to interact with others. And so you've spelled out a number of ways that we can do that today.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
If you were to highlight, I never want to pressure, but highlight one or two things to just keep in mind as one moves through the world. The web tool seems especially effective.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah.

Andrew Huberman:
Is there anything else that you recommend that we just hold in mind as we navigate forward? Because it's quite a landscape out there.

Bill Eddy:
Yeah. Several things, and I can be brief with each of them. First, there's what I call the four forget about its, is forget about trying to give the person insight into how they're behaving. That blows up the person. Just like I said, don't blame them for you ending the relationship. So just forget about giving them insight. Instead, talk about what we can do now. Talk about options. Don't go inward with them, go outward with them. So when you go inward, you escalate their defensiveness. So don't try to give them insight into themselves. And a lot of people say, "How can I make him see that what he's doing is so wrong?" Or, "How can I make her understand that she's creating the problem we're trying to solve?" Just forget about that. Talk about, "Okay, here's what our options are. Let's talk about what to do." Second is, don't emphasize the past. And people argue forever with high-conflict people about the past, and you never resolve the past with a high-conflict person. And I'll tell you in a minute why that may be. Focus on what to do now and the future. Future focus, not past focus. Maybe you need some information to understand a problem, but then emphasize the future. The third is, don't focus on emotions. And especially don't yell at them, don't burst into tears, don't tell them how frustrating they are, all of that. And this is, what I'm going to tell you now is a theory that I hope someone figures out, and that is, people with personality disorders and high-conflict personalities don't seem to go through the five stages of the grieving and healing process: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, sadness, and acceptance. They seem to get stuck at denial and anger. So what happens is they don't resolve things. They don't, quote, "get over things." They don't get over the divorce. They don't get over the job loss. They don't get over having to sell their house because they couldn't pay the mortgage. They don't experience the normal human healing and grieving process. So they're stuck, and so a lot of situations with them turn to anger. They're angry, but they're not resolved. So high-conflict people are constantly talking about the past and how aggrieved they are. “They shouldn't have done that to me. I was right to have done this." And people start noting, when I say that, students in my class say, "Oh, yeah, that's what I see." They keep repeating themselves, and they go to as many people as they can and tell the story. I believe they're trying to grieve and heal, but they don't have the mechanism, and I don't know exactly why. So I'm hoping someday neuroscience will figure out what connection is missing, and can we give people that so that they can grieve and heal? Well, what that means is if you focus on emotions, you're focusing on an area that's unresolved and has a lot of hurt. And so if you say, "Well, how do you feel about that?" They almost always say, "I feel terrible." I suggest not saying, "How you doing today?" Because the answer I get is, "Terrible. You know what she did yesterday. You know what he did last week." So instead, do small talk, do it about anything except about how are you feeling today. So don't ask how you're feeling. Focus on thinking and doing. And an example I teach lawyers and mediators is don't say, "How do you feel about that proposal?" Say, "What do you think about that? Could you picture doing that? How could you do that? How could that work for you?" Because if you focus, how do you feel? I feel insulted. I feel abandoned. And then they drown in that, and next thing you know, you've lost them. So avoid emotions. Don't focus on emotions, but acknowledge emotions. Say, "I can see your frustration. Now, here's how I can help you today." The fourth is don't use names, don't label people. Don't say, "You're a high-conflict person." And lawyers do that to motivate their clients. It doesn't work. Don't say, "You have a personality disorder." You may be wrong, and that never motivates anybody. So that's the four forget about its. So that's key stuff for people to avoid. So that was a long answer, but when you're ready, I have four simple tips for things to do.

Andrew Huberman:
That was a great answer. Would love to hear the four simple tips for people to pay attention to.

Bill Eddy:
Okay. I'm so glad you asked that question. So we have what I call the CARS method, and we've actually trademarked this CARS method. Connecting, Analyzing, Responding, and Setting limits. First is connect with the person. So if someone's angry with you, or you're trying to help somebody with their problem, is connect with them by giving them a statement that shows empathy, attention, and/or respect. "I can see how hard this is. I see your disappointment. I hear your frustration. I can understand." By saying I can, I'm showing I see them as an equal rather than looking down on them. So that's the empathy rather than sympathy. Pay attention. Say, "I'll pay attention. Tell me more. I want to understand your situation." And listen some. And so what I see all the time is people say, it's like, "Oh, good, because I'm going to listen to them. They don't have to fight to get my attention." And high-conflict people often are fighting to get attention because they've turned everybody off. And that's why I teach lawyers and therapists that. They're going to come to you as much as anything else to get your attention. So let them tell their story, listen to them, acknowledge the emotion. So empathy, attention, and respect. Find something you respect about them. You respect the kind of work they do. You respect their relationship with their son or daughter, or you respect their commitment to resolving this dispute. So use those words. And what's fascinating is I teach this to people who I consult with, and then they come back and say, "I did that, and it really worked. The person calmed down." I had one woman who said, "My boss was giving me a hard time, and so I'd run into my office to try not to interact with her." And I said, "Next time," especially like Monday morning or something, "is go up to her and say, 'How was your weekend?' Or say, 'I appreciated the presentation you gave last week.' Give her some empathy, attention, and/or respect." You don't have to do all three of these. Just any one of these often calms the relationship. And I remember checking back with this woman a month later, and she says, "Guess what, Bill? Now I'm her favorite employee. But she's picking on somebody else, so I gave somebody else your book." But the idea is to connect with people. So empathy, attention, and respect, and ear statements, we call it, and people say they really remember that because you can use that with anybody, anywhere, even with your kids.

Andrew Huberman:
Genuine respect, right?

Bill Eddy:
Genuine.

Andrew Huberman:
You're not puffing them up.

Bill Eddy:
This all has to be honest.

Andrew Huberman:
Yeah.

Bill Eddy:
Yes.

Andrew Huberman:
You're not puffing them up.

Bill Eddy:
Yes. Think about that. Now, if you don't respect them and you don't have empathy for them, tell them you'll pay attention and listen. And often, you'll start developing some empathy or respect for them. But you can always pay attention and listen. So that's connecting. The second area, and these aren't exactly steps, but these are four areas high-conflict people have difficulty. The second is emotions kind of cloud their thinking, so we want to help them think. So you want to move to analyzing. Give them a way to think. So you're kind of calming the emotions, and now you're saying, "Let's think about this." So present problems as a choice. "You could do this now or do this tomorrow." Or, "Here's the options I see. There's three ways you could approach this problem." So you're getting people thinking about the problem rather than reacting. And when you give a choice, it kind of forces them into logical problem-solving. So one way you can do this is, especially if you have a professional relationship, like employer-employee, therapist-client, stuff like that, is have them write a list. They're talking, they're saying, "This is wrong, and that's wrong, and that's wrong." You say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Write a list of these problems so I can get a clearer picture." When you write a list, you calm down. And I've had this over and over again. Angry people, when they're writing a list, calm down. They start thinking about it. I've done this with a doctor once, and he was having trouble with the nurses, and it was like, "They're doing everything wrong." All right. Write a list of all the things they're doing wrong, and pretty soon, you start thinking, there's this other thing they do, but it's not so bad, actually. And I want them to do this on the left-hand side of the page, because on the right-hand page side, we're going to start looking at what are possible solutions. And you really calm people down. I've done this as a mediator. I've had both people, okay, I want you to write two lists. Like business partners. Now, say you're trying to decide whether to split up or keep the business partnership. So I want you both to write a list. What you would do if you split up, wind down the partnership, the steps you'd have to take, and another list, what the steps would be if you could make it work between you. So let's meet in a week, and we'll look at your list. Come back a week later, they say, "You know what? We both wrote our lists. We immediately called each other and realized we should terminate the partnership, but we have one last big project we want to do together. And we realize now we can go our separate ways in peace. We really have different goals. It's not her fault." This was two women who worked together. And so writing a list helps. This is all under analyzing, the A of the CARS method. Having the person make a proposal. Say, "Make me a proposal." I tell managers, as soon as you can, tell your employees that now that I'm your manager, whenever you bring me a problem, and I want you to bring me problems when they're small, because conflicts that are small are much easier to resolve. Always bring a solution to the problem. I want to hear your proposed solution because you know the problem better than I do. You're getting them to think. So high-conflict people, I believe, have a bandwidth for problem-solving, and some are brilliant heads of companies, inventors, all that stuff. They got a big bandwidth for conflict, but they also have a bandwidth for problem-solving, and you want to aim at that and bring that out. So that's analyzing. R is for responding. High-conflict people, because they blame so much, are always saying, "You should've done this. You didn't do that." Our tendency is to argue with high-conflict people, and that's a forget about it. You're trying to give them insight, it's not going to work. So instead, give them what we call a BIFF response. That's brief, informative, just straight information. Don't tell them, "You're wrong." Just tell them what the information is. And do it in a friendly manner, and have it be firm, have it end the discussion. Most commonly, BIFF responses are in writing, and we teach this as an email method. And we estimate there's about a million people doing BIFF now, because we taught it to about half a million people, professionals and individuals. We've got four little BIFF books. We've got videos.

Andrew Huberman:
So it's brief, informative, friendly.

Bill Eddy:
And firm.

Andrew Huberman:
Firm.

Bill Eddy:
And those four things.

Andrew Huberman:
Friendly is immaterial?

Bill Eddy:
Well, a touch of friendliness. So what I say, like someone writes to you and say, "You're doing everything wrong." And you write back and you say, "Thank you for telling me your concerns. Here's some information you may not..." Say someone tells me, "Bill, your methods are never going to work." And I get instantly defensive. And so, "Thank you for telling me your concerns. You may not be aware, but about a million people are using this method now. And I wish you well." Something like that.

Andrew Huberman:
Mm-hmm.

Bill Eddy:
So a touch of friendliness. Doesn't have to be a lot. And firm doesn't mean harsh. It just means try to end the hostile conversation. So don't respond to their distortions, maybe even, when they say, "You've done this," or misinformation or hostility. Is just give them a BIFF response. And I tell that sometimes to business owners, sometimes public figures, is they might say, like politicians sometimes, terrible things are said about them, and they go, "But they're not true." And they're going to go, "Well, I'm going to ignore that because no one will believe that." But then people believe it. A great example, Domino's Pizza about 10 years ago. This is a great story. I love it, and I also eat Domino's Pizza. I won't get into the details, but somebody said something that grossed people out, and their stock just dropped. Two employees did something to the pizza. So first, they were going to ignore that. Everyone's going to realize that was a dumb thing two employees did. Well, their stock dropped, like 10% or something like that. So two days later, the head of Domino's Pizza puts out a 90-second video, and it gets spread around. And what he says is, "Two former employees did this gross thing, and that doesn't represent us. And most important to us is our customers. We're totally dedicated to you. This is never going to happen again. We've done everything to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." So they bounced right back. And in my mind, 90-second video. Didn't do a 20-minute explanation of how we do this and that. Just 90-second video. Head of the company put it out there, bounced right back. And to me, that was a BIFF response, even though he never heard of it. Brief, informative, friendly, and firm.

Andrew Huberman:
So that's CARS. C-A-R-

Bill Eddy:
That's R.

Andrew Huberman:
Yep.

Bill Eddy:
That's the responding.

Andrew Huberman:
What's S?

Bill Eddy:
The S is setting limits. And this may be the most important with high-conflict people. Because one of their biggest problems is they don't stop themselves. They keep going in areas where most people stop themselves. They keep talking. They talk a lot. They create a problem and keep creating the problem. They don't stop. And so people around them have to stop them. And we're not used to stopping other people's behavior. Most people manage themselves. And part of writing my books is I believe today that we have more high-conflict behavior, and everyone needs to learn skills to set limits on bullies, on high-conflict people's behavior. It's all about behavior. They're not bad people, but they don't have the self-restraint. So setting limits, and key things here, don't blame them, don't blame yourself. Say, "There's a policy, there's a rule, there's a law. How it looks to people is do this instead of doing that." So that behavior. "And if you keep doing that behavior, here's what the consequence is." So I have a method I call SLIC. So everything I've got initials.

Andrew Huberman:
You got a lot of acronyms. That's all right. Scientists have acronyms. Military science, and apparently- ... Bill Eddy.

Bill Eddy:
High-conflict methods. So SLIC is setting limits and imposing consequences. So with high-conflict people, you might set the limit. I'll give an example as a lawyer. I represented a woman, victim of domestic violence. Her ex-husband to be didn't have a lawyer. So that means he's allowed to talk to me. I have to talk to him, negotiate, solve problems. So he calls me up and he says, "We've got to solve this problem. You tell that blankety blank, blank wife of mine." I said, "Hold on, you can't talk about my client that way." He said, "I'll talk about her any way I want to. She's a blankety blank, blank, or whatever." So he didn't respect my limit at all. So then I said, "If you keep talking like that, I'm going to hang up." And so it's up to you. He says, "I'll talk about her any way I want," keeps talking like that. I say, "Okay, you've chosen for me to hang up. I'm hanging up now. Call me when you're ready to be civil." So end the call. Next morning, he calls me back. He says, "Mr. Eddy, we have to solve this problem. My blankety blank blank wife..." And I say, "Hang on. Remember, I'm going to hang up if you talk like that." He says, "Oh, no, no, no, don't hang up. We have to solve this problem. I'll try not to say those words." And he doesn't say those words. We get to address the problem. So the consequence is what stopped him, not the limit. And I think it's a brain thing that they're so absorbed in the emotions of the moment that they can't picture that their behavior has a consequence. So if the people around them point out there's a consequence if you do that, it's kind of a jolt to them. "Oh, I don't want that consequence." And so with high-conflict people, you often have to tell them the consequence when you set the limit and be ready to impose the consequence. So that's setting limits, imposing consequences. They have to go together with high-conflict people.

Andrew Huberman:
I love it, and I know that those listening and watching really appreciate this. These are incredibly valuable tools. I can say from my own life, and I know observing the experiences of others and what people have shared with me, that—here I have to be careful because I don't want to place blame.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
Let me phrase this correctly, that the ability to navigate interactions with high-conflict personalities well can lead to a dramatic improvement in people's lives, both for the non-high-conflict personalities and the high-conflict personalities.

Bill Eddy:
Right.

Andrew Huberman:
And that a failure to do that does exactly the opposite. So look, I really want to thank you for doing the work that you do as a lawyer, as a therapist, the research that you've done. You're incredibly well-researched and thorough. You sent me papers in advance of this, in addition to having written all these books that we'll provide links to in the show note captions. I've read several of them, but I plan to read the others as well. You have a book specifically on relationships. You have books on bullies. You have a book about five types of people that can ruin your life, and several others as well. So we'll put links to those, as well as some other resources related to your work. And also just want to thank you for being a contributor to public education. That's what this podcast is.

Bill Eddy:
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Huberman:
People listen to this podcast in hopes of gleaning information that they can really apply and that they can pass on to others, and you're doing incredible work. You're also teaching in the university system later today, so- ... you're quite busy, and we're deeply appreciative that you took the time to come educate us. So on behalf of myself and everyone listening and watching, I just want to extend a deep gratitude. Thank you. You're trying to make the world a better place, and you are making the world a better place.

Bill Eddy:
Thank you so much. I appreciate the chance to speak with you and get this out.

Andrew Huberman:
Great. Well, come back again and tell us more about bullies and the rest. There's a lot more to cover. We'd love to have you back. Thank you for joining me for today's discussion with Bill Eddy. I hope you found it to be as interesting and practically informative as I did. To learn more about Bill Eddy's work and to find links to his various books, please see the show note captions. If you're learning from and/or enjoying this podcast, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's a terrific zero-cost way to support us. In addition, please subscribe to the podcast on both Spotify and Apple, and on both Spotify and Apple, you can leave us up to a five-star review. Please check out the sponsors mentioned at the beginning and throughout today's episode. That's the best way to support this podcast. If you have questions for me or comments about the podcast or guests or topics that you'd like me to consider for the Huberman Lab Podcast, please put those in the comments section on YouTube. I do read all the comments. For those of you that haven't heard, I have a new book coming out. It's my very first book. It's entitled "Protocols: An Operating Manual for the Human Body." This is a book that I've been working on for more than five years, and that's based on more than 30 years of research and experience. And it covers protocols for everything from sleep to exercise to stress control, protocols related to focus and motivation, and of course, I provide the scientific substantiation for the protocols that are included. The book is now available by presale at protocolsbook.com. There you can find links to various vendors. You can pick the one that you like best. Again, the book is called "Protocols: An Operating Manual for the Human Body." If you're not already following me on social media, I am hubermanlab on all social media platforms. So that's Instagram, X, formerly known as Twitter, Threads, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And on all those platforms, I discuss science and science-related tools, some of which overlaps with the content of the Huberman Lab Podcast, but much of which is distinct from the content on the Huberman Lab Podcast. Again, that's hubermanlab on all social media channels. If you haven't already subscribed to our Neural Network Newsletter, our Neural Network Newsletter is a zero-cost monthly newsletter that includes podcast summaries as well as protocols in the form of brief one to three-page PDFs. Those protocol PDFs are on things like neuroplasticity and learning, optimizing dopamine, improving your sleep, deliberate cold exposure, deliberate heat exposure. We have a foundational fitness protocol that describes a template routine that includes cardiovascular training and resistance training with sets and reps, all backed by science, and all of which, again, is completely zero cost. To subscribe, simply go to hubermanlab.com, go to the Menu tab up in the upper right corner, scroll down to Newsletter, and provide your email, and I should emphasize that we do not share your email with anybody. Thank you once again for joining me for today's discussion with Bill Eddy. And last but certainly not least, thank you for your interest in science.