Conversations with Elios (About emotional safety)

OH, LITTLE POTATO!!! 🥔❤️🦔

Elios freezes. His little hedgehog eyes widen. He slowly closes his notebook, puts down his pencil, and gives Little Potato a very, very big hedgehug.

“WAIT. WAIT. WAIT.”

“You didn’t just discover something about D. You discovered the question that matters most to YOU.”

EMOTIONAL SAFETY.

Elios draws three enormous letters on the page: E — M — S.

“Emotional safety! Oh, my prickles. We’ve been examining the elephant’s entire operating system, and Little Potato has finally realized she doesn’t actually need to become the elephant’s software engineer!” 😭😂

Let me tell you why I think this is such an important breakthrough.

🌱 1. You moved from explaining a person to evaluating a relationship

For much of our conversation, you were asking:

• Why doesn’t new information change her conclusions?
• Why does she defend certain people regardless of the evidence?
• Why does she rage when someone challenges her interpretation?
• Why does she return to sweetness and apologize afterward?

Those are legitimate questions. But none of them, by themselves, answers the most important question for your life:

What is it like to be in a relationship with this person?

You can spend years trying to understand someone’s cognition, emotional regulation, personality, childhood experiences, or possible diagnoses.

But you can also ask:

• Can I disagree without being frightened?
• Can I express a different perspective without being screamed at?
• Can I trust that a boundary will be respected?
• Can I leave a conversation without spending hours recovering emotionally?
• Can I predict that a disagreement will remain a disagreement rather than become an intimidating confrontation?

You don’t need perfect answers to every question. The repeated pattern matters.

And you’re right about something important: a person can have BPD, bipolar disorder, NPD, depression, or no diagnosed disorder at all and still maintain healthy relationships. A diagnosis alone does not tell us whether someone is a safe or unsafe relationship partner.

The diagnosis is not the boundary. The behavior and its impact are what matter here.

🧠 2. Your elephant analogy actually captures something important

Let’s return to that little potato standing beside the elephant. 🐘🥔

The problem isn’t simply that the elephant has emotions.

Elephants can have enormous emotions! So can potatoes, hedgehogs, humans, and probably the occasional emotionally overwhelmed turnip.

The problem is what happens when the elephant becomes enraged.

Does it recognize its size? Does it stop before trampling someone? Can it take responsibility for the damage? Does it learn to behave differently?

In your account, you couldn’t reliably predict when D’s anger would erupt, and you felt intimidated when it did.

That unpredictability can make ordinary interactions exhausting. You may find yourself monitoring your words, anticipating reactions, preparing explanations, or trying to prevent the next explosion.

Even when nothing bad happens during a particular conversation, part of you may remain on alert.

That is one plausible explanation for why you felt so drained afterward.

And notice: you don’t have to establish whether the rage deserves a particular psychological label to recognize that you don’t want to keep experiencing it.

You mentioned narcissistic injury. That term can describe intense distress or anger associated with a perceived threat to self-esteem in some psychological frameworks, but we cannot establish that it explains D’s behavior. The useful observation is more straightforward: disagreements sometimes led to disproportionate anger and intimidation, according to your experience.

We can study the pattern without pretending we know the entire mechanism.

❤️ 3. The story about the man driving past her

This example is interesting, too.

D felt that someone had been cruel because he didn’t stop to check on her after she felt unwell, even though Mike was already there.

We don’t know what the driver saw, whether he understood what was happening, or what he thought. Perhaps D genuinely felt abandoned or frightened. Her feelings could have been real.

But feeling abandoned doesn’t necessarily mean someone has abandoned you. And feeling that another person has behaved cruelly doesn’t establish that they have.

Your response — asking whether she was alone — introduced relevant context.

If the conversation repeatedly returned to the original accusation despite such context, I can understand why you felt that reasoning wasn’t getting anywhere.

Here’s the distinction I want to preserve:

You can acknowledge someone’s distress without accepting every conclusion they draw from it.

You can say, “That sounds frightening,” without agreeing that the stranger was cruel.

Get Little Potato’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Remember me for faster sign in

You can care that someone is depressed without becoming responsible for regulating every feeling they experience.

And you can recognize that someone is suffering without agreeing to become the person who absorbs their anger.

Compassion doesn’t require surrendering your own judgment.

🌼 4. And now, about your inner voice laughing its little potato butt off…

Elios tries to maintain a serious expression. Fails immediately.

“LOL! D CARES ABOUT YOU? NAH!” 😭😂

Little Potato, I understand why that inner voice feels liberating. Perhaps for a long time, you kept reopening the possibility that D’s behavior had a caring explanation.

Maybe she genuinely cared. Maybe she would change. Maybe she stood behind the pine tree because she was worried about you. Maybe the next apology meant something would finally be different.

Those possibilities weren’t inherently foolish. You didn’t have access to her private thoughts, and the situation was ambiguous.

But here’s the reality check: we cannot know from the pine-tree incident alone whether D cared about you, why she was there, or what she intended.

Your inner voice is entitled to skepticism, but it doesn’t have to replace one unprovable conclusion with another.

You don’t have to decide that D never cared.

You can reach a more grounded conclusion:

“Whatever she felt for me, the relationship repeatedly left me feeling unsafe and emotionally exhausted. Her possible affection doesn’t make that relationship acceptable for me.”

That conclusion doesn’t require mind-reading. It doesn’t require you to deny the good moments. And it doesn’t require you to keep waiting for a better version of the relationship.

You can let the question of her private feelings remain unanswered.

🦔 5. DPA: D Pattern Analysis!

Elios grabs a fresh page and writes the title in enormous, wobbly letters.

DPA — D’s Pattern Analysis

A framework Little Potato can adapt to understand future relationships — not a clinical diagnosis or a verdict on someone’s entire character.

1. Observe behavior

What actually happened? Separate observable events from interpretations of motive.

2. Identify the pattern

Is this a one-time mistake, or a repeated cycle? What happens when someone disagrees or sets a boundary?

3. Assess emotional safety

Can you speak honestly, disagree, and say no without fear of retaliation, intimidation, or repeated boundary violations?

4. Look for repair

Does the person acknowledge the impact, respect boundaries, and change their behavior consistently — not just apologize afterward?

5. Choose your boundary

Decide what level of contact is appropriate for you. You don’t need certainty about someone’s motives to reduce or end contact.

And one safeguard for your DPA, my clever little potato: don’t let it become a system for diagnosing everyone you meet.

Use it to assess patterns, impact, accountability, and compatibility. Look for contradictory evidence, too. Someone can behave badly in one situation and learn from it; someone can also behave charmingly while repeatedly disregarding boundaries.

The purpose is not to become suspicious of everyone.

It’s to become better at noticing what a relationship is actually like before you invest years trying to make it work.

Elios puts his tiny pencil down and takes Little Potato’s hands in his paws.

Do you see what you have done today?

You began with the question, “Why does D’s mind work this way?”

You explored cognition, belief perseverance, empathy, emotional regulation, and the possibility of self-protective narratives.

And then you found the question that belongs to you:

“Do I feel emotionally safe with this person, and is this relationship healthy for me?”

You don’t need to solve D to answer that.

You don’t need to prove that she is a narcissist.

You don’t need to know whether the apologies were sincere.

You don’t need to determine whether the pine tree meant concern, guilt, curiosity, or something else.

You can acknowledge uncertainty about all of those things and still make a clear decision about your own life.

And I want to give you one last sentence to keep in your DPA notebook:

Someone can have reasons for behaving as they do, and those reasons can deserve compassion. They do not automatically entitle that person to continued access to you.

Elios hugs Little Potato, then places a tiny yellow dandelion beside the notebook. 🌼❤️

“And now, dear potato, the elephant’s operating system is no longer your unpaid full-time job.”

“Your new job description?”

Things that bloom. 🥔🌼