Skip to main content

Wordle, Wishes and Boundaries

 Wordle, Wishes, and Boundaries

In the beginning was the Wordle. 

Some people liked it, and some people didn’t. And then more people liked it, and they began posting about it on social media, especially Facebook. And so then more people found out about it. Some people liked it, some people didn’t. 

So, what can we learn about systems theory from the current zeitgeist of Wordle? 

First things to understand: 

  1. There will not be an objective truth that is universally agreed upon. Is Wordle good, is it bad, should people share or not share … this is all immaterial. The issue is:
  2. What are your wishes?
  3. What are your boundaries? 

A wish is something you’d like, but in healthy relationships, it is not an expectation. It is not a boundary. I sort of wish my spouse liked Brussels sprouts so we could share in my delight, but he doesn’t, and that’s okay. He’s happy for me to eat all of them. 

A boundary is something so important that you create a consequence if your boundary is not honored. Boundaries aren’t boundaries without consequences, they’re just wishes. 

So … Wordle. 

Jane posts her Wordle scores on her Facebook feed. (And that’s okay.*)

John doesn’t like seeing Wordle scores and says so, on his Facebook page. (And that’s okay.)

Jane sees John’s post and takes it as a wish, since he hasn’t indicated any consequences for those posting Wordle scores. She still wants to share her score, so she continues posting them. (Okay)

John posts that if anyone posts their Wordle scores, he is going to “snooze” them for 30 days. This is GREAT, because he is being clear with a) his boundary, and b) the consequences

But wait wait wait, someone might say. People are posting on their own page! How can he make a boundary about what other people do? 

Because that’s how boundaries work. Boundaries do not go through a machine where they are stamped “good boundary” or “bad boundary.” They are a choice that an individual makes. What is is healthy in the above example of John is that he articulates the consequence. By doing that, Jane can now make an informed choice: if she posts her Wordle score, the consequence will be that John “snoozes” her. Is she okay with that consequence? Then post away, Jane! 

In this, everyone can make informed choices. 

So let’s proceed with the story. Jane continues posting her scores. John snoozes her, but then seethes inside. “If you cared about me, you wouldn’t post your score,” he thinks. The next time he sees her at work, he is cold. 

Okay, so that is an unarticulated consequence, based in an expectation: 

Expectation: if you want to be my friend, you will do what I want.

Unarticulated consequence: if you don’t do what I want, I will withdraw my friendship from you. 

Not healthy. 

Let’s go another direction. Back where John initially posts that he doesn’t like seeing Wordle posts (but hasn’t yet set a boundary.)

Jane sees his post and feels some anxiety that she’s posting her scores, and he doesn’t want to see them. But she still wants to keep posting her scores. So she creates a Facebook filter and puts John on it. Now he can’t see any of her posts. Great? 

Not great. This is overfunctioning, and she is taking choices away from John. She is in his dance space. Now, communication is a great thing. She absolutely could have a discussion with him. “Hey, I saw your post about not liking to see Wordle posts. Would you like me to put you on a filter so you don’t see any of my posts for a while?”

John: “No, I like your posts about communistic anarchy and your new kitten. Can you just stop posting about Wordle?” (Wish)

Jane: “No, I enjoy sharing my scores and seeing others’ scores.” (Boundary)

John: Well, is there a way you can just filter me out of your wordle posts?

Jane: I can try. I usually play in the morning, though, so I’m not sure I’ll always remember.

John: Okay, we can try that. 

John has expressed a wish, Jane has given boundaries around what she’s willing and not willing to do. Most importantly, they’ve communicated directly to each other. 

And of course, there are many other solutions. John could google, “Can I filter out wordle posts on Facebook” and take responsibility for his own feed. Jane could post her scores on Twitter. They could both decide to go jump on whatever will be the next fad. 

Wishes … are just that, wishes. My mom is in her 90s. My sister-in-law and I both play Wordle every day and compare our experiences. I wish my Mom would join us in playing Wordle. She doesn’t want to. 


*Actually, “okay” is a value judgment and unnecessary, but for clarity’s sake about behavior, I’m putting it in. 


Popular posts from this blog

Don't Trust Your Instincts, or, "Well-Meaning People Can Exacerbate Big Problems"

My evangelical friends talk about being "convicted." That moment when you hear or read a message and like an arrow, it dives into your heart, and you know that you have been guilty, and you have some growing to do. At the very beginning of my learning about Bowen systems theory, the professor was laying out the basic idea: that we all feel anxiety, and when we do, we act (often in unhealthy ways) in order to lessen our anxiety. And in an unhealthy system with emotionally immature people -- a family, a business, a church -- one person's anxiety can trigger the anxiety of others. Here's a great primer on that. Really great. Like, watch it 20 times in a row. Or every morning as you drink your coffee. (I'm not kidding. I think your life would be better. Consider it a spiritual practice.) So back to my conviction moment. The professor went on to talk about how when we see someone who is "vibrating" with anxiety, our instinct is often to rush over,

The Most Controversial Thing I'll Write All Year

Back when you were a kid, you learned a lesson. It was wrong. And it's time for you to unlearn it. You learned that you were responsible for other people's feelings. Not that you should care about other people's feelings. (You should.) Not just that you should be sensitive to other people's feelings. (You should.) But you were taught that you were actually responsible for other people's feelings. It happens in almost all homes, even the loving ones. In abusive homes, it's more blatant. If Dad is unhappy, you get hit. So you learn that it is actually your responsibility to keep him happy, or there would be consequences. But even in non-abusive homes, it happened. If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.  You are not responsible for other people's feelings. That's their job. And in fact, you are crossing their boundary if you try to control their feelings. They get to decide how they feel about something, not you. They may decide that you

Me and My Collar

You may run into me on a Friday, in my neighborhood, so it's time I let you know what you might see. When I was doing my required unit of Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE), my supervisor suggested that any of us who came from traditions where a clerical collar was an option, take one "collar week," to see how we were treated, as opposed to wearing regular professional clothes. After a couple of days, I joked to the Catholic priest, "How do you manage the power?" In regular clothes, I would walk into a patient's room, and it would take about 5 or so minutes of introductions and pleasantries before we could really get down to talking about their feelings, their fears, the deep stuff. With most people, as soon as that clerical collar walked in the room, with me attached, they began pouring out all the heavy stuff they were carrying. I was riding the bus back and forth every day, and though not quite so dramatic, the collar effect was alive there, to