One of my friends at school has turned toxic. How do I discuss it with her?
I have been distancing myself from her for a while, but nothing seems to work. She is really sensitive and has a history of dishonesty, which makes confronting her about my feelings incredibly difficult. She talks badly about many people, but pretends to them that they are the problem.
I have already talked to teachers about this, but they take her side, and I always get in trouble. I don't know how to bring this up or get her to understand I don't want to be her friend any more. What should I do?
Starting high school is a big step and there's lots of change, and whenever there's change in a group there's a jostling for position and a lot of insecurities come out. It's also a big step because you go from being the oldest students in school to the youngest, and are exposed to far more adult behaviours. I wonder what's going on with your friend, but it's important to remember you are absolutely not responsible for her behaviour. So while it's really good to think compassionately about what's happening to others, ultimately they own their behaviour and you own yours. It's never too early to learn this.
I went to Alison Roy, who is a child and adolescent psychotherapist. She said the fact you had noticed something had changed for your friend, while 'also being aware that your feelings showed real maturity'.
It's frustrating that the teachers don't seem to hear what you say, but teachers, while doing a great job, aren't always the best people to help you deal with the psychology of friendships. Also, as Roy pointed out, 'teachers don't always have the time or bandwidth for friendship dynamics and would expect you to try to resolve things independently'. It can be very different from how things are managed in primary school.
Roy also explained that when people (young or old) feel insecure 'they can start to behave differently. There may well be something else going on for your friend that you won't know about, and they might not want to tell you. You could ask a few gentle questions, although it isn't your responsibility to fix things. What you do have control over is how you deal with your own feelings and concerns; and sometimes when people change and we find we have less in common with them, it's an opportunity to try out new friendships and move outside our comfort zones a bit.'
The defensiveness and dishonesty your friend displays could be due to shame, and the reasons people can be like that are complex. But again, that's not for you to fix.
Learning to put in boundaries, but also thinking about what might be going on for others (with the caveats we've mentioned), are really important life skills. So is being able to communicate with people you used to get on with but now find challenging. Most friendships will rupture at some point, the real skill is in the repair. Lots of adults struggle with this.
You say you don't want to be her friend any more, but you are also asking for help. Sometimes the simplest solution is right there, but we don't take it. Here, that would be asking your friend, in a quiet moment, something like: 'I don't feel we get on as well as we did. I wonder how it feels for you?' And taking it from there. You can't do all the work for her, but this would be an incredibly mature thing to do. I always think face to face is best, because you can get a '360' view on that person – ie, not just what they say on text, but what clues are in their body language.
Sign up to Inside Saturday
The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend.
after newsletter promotion
Unfortunately, you can't make your friend understand – that's her job. But you can start the conversation, and in so doing you will be making an important first step in communication. And perhaps, even if you don't sort this out, you will gather some important information that helps you move on. Keep me posted!
Every week, Annalisa Barbieri addresses a personal problem sent in by a reader. If you would like advice from Annalisa, please send your problem to ask.annalisa@theguardian.com. Annalisa regrets she cannot enter into personal correspondence. Submissions are subject to our terms and conditions. The latest series of Annalisa's podcast is available here.
Comments on this piece are pre-moderated to ensure the discussion remains on the topics raised by the article. Please be aware that there may be a short delay in comments appearing on the site.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Hiker tumbles to his tragic end at stunning Montana national park
A Utah man hiking in a national park fell to his death while traversing an off-trail climbing route in Montana. Brian Astle, 42, of Provo, was descending on a steep off-trail route above the Highline Trail on Mount Gould when he fell on Wednesday. Search and rescue crews were called to Glacier National Park around 6pm, but operations had to be postpone to make sure they could safely extract his body from the trail, the National Park Service (NPS) said. On Thursday morning, two helicopters retrieved the father-of-four's body and brought him to Apgar Horse Corral, where he was then transported to the Flathead County Coroner. 'The park extends their deepest condolences to the family and asks the public to respect the family's privacy,' NPS said in a statement. Mount Gould is nearly 10,000 feet high and is the highest point along the Garden Wall. Astle worked as a consultant for a software technology group in Salt Lake City and also sat on the board for BYU EMBA Endowment Fund, according to his LinkedIn. He was often seen on social media enjoying football games at his alma mater, BYU, with his wife and spending with his three daughters and one son. Astle worked as a consultant for a software technology group in Salt Lake City and also sat on the board for BYU EMBA Endowment Fund They often went hiking with their dad and mom, Lauren Astle. Lauren remembered her husband as a 'devoted husband, father, son, and brother,' in a Facebook post. 'Thank you for your love, support, and prayers during this difficult time,' she wrote. His funeral will be held on Friday at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Provo. Daily Mail has reached out to family for comment. In May, a German tourist died in a tragic fall while hiking at one of America's beautiful national parks in Utah. Rudolf Peters, 77, from the town of Haltern am See in western Germany, lost his life on Tuesday afternoon after tumbling from the Windows Loop trail at Utah's Arches National Park. The elderly visitor had been navigating a section of the popular trail when the devastating accident occurred, according to park officials. Fellow hikers who witnessed the fall rushed to Peters' aid and immediately began performing CPR in a desperate attempt to save his life as emergency services rushed to the remote location. He was pronounced dead on the scene.
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Revealed: The haunting truth behind the 'Battle of Los Angeles' that saw city 'attacked' for 2 hours
On February 24, 1942, Los Angeles erupted in chaos as anti-aircraft guns unleashed a barrage into the night sky, but a historian says there was nothing up there to hit. The so-called 'Battle of Los Angeles' took place just 11 weeks after the Japanese navy's devastating attack on Pearl Harbor dragged the US into World War II. With Americans gripped by fear of a Japanese invasion of the West Coast, Dr Mark Felton, a historian and author, told the Daily Mail five people lost their lives as unexploded munitions rained down on the city during the air raid. Military commanders initially claimed Japanese bombers had been spotted on their way to attack, and that eventually led to to even more wild speculation that enemy agents or even UFOs were invading Southern California. However, when the sirens faded and the guns went silent along the coast, no enemy planes were ever found. The incident was later deemed a false alarm triggered by a stray meteorological balloon mistaken for an enemy aircraft. Felton called the event a stark example of 'war nerves,' with jittery troops and civilians primed for an assault that never came. Making things even worse, a real attack had just rocked the California coast the day before. A Japanese submarine had just shelled an oil field near Santa Barbara, marking the first attack on the American mainland since 1812. 'The Americans expected some sort of Pearl Harbor-like carrier plane attack on the US West Coast, so tension was very high, exacerbated only the day before by the shelling of the Ellwood Oil Refinery,' Felton said. The historian and Youtuber added that anti-aircraft battery units were ready to shoot down any suspicious aircraft approaching the mainland, leading to the tragic miscalculation. 'The combined number of guns within LA could place 48 flak shells into the sky every minute, creating a perilous curtain of fire for any would-be bombers to penetrate,' Felton revealed. On the night of February 24, anti-aircraft guns were on alert across the whole city, and 10,000 air raid wardens stood ready. A blip on the radar screen was formally identified as an unknown aircraft at 2:07am PT. That's when the first 'yellow alert' was posted. A blue alert then went out which signaled to military and local police that the aircraft was believed to be hostile. Three minutes later, a red alert was issued. At 2:25am, air raid sirens started wailing across Los Angeles, and thousands of wardens and police officers spilled into the streets. Searchlights raked across the sky in search of the mystery aircraft, which military gun batteries still hadn't seen or confirmed was even real. Despite not seeing a Japanese bomber, at 3:16am, all of the anti-aircraft guns suddenly opened fire, launching hundreds of shells that exploded like fireworks above the city. The guns ceased firing at 3:36am, with search lights still probing the sky again. At 4:05am, the flak guns started firing again. The chaotic night saw 10 tons of shells blasted into the sky across Los Angeles, as explosions echoed across the city and five citizens died from heart attacks and car accidents tied to the incident. The guns eventually stopped, but not until 1,440 rounds had been fired into the sky. While many exploded at pre-set altitudes, others fell back to Earth and detonated over homes across the city. 'Some of the larger three inch shells that had failed to explode in mid air detonated instead when they began impacting all over LA houses and garages were damaged as white hot shards of shrapnel ripped through homes, often narrowly missing terrified residents,' Felton revealed. As the sun came up later that morning, Army bomb disposal teams went to work roping off streets from curious bystanders and finding live shells which had buried themselves in roads and gardens. After the battle, reporters claimed 50 enemy aircraft had bombed the city. American military reports suggested a force of up to 25 to 30 aircraft tried to invade the West Coast. However, both of these stories would have required a Japanese aircraft carrier to be in the area, which was not the case. At this point, authorities suggested that the aircraft spotted on radar might have been a civilian plane, piloted by enemy agents. In the end, authorities had to admit the truth: no Japanese aircraft had attacked Los Angeles. The skies were empty and the sound and fury of the anti-aircraft batteries were firing at nothing. On February 26, the Secretary of the Navy, Frank Knox, officially declared that the raid had been a 'false alarm.' 'The incident is famous as an example of 'war nerves' - basically, the troops were on edge, pent-up and ready for anything, and it didn't take much to trigger such a response,' Felton said. 'It is also an example of military incompetence from the high command down to battery commanders, all of whom were expecting a Japanese attack,' he added. 'Once the firing started, the impression of an enemy attack was further exacerbated by the imagination of gunners who claimed to see or hear planes in the night sky, stray US flares in the sky and AA [anti-aircraft] shells landing in LA and exploding, looking like falling Japanese bombs.'
Daily Mail
11 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Professor who studied love for 40 years and can predict divorce reveals subtle sign of a failing marriage
A leading psychologist known for his expertise in romantic relationships has revealed a major sign that a marriage is facing failure. US-based Dr John Gottman is a marriage and family counsellor and founder of the Gottman Institute, who once conducted one of the largest long-term studies on relationships ever undertaken. As a result of his extensive research, Dr Gottman has identified factors which suggest a relationship is doomed for failure. In a recent video on YouTube, he responded to a question, identifying one of the signs that a coupling is in trouble. He was asked: 'So you can predict divorce. What exactly are you looking for when you observe a couple, and what's the science behind it?' Speaking in the clip, Dr Gottman noted that it depends on the situation in which you are observing a couple. He explained: 'If you're observing them just hanging out, you see what looks like a real willful attempt to disconnect, what Erving Goffman called away behaviors.' These represent a partner saying 'I'm not interested in you. I'm not connected to you, and so whatever you feel and whatever you need doesn't impinge upon me, I don't have to respond to that', the psychologist said. He continued: 'You know, that sort of colossal disinterest when they're just hanging out is really a sign of this relationship is not going to work, and especially in moments where the partner is reaching out, you know, is making themselves vulnerable and saying, "hey, look at this. Join me", you know. 'And being interested in something [for example] watching a boat, looking at a bird, [or saying something like] "join me in a conversation about your brother, because I'm worried about your brother", something like that. 'And what predicts divorce is the [other] person saying, "no, I'm not going to respond to that. I'm not going to respond to your emotions and your your desire to connect with me".' Dr Gottman then discussed what is a very good predictor of divorce when it comes to conflict. He said: 'What we find is that when people have a ratio of positive to negative emotion that is less than five to one. That's a really good predictor.' By this, he means that in a healthy relationship, for every negative interaction, there should be at least five positive ones, to offset the impact of the negative one. A number of viewers took to the comments section to discuss how they felt about Dr Gottman's theory. One said: 'My deceased husband spent the last 15 years if our marriage refusing connection with me. The grief was unbearable, helplessness and despair. Im still having anger and frustration for all those years.' Another mused: 'I wonder if marriage with an avoidant can work because they aren't the type to be vulnerable or accept bids for connection during conflict. Best to avoid imo.' 'My personal opinion is if a spouse shuts the other out and disconnect, thete is nothing the loving spouse can do. Each individual is responsible gor their own behavior. Lots of times the shut down spouse had gone to porn or adultery,' one replied. Dr Gottman, who has written a number of books on marriage, also calls this idea of the 5:1 ratio the 'balance theory' of relationships. 'As long as there are five times as many positive interactions between partners as there are negative, the relationship is likely to be stable,' the Gottman Institute blog explains. Positive interactions can be as small as smiling and laughing together, asking questions or saying I love you. Meanwhile, negative interactions are deemed as things like arguing or criticism. This means, he says, that if you do something that hurts your partner, you have to make up for it five times as much. 'If you do something negative to hurt your partner's feelings, you have to make up for it with five positive things,' Dr Gottman has explained in a video. A number of viewers commented on the video, sharing their views on Dr Gottman's theories 'The equation is not balanced.' Dr Gottman claims that he can predict divorces based on the theory, and that unhappy couples will have more negative interactions that the 'magic' number of the five to one ratio. 'The bottom line: even though some level of negativity is necessary for a stable relationship, positivity is what nourishes your love,' his website states. One way Dr Gottman suggests that couples can up the number of positive interactions they have is by practicing gratitude. He says that couples should regularly demonstrate appreciation and respect for one another, something that sometimes gets lost over time.
