17/05/2026
There’s a narrative that has been coming up a lot recently, not in the clinical space as much as in the friendship arena.
It says that some people are simply “too difficult”
🔸Too reactive
🔸Too caught in gossip or hostility
🔸Too far gone to reason with
And so the conclusion becomes:
🔸Don’t engage
🔸Don’t try to understand
🔸You can’t negotiate with them
I understand where that comes from.
When we’re on the receiving end of behaviour that feels chaotic, blaming, or unfair, something in the nervous system quite naturally wants to move away, shut down, or push back.
But here’s the part I attempt to sit with in my work.
What we often label as “impossible people” are very often people in states of dysregulation.
🔸Not thinking clearly
🔸Not feeling safe
🔸Not able to hold perspective
🔸Not able to access their more grounded, relational self
That doesn’t mean we tolerate harmful behaviour.
→ Boundaries still matter.
→ Discernment still matters.
→ Self-protection still matters.
But it does change the question.
From: “What’s wrong with them?”
To: “What state are they in, and what am I actually meeting here?”
Because when we move too quickly into labelling, we risk doing the very thing we’re reacting to
We reduce someone to a pattern
We stop seeing the human underneath it
And that’s where polarisation grows.
In trauma-informed work, we’re not trying to agree with everything.
We’re not trying to fix everyone. But we are trying to understand behaviour in context
And respond from a place that is a little more regulated, a little more spacious, a little more discerning
→ Not every situation can be repaired
→ Not every relationship can be continued
→ Not every friendship will last forever.
But not every difficult behaviour is something to fight or argue with either
Sometimes it’s something to step back or walk away from
Sometimes it’s something to set a boundary around
And sometimes, when it’s safe enough, and the other person is too, it’s something to understand
And that changes everything.
Lou x
