Video summary

Is Your Avoidant DA or FA? 5 Ways to Tell

Main summary

Key takeaways

Wellness and Self-Improvement

Key wellness / self-care / relationship strategies (how to respond differently to DA vs. FA)

Why it matters (core idea)

  • The same outward behavior (pulling away, going silent) can come from two very different internal nervous-system states.
  • Using the wrong response can:
    • accidentally push the partner further away, or
    • reinforce the exact pattern you want to change.

The “5 concrete tells” to identify dismissive avoidant (DA) vs. fearful avoidant (FA)

  1. What silence looks like + what it feels like inside

    • DA silence: more physiological calm/relief; they feel “organized” internally (often described as a manager protector in IFS terms).
    • FA silence: no peace—often shame, fear, and a war inside the system (often described as an exile plus firefighters like numbing/disassociation/checking out).

  2. How they respond when you reach out

    • DA: tends to respond late, briefly, neutrally, usually without acknowledging the silence—because internally they’ve moved on.
    • FA: tends to respond faster (relief), but may be intense/emotional and then pull back again (hard to sustain openness once fear remains).

  3. How they handle conflict in real time

    • DA: wants emotional intensity to stop; may stonewall/go flat/end the conversation (emotion = “too much input”).
    • FA: may escalate, then switch/flip to shutdown; emotions can spill later (e.g., texts at odd hours).

  4. Their relationship with intimacy over time

    • DA: distance is a consistent regulating mechanism; cycles repeat predictably (intensity → pull back → you give space → return).
    • FA: closeness feels destabilizing both ways: they want connection but can panic, create distance, then feel abandoned—more swingy and confusing.

  5. Reaction to the relationship ending

    • DA: may look mostly unbothered until real loss becomes unavoidable; they may return after ending more than during deterioration.
    • FA: alarm is active early; can threaten leaving or pull away due to fear of intimacy—often genuinely torn.

Mixed presentations (important nuance)

People may not fit perfectly into one category. The video highlights two common blends:

  • DA with FA features: mostly DA-like, but occasional “weighted longing” breadcrumbs suggest underlying fear beneath defensiveness.
  • FA with DA features: mostly FA-like push/pull, but with surprising ability to go distant longer—often a learned “deactivation” layer.

How to respond (practical, regulation-focused guidance)

If your partner is more DA

  • Prioritize your nervous-system grounding (not emotional urgency).
  • When they go silent:
    • focus on yourself and your own regulation (your calm helps reduce relational pressure).
  • When re-engaging:
    • go briefly and low-pressure first,
    • avoid leading with the full emotional weight of what their silence cost you (until safety is built).
  • Research-based mechanism mentioned:
    • DA strategy involves suppression/regulation (the alarm can be “turned down”); it works until real loss breaks through.
  • Practical relationship technique referenced:
    • Build a positive interaction reservoir (Gottman’s “positive sentiment override”), built in ordinary moments—not during high-tension ruptures.

If your partner is more FA

  • Silence can intensify the fear; they need reassurance that connection still exists, but it must be low-pressure.
  • Use a brief, low-pressure check-in, e.g.:
    • “Hey, I’m thinking about you. No need to respond right away. I just wanted you to know.”
  • Avoid:
    • centering your needs (“I need to know you’re okay” / “Please respond”) during activation.
  • When they return intensely:
    • go slower than the return wants you to go—FA return often comes from “firefighter” urgency, and matching it can restart the cycle.
  • Long-term approach emphasized:
    • earned security comes through consistent safe experiences, not repeated reassurance.
    • therapy can be a corrective relational experience because it stays attuned and regulated even when the client is distressed.
  • Key clarification:
    • the low-pressure message is about timing and regulation, not abandoning needs.

Compassion framing (mental self-care)

  • Understanding DA/FA can build empathy, but the video repeatedly warns against:
    • over-investing energy into analyzing your partner,
    • neglecting your own needs and nervous-system health.
  • “Loyalty to yourself” is presented as a key principle: learning why they do what they do shouldn’t obligate you to live without the security you need indefinitely.

Help available / action step

  • Encourages viewers to use the information to respond more wisely.
  • Mentions coaching and worksheet resources for members.

Presenters / sources

Presenters

  • Joel Terry (licensed therapist)
  • Corrina Terry (licensed therapist)

Named sources / researchers referenced

  • Mary Main
  • Judith Solomon
  • Joseph Nicolson & Phillip Shaver (as cited in the subtitles)
  • Fraley & Shaver (1997)
  • Liotti (dissociative responses to attachment cues, as referenced)
  • Gottman (positive sentiment override)
  • Nickelson & Shaver (functional suppression strategies; per subtitles)
  • Mary Main called it “fear without solution” (attributed to Main in the subtitles)
  • Adult Attachment Interview (as the “gold standard” mentioned)

IFS terms like “manager,” “exile,” and “firefighter parts” are referenced as part of IFS concepts; the underlying IFS creator isn’t named in the subtitles.

Original video