My Therapist Says 'Both Sides Have a Point' — But Do They?

Your therapist (or their therapist, or the couples counselor) keeps saying 'there are two sides to every story' and 'both of you need to work on communication.' It sounds fair. It sounds balanced. And something about it makes you feel worse instead of better.

Here's why: when one person in a dynamic is systematically undermining the other's perception of reality, treating both sides as equally valid IS the manipulation. It gives equal weight to the person distorting reality and the person trying to describe it.

When 'both sides' helps vs. when it enables

In a relationship where both people have genuine but different perspectives — where miscommunication is the actual problem — 'both sides' framing is appropriate. It helps each person understand the other's experience and find middle ground.

In a relationship where one person consistently shifts blame, questions the other's perception, and avoids accountability while appearing reasonable, 'both sides' framing becomes a weapon. It tells the person being manipulated that their experience is just another 'perspective' — not more accurate, not more grounded in what actually happened, just 'their side.'

The structural question is: Are both people describing the same reality differently, or is one person distorting reality while the other is trying to describe it? A therapist who doesn't distinguish between these two scenarios ends up co-signing the distortion.

How to bring structural evidence to therapy

The problem with 'I feel like they gaslight me' in a therapy session is that it can be reframed as 'your perception.' And in a therapy room, perception IS the currency — which means the person who's better at managing perceptions wins.

Structural evidence changes this dynamic. Instead of 'I feel like they blame me for everything,' you can say: 'In 8 of our last 10 text conversations, I raised a concern and the conversation ended with me apologizing. Here are the specific messages. In each one, my concern gets redirected to my reaction, and accountability shifts from their behavior to my response.'

That's not a feeling. That's a documented pattern with specific examples. A competent therapist will recognize the difference between a perception complaint and a structural demonstration.

Text Message Examples

Consider the following text exchanges, each revealing a different facet of the 'both sides' dynamic. In the first, a partner texts, 'I feel like you never listen to me,' and the response is, 'I feel like you never listen to me either.' This mirrors the original complaint, deflecting responsibility and creating a stalemate. The structure here is symmetrical: both parties claim the same grievance, making it impossible to determine who started the pattern or who might need to change first.

Another example shows a friend saying, 'You always cancel plans last minute,' and the reply, 'Well, you always expect me to drop everything for you.' This exchange escalates by introducing a new accusation, shifting the focus from the initial complaint to a broader pattern of perceived unfairness. The structure is now asymmetrical but still circular, as each statement justifies the other.

In a third scenario, a colleague texts, 'You took credit for my idea in the meeting,' and the response is, 'You never give me credit for anything I do.' Here, the structure is more complex: the initial complaint is met not with a denial or defense, but with a counter-complaint that broadens the scope of the conflict. This makes it harder to address the original issue, as the conversation becomes about a general pattern rather than a specific incident.

A fourth example involves a parent texting, 'You never call me,' and the child replying, 'You never call me either.' This exchange is notable for its simplicity and symmetry, but also for the emotional weight it carries. The structure is identical to the first example, but the relationship context adds layers of guilt, obligation, and history that complicate resolution.

In a fifth exchange, a partner says, 'I feel like you don't care about my feelings,' and the response is, 'I feel like you don't care about mine either.' This is structurally similar to the first example, but the emotional content is more vulnerable, making the deflection feel more hurtful. The symmetry here can feel like a rejection of the initial bid for connection.

Finally, consider a text where one person says, 'You're always on your phone when we're together,' and the reply is, 'You're always nagging me about it.' This exchange introduces a meta-level complaint: not only is the original issue deflected, but the act of raising it is itself criticized. The structure here is defensive and accusatory, making it even harder to have a productive conversation.

Recognizing and Responding to the Pattern

To recognize this pattern in your own conversations, start by paying attention to moments when you or the other person respond to a complaint by making a counter-complaint, especially one that mirrors or escalates the original. Notice if the conversation seems to loop back on itself, with neither party feeling heard or resolved. Another sign is when discussions about a specific issue quickly broaden into general accusations about the relationship or the other person's character.

When you notice this pattern, the first step is to pause and name it. You might say, 'I notice we're both bringing up complaints, and it's hard to focus on what started this conversation.' This simple act of naming can sometimes be enough to break the cycle, as it brings awareness to the dynamic and invites both parties to step back.

If naming the pattern doesn't shift the conversation, try to slow things down. Ask yourself: What is the core issue each of us is trying to address? Sometimes, beneath the surface complaints, there are deeper needs or fears that aren't being expressed. For example, 'You never listen to me' might really mean, 'I feel unimportant or ignored.' Reflecting this back can help both parties feel seen and understood.

Another strategy is to practice active listening, even when you disagree or feel defensive. This means summarizing what you've heard and asking if you've understood correctly, before offering your own perspective. For instance, 'It sounds like you're feeling hurt because you think I don't value your contributions. Is that right?' This can help de-escalate tension and create space for a more productive dialogue.

It's also important to recognize when the pattern is too entrenched for you to manage on your own. If you find yourself repeatedly stuck in these cycles, especially with the same person, it may be a sign that outside help is needed. A therapist or mediator can provide a neutral perspective and help both parties communicate more effectively.

Finally, remember that change takes time. Breaking the 'both sides' pattern requires patience, self-awareness, and a willingness to be vulnerable. It's not about winning an argument or proving who's right, but about creating a space where both people can feel heard and work toward a resolution together.

Building your evidence before the next session

Go through your text conversations from the last month. Identify 3-5 exchanges where you raised a concern or set a boundary. For each one, map what happened: Did your concern get addressed? Did responsibility stay with the person whose behavior you raised? Or did it redirect to you?

If you need help seeing the structural patterns — especially if self-doubt is making it hard to trust your own reading — paste the conversations into Misread.io. It identifies 40+ manipulation patterns and shows you exactly where they operate in the text. Take that analysis to your next therapy session. It's harder to 'both sides' a structural map than a feeling.

A good therapist will welcome this. They'll see the pattern you've documented and adjust their approach. A therapist who dismisses structural evidence in favor of maintaining the 'both sides' frame may be out of their depth with this type of dynamic — and that's important information too.