Examine Before Reacting
Interrogate the trigger before choosing a response.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 97%
Examine Before Reacting captures the repeated process Crews describes after therapy. Instead of treating anger as proof that another person was guilty, he began asking why a remark felt insulting, whether the reaction came from him or the other person, and whether the triggering label was even true. That examination let some provocations pass without controlling his behaviour. He applies the same distinction to a child spilling water accidentally and to refusing violent retaliation after being sexually assaulted. The mechanism is a pause between trigger and action: identify the interpretation, test it, classify intent and risk, then choose a response that keeps control. Crews describes years of small changes, so this is not presented as an instant anger cure or as advice to remain in danger.
Origin
Crews says therapy led him to keep examining why he felt angry or insulted. Over time, those questions changed his responses to provocation, accidents, and conflict.
Core principles
- 01A provocation does not dictate the response.
- 02Strong reactions can reveal an unexamined belief or insecurity.
- 03The first interpretation may wrongly assign guilt or intent.
- 04Repeated small choices can build a different response pattern.
- 05Self-control preserves options that retaliation can destroy.
How to run it
- 1
Interrupt the reflex
Create a brief gap before words or force turn the first feeling into an irreversible act. Prioritise leaving and getting help when safety is at risk.
Pro tip Use one rehearsed cue such as 'What is happening here?'
Watch out A pause is not a requirement to stay near a threat.
- 2
Name the trigger
Identify the exact remark, mistake, gesture, or expectation that activated the reaction. Avoid broad conclusions about the person's whole character.
Pro tip Describe the event as a camera would record it.
Watch out Feeling threatened is important information, but not complete proof of intent.
- 3
Question the meaning
Ask why the event feels insulting and whether the meaning comes from an insecurity, a learned rule, or the other person's conduct. Test labels instead of automatically defending against them.
Pro tip Ask whether a label you know is false deserves control over your behaviour.
Watch out Self-examination should not erase genuine misconduct.
- 4
Classify intent and risk
Distinguish accident, misunderstanding, bait, and immediate danger as carefully as the evidence allows. Crews's changed response to spilled water began with recognising his son's innocence.
Pro tip Consider the least harmful plausible explanation without ignoring evidence.
Watch out Do not assume innocence when there is a credible safety threat.
- 5
Choose control
Select the response that protects safety, dignity, and future options rather than rewarding the trigger with automatic escalation. This may mean reassurance, refusal, leaving, reporting, or legal action.
Pro tip Judge the response by what it preserves tomorrow.
Watch out Nonviolence does not mean silence or lack of accountability.
- 6
Review and repeat
Afterward, examine what worked and what still pulled you toward the old pattern. Treat change as a sequence of small responses rather than one dramatic transformation.
Pro tip Track one trigger and one alternative response at a time.
In the wild
Crews says he once would have blamed and berated a child for spilling water. After years of examining his responses, he recognised that his son was innocent and calmly said it was all right. His family's surprise made the behavioural change visible.
→ An ordinary accident no longer became a ruined family gathering.
After an agent grabbed him at a party, Crews pushed the man away but remembered his promise not to return to violence. He later argued that assaulting the powerful agent could have destroyed his credibility; instead, he reported and sued, eventually recovering legal fees and seeing the agent retired.
→ Crews pursued accountability without the violent response he says he once would have chosen.
Common mistakes
Treating emotion as a verdict
The intensity of anger does not by itself establish intent, guilt, or the best response.
Confusing control with passivity
Crews's assault account includes pushing away, reporting, and litigation; deliberate response is not inaction.
Expecting one insight to transform you
Crews describes minor changes accumulating over years rather than one instant cure.
Is it for you?
Best for
People working to change reactive patterns during ordinary provocation, mistakes, or conflict.
Not ideal for
Immediate physical danger where pausing to analyse would delay getting to safety or contacting emergency help.
From the transcript
“why do i feel angry if someone says that”
“once i started asking these questions i could let it go”
“when my son spilled that water i knew he was innocent”
From the episode
Terry Crews: How My Porn Addiction Nearly Ended My Marriage