I've been thinking about the phrase "meet someone where they're at," particularly in the context of supporting waywards who are still trying to understand their own thinking. I wonder if sometimes we confuse challenging someone's thinking with giving them the opportunity to actually examine it.
I can be very stubborn. I often think being told I am "limerent," "addicted," or on a "dopamine high" would make me less likely to consider the idea and more likely to argue about why you're wrong.
As a wayward spouse with a long history of being told "this is how it is" or "this is what you're supposed to think," I've become very sensitive to having someone interpret my experience for me (in case you haven't noticed 
). And because of that, I often think the right question opens the door to further contemplation rather than being told what I should or shouldn't feel or believe.
It gives me room to ruminate and consider the possibility without feeling like I have to defend my internal world—and for me, in particular, it's an incredibly valuable experience in a dynamic where there can already be a lot of conclusions made about what a wayward thinks, does, or believes.
And I understand the culture of wanting to throw a bucket of cold water on the wayward to wake them up. I'm just not sure that approach works for everyone.
For some people, I think the most productive thing you can do is give them enough space to arrive at the conclusion themselves. They may get there more slowly, but when they do, it's something they've actually integrated rather than something they've been argued into accepting.
So, what does "meeting someone where they're at" mean to you?
