How Happy Couples Argue: Study (2019)
news.utk.edu
news.utk.edu
The basic process starts w/reflective listening, then goes deeper to get at the underlying wound ("when you do that, it brings up all the times my parents..."), then to what might happen in a perfect world ("the toothpaste cap would magically fly back on the tube after 30 seconds of inactivity"), then to some concrete make-ups.
The other things we do that helps is to stick with the current argument (which I find difficult, sometimes) and to not go "meta" ("see, honey, there's a pattern here where you ...").
Bringing up history is not meta. Meta would be starting an argument about the way your partner argues, or similar.
So next time she does that, I will tell her that that's not a good way to argue because I read that on HN, right. :-)
Saying "when you do that, it brings up all the times my parents..." suggests that the problem lies in what the speaker is thinking and the speaker clearly knows it.
Compared to "see, honey, there's a pattern here where you ..." - the problem is still in what the speaker is thinking, but that sentence suggests the speaker doesn't understand that and is about to present their thinking as historical fact. If they phrased it "honey, what you just did made me think there's a pattern here where you..." would probably still be a bruising conversation but it will probably end in a much better place. The speaker has, based on a lot of arguments I've seen, almost certainly misunderstood the pattern they think they see.
A good way to force perspective into arguments is to just listen, not take it personally and not make a confrontation as soon as you observe that your significant other is angry. S/he just needs to lash out first after which you can get to the root of the problem which probably wasn't that mundane little thing that started "it all".
In other words, don't argue at the same time, don't be angry at the same time! While those arguments are coming right at you it's rarely personal in the real sense. It makes it hard to have an argument if you don't argue back. You only start discussing when you've let the anger come out first.
I've watched a coleague/friend do this and it is both amazing and disturbing -- it might seem almost robot-like to some(like, "why aren't you getting mad, doesn't the bullshit this other person said make your blood boil?").
I try to do the same, but it is incredibly hard, given the other issues in the relationship. Trying to fix smaller issues in order to create a precedent and good will and a feeling of competency feels like navigating a minefield.
This applies to online disagreements, too. Responding immediately is not often better than waiting, if you choose to respond at all. Waiting lets you say those things that only come to mind while you're in the shower the next morning (metaphorically and literally)
Specifically for your post I know several persons who start to argue with their partner with the intention of getting an emotional response. And when the other person tries not to argue they just escalate to heavier stuff.
Also, sometimes arguments ARE personal. The reason for the argument is just pretext and you partner really can't stand you any more. In which case IMHO you should get out, not look for strategies to have healthy arguments.
To keep it short there are a lot of particular situations and no general solutions to couple problems.
-Leo Tolstoy
I'm having a really hard time parsing this sentence. I think I can guess your intended meaning by keywords and tone, but it would be nicer if I didn't have to :)
> Those issues usually aren't that big they couldn't be calmly discussed if only they didn't reflect on
should read
> Those issues usually aren't so big that they couldn't be calmly discussed, if only they didn't reflect on
Mostly this way is pretending to be a goofy cartoon version of George and Martha from “Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Wolfe”. Or, rather, of what we imagine would be their online role-play avatars - how a rotting lich and a hyena lady ended up together in a stable orbit of mutual loathing is an open question, but it gives us a great way to express exaggerated versions of the things causing friction between us, and amuse each other with trying to turn them into comedy. It makes checking in on the actual issue afterwards a lot easier, as we’ve already burnt off a lot of whatever anger may have wanted to make us snap at each other in these exaggerated personas in the first place.
You'll find just as much conflict in the workplace as you'll find with your family, and how that conflict is handled will determine how healthy your workplace environment is.
You can't agree on everything (and that's a good thing, because it keeps ideas fresh), but you MUST agree on how to talk about and resolve differences, how to communicate, and how to cooperate.
You'll offend your partner far more often than you would a stranger because you are intimate and vulnerable to each other, which makes it far more likely that you'll hurt each other unintentionally, but also far more likely that you'll have a full and meaningful relationship, provided you practice good relationship hygiene.
A good resource is Dr. Gottman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXX8wzvT7c
I recently went vegan (for her) but with exceptions for when she would get angry at me. It was amazing. Instead of my blood starting to boil when her voice would raise, my mouth would start to water. Now, I've never eaten so many steaks. (And she is much more aware of her anger)
I am no psychological expert nor expert in family therapy, but is that all really healthy? I mean physically healthy too ... diet based on somebody elses emotions sounds fishe.
I'm not recommending this to others. But I do recommend a good steak every week or two on a vegan diet.
Would you refuse to work with a trainer if you were trying to improve at a physical activity? Would you reject a professional mentor in your field if it was on offer? Would you refute a doctor’s care if your physical health were impaired?
Also, it’s strange to refer to women as “females”, or treat all women as interchangeable, unless you run a crooked bar on a space station.
When we do argue its usually minor and due to differences of opinions search for conflict resolution. The last argument we had was whether we should kick the daughter out of the house. We spent less energy on that argument than I probably spent choosing what to eat for lunch, which is strange considering the severity of the subject.
The last serious argument we had was about 22 months ago when she got another dog without asking. Somehow I guessed the subject exactly when she started the conversation with: "Don't be mad..." I was livid. I told her if she wanted to keep the dog she had to name him "Gay Fish" (South Park reference). That never happened. What can you do when you haven't seen your spouse in a year and are on the other side of the planet? In hind-sight things are pretty healthy if that's the most serious of arguments.
The thing we disagree about the most is that I cannot arbitrarily quit my high paying corporate job where I literally do nothing. Although I hate being bored and so many of my coworkers (not just at the current job) are incredibly insecure and exceedingly sensitive my spouse is adamant I need a good reason to enter a different line of work.
After all that its funny, in a very sickly schadenfreude kind of way, to see the curiously trivial absurdities or bizarre self-serving behaviors other couples destroy their marriage over.
But maybe this is why I've never gotten married despite wanting to. I don't like it when other people try to pressure me into doing things I know I shouldn't have to do on premises that I don't agree with. Shrug.
When I would put up a fuss over my mother making me do something as a kid, she would eventually exclaim "Would you just humor me and do it?" Being an adult now I get that reaction. A lot of the times it's hard to describe your position to someone else, like my mother attempting to make me do something as a kid that I don't understand the ramifications of since I'm a kid, like going to the doctor's office. Obviously going to the doctor's office is necessary maintenance for a human, but as a kid you only see it as getting in the way of your playtime.
Being an adult is knowing that you will sometimes be the kid or the parent in this sort of scenario plenty of times, and that it's usually a lot easier to swallow your pride and humor your partner, rather than die on your hill like a child throwing a tantrum over not wanting to go to the doctor's office.
Relationships are all based on compromise, and the art of compromise is really what makes a relationship. I love the story you tell of your mother saying "Would you just humor me and do it?". My father did the same.
Yes, and I assume this is implied, but compromise must strike an acceptable balance. When things get too one-sided it's generally a recipe for trouble.
A good rule of thumb is for both partners to estimate their contributions or compromises to be 60+% of the total, and then there's some chance that it'll be fair (i.e. most people over-estimate their contribution/sacrifice)
I think a lot of relationship issues result from a struggle over balance/fairness because they aren't sufficiently dedicated to the others' interests and well-being.
So far what has worked is spending time trying to explain. He looks at me quietly, you can see his cogs whirring and - while he has not much comprehension of my reasoning - he goes along with it because:
- whatever Dad is saying must be important because he is putting effort into it.
- if I do it he'll shut up and I can go back to fun...
Especially in long marriages, couples often operate as a team - one spouse chases the job opportunities, the other one holds down the fort. One spouse makes money, the other runs a startup. Etc. That doesn't work if you think "my life is mine only, nobody gets a veto". You give up autonomy for better cohesion and combined success.
But I think what's important to know is that in long-running healthy relationships, people have worked on setting boundaries and agreeing on what's off-limits and what isn't. It's not about "pressure", it's about having an agreement.
The only reason to stick with a job you don't like is if you really need the money.
If you don't need the money... what else is there?
For instance, I take your approach for most purchases under two thousand dollars or so. If I want to buy myself a new computer or whatever, I'd mention it to her, but ultimately I'm probably going to get it even if she thinks I shouldn't. I know some couples where this isn't the case, even if they have the means. Their price threshold for making the decision together is much lower.
But on career changes we make decisions together. For instance, she recently made a change that will result in her making less money, especially in terms of long-term career trajectory. But her stress level and overall happiness is much better. And she knows that my income was a good amount higher anyway and it ultimately won't affect things like when we retire or our quality of life that much.
But then it would be pretty shitty of me to change to a lower-paying profession down the road without her OK. She has sacrificed her earning potential with this kind of commitment in mind and maybe wouldn't have if she didn't know she could count on me to make future decisions with her collaboration.
I'm not saying either end of the spectrum is necessarily better. Just that there are pros and cons and it's more important to be in agreement.
The interesting part of that is whether it’s really worth fighting about in the first place. In a successful marriage you both absolutely have to concede some loss of control in life. At what point do you draw that line in the sand, that point of absolution which serves as a point of no return and is it worth it? In the case a getting a dog it wasn’t worth being angry about.
There are situations that do serve as grave violations of fidelity. If you discover your spouse is cheating on you, or vice versus, that line in the sand was just leapt over and destroyed, particularly given a situation like extended separation that requires extra trust.
The most important part of the pattern is: 2 weeks into the new job I'm always "What was I thinking? I should have done this LOTS sooner!"
The worst thing you can do is not talking about something or avoiding the topic. I think mutual understanding is one of the cornerstones of a healthy relationship.
There are also, as the article suggests, some disagreements just not worth chasing to the bottom.
I agree that it's unproductive to talk about something when emotions are out of control. Both should take a break, a walk, time to cool down.
What I think is, that late in the evening I get into a state, where I am too exhausted to defend my point of view. And sometimes that is the key to accept a different opinion more easily.
But your right. Some problems cannot be solved in an evening. I guess it alreday helps to talk about them and maybe agree to disagree for now.
Absolutely! Have the fight you're having. The fight you had yesterday or last week or whenever is off topic.
You have to not put off those conversations. But don't make "before you go to bed" an ironclad rule, because the more tired you are, the harder it is to work through the issue.
Arguing helps uncovering those differences and leads to understanding your partner. If you do it frequently, it helps you be more aware of such things.
The goal is to minimize those times where you need to argue. The positive side effect of talking it through in the evening is that you can go to bed and wake up without holding a grudge. But as I said, it's not that easy and it requires both sides to be able to find a solution in a civilized way.
If you think negotiating at least an understanding to put an issue temporarily to rest before sleep and using sleep as an emotional weapon are the same thing - your relationship is REALLY in trouble. (And so is how you look at the world in general)
It's perfectly OK to say "I think you're really wrong about this, but let's talk tomorrow. I'd just like to sleep". The healthy response there isn't "I WONT LET YOU SLEEP BEFORE YOU AGREE"
Agreeing that the anger should not disrupt human contact and safety is absolutely essential, and does not require resolving the anger itself. It is certainly easier to successfully resolve anger and conclude the topic than to being asked to set aside anger for the evening. However, resolving anger when tired, stressed out, after a long day for one or both of you, and maybe hungry — at significant personal cost to one or both of you — is not a success. It does not create a space of safety for future arguments, and it implies that anger is a higher priority than the human being(s) feeling it.
The ceasefire specifically does not include any form of warfare between when the agreement is made and the next day. No passive-aggressiveness, no sniping, no laying verbal traps. No silent punishment. No withholding platonic touch because "they don't deserve a hug". If they attempt to start something, let it slide. If you attempt to start something, stop the instant you realize it and apologize for breaking the ceasefire.
You don't have to hide the signs of your anger. You don't have to make them feel better. You don't have to do everything they ask out of guilt. But you must continue to be their partner, and sustain the foundation of your relationship, by offering them safety overnight.
Note: This applies exclusively to non-abusive anger. If you feel like you're being verbally, emotionally, or physically abused, whether anger is involved or not, please seek immediate support from a hotline, a friend, a professional, anyone. If you can get out, do so. Possessions can always be replaced.
(Standard disclaimer, I am not your medical professional.)
It is good to de-escalate and keep discussions alive, which is the heart of the idea. But timing is key and the human condition needs to be factored in; We do get hungry, we do get tired, and these things affect our processing and how we approach problems.
There’s a dangerous implication in the “never go to bed angry” idea — You’re controlling whether your partner gets to sleep. I suppose some relationships don’t mind that aspect if it is mutual — But if you are truly tired, that is miserable, and it will affect how you approach that problem in the moment.
Anecdotally: I’ve seen this advice stem from a fear where the problem won’t be discussed the next day. Rather, actively avoided. That’s a different problem that isn’t about short-term de-escalation, but instead commitment and long-term resolution.
And I also know from first-hand experience that not talking about things is very dangerous in the long run. Solving problems is a skill which needs to be learned and practiced.
But well, I agree that every relationship is different. Do something which works for you and act with common sense. And if you're both tired, go to bed and hug :)
On the other hand, I know very few adults who do their best thinking or are at their most gracious at 3am. Sometimes going to bed is the right choice.
I don't really get why people seek out conflict and blame. It just seems unhealthy all around. Some people thrive on conflict, though. They like to argue. They like to blame, to engage. Or at least, they NEED to, even if they don't like it. Or maybe one partner seeks out conflict, and the other one hates it.
But, ultimately, I think arguing is a choice.
One could argue that partnering young leads to more issues because it doesn't allow you to form an individual identity. On the other hand, it could strengthen your bond because your identities were built together. Partnering late in life, when you don't "need" each other leads to less dependency; but it could also lead to the partners finding it just as easy to get rid of each other.
To me, argument is functionally synonymous with the life-cycle of disagreement/resolution/coordination. Other qualities of intensity or emotional valence are almost entirely orthogonal to this core process of communication and negotiation to handle inevitable differences of opinion in a partnership.
Through that lens, never arguing seems like never sharing opinions nor making joint decisions.
I am not rconti, but for me there is a big difference as well between arguing and talking about a difference in opinion. Arguing for me is "fighting", being confrontative and aggressive, blaming and letting off steam. The other thing then would be a calm, collaborative and resolution-oriented talk about an issue. I personally had relationships with both kinds but can not really pin down why one relationship resulted in arguing and all others did not.
It's a sign that they feel being hit by a perceived mini-hiatus and unsure whether it will resolve into "we are in this together" direction or in the "we are further and further apart" direction.
Particularly when after a while of bilateral stubborn squabbling the subject suddenly dies, never to return.
Just a hypothesis though.
What are the choices?
How would I even know I might like chocolate if I've only ever heard of vanilla?
Instead, I form relationships with reasonable people who are in control of themselves.
Assuredly the word came from somewhere else, we lay no claim to it.
(Of course, whether or not it is actually necessary is open for debate.)
Dictionary definition discussions are weak at the best of times, but they're super weak when the definition you're choosing for the word isn't even the most common one, whereas the article clearly is using the most common one, and is perfectly correct in that usage. We all know that's not the definition in question.
I'd also disagree that one is significantly more common than the other, when the phrase "making an argument" is so commonly understood.
> 1) an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
As opposed to a definition common in other contexts, eg academic, legal, political, like
> 2) a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
It's probably just a sloppy article - the paper's abstract doesn't describe that behavior as "arguing". In fact, the string "arg" doesn't show up on the study's page at all:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335327845_What_are_...
This is obviously not what they mean in this context.
Is that couple having an argument or not? Doesn't this depend on how "argument" is defined, which was my original point?
Here's kinda what I'm thinking for a division-
Debating is more or less arguing a point or idea with someone else, heated debates are still arguing over the point.
Fighting happens when the debate and points argued over shift from being about the merits of the point to the merits of the speaker (e.g. their history, esp. when, as others mentioned, it becomes a highly critical / mean meta-analysis) - this is the kind of thing that becomes especially harmful to partnerships.
Also, W/RT damage to partnerships, etc., a heated debate about what desktop wallpaper someone should pick can probabmy damage a relationship just fine.