How Happy Couples Argue: Study (2019)

https://news.utk.edu/2019/09/16/new-research-sheds-light-on-how-happy-couples-argue/

by InInteraction • 6 years ago

187 109 6 years ago

news.utk.edu

_y5hn• 6 years ago

For unhappy couples, there might be more differences and stronger opinions remaining unresolved. So could be different from individual to individual, and for different couples and environments. Some couples are a good fit, and others might never reconcile their differences. Most long-lasting couples go through a phase of rejection and reconciliation.

tunesmith5• 6 years ago

I wonder if this is a language confusion. An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to conclusion. People regularly have to argue together to work together, because things change over time and we have to adjust to the changes. But the other sense of argument is that one person has one conclusion, and the other person has a different conclusion, and they are battling about it and are upset about it. That's the sort of thing that can be entirely avoided if people start with shared premises and argue "together". I think there are a lot of happy couples that actually never argue in the battling/upset sense.

jerf• 6 years ago

"An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to conclusion."

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.

tunesmith5• 6 years ago

I'm sort of surprised by both the replies to my comment so far, because I think it's the article itself that conflates the two definitions. When the quote is, "Happy couples tend to take a solution-oriented approach to conflict, and this is clear even in the topics that they choose to discuss" that's clearly pointing to the more academic definition of "argument" and not the "upset about opposing points of view" definition. If two people are taking a solution-oriented approach regarding a conflict they are choosing to discuss, would you normally describe them as "arguing" in the emotional sense?

I'd also disagree that one is significantly more common than the other, when the phrase "making an argument" is so commonly understood.

chrisseaton2• 6 years ago

An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to conclusion.

This is obviously not what they mean in this context.

tunesmith5• 6 years ago

They are literally describing "Happy couples tend to take a solution-oriented approach to conflict, and this is clear even in the topics that they choose to discuss" as an argument.

kiliantics• 6 years ago

A book I'd recommend for anyone who wants to improve the communication in their relationships -- romantic or otherwise -- to help resolve any kind of conflict, is "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg. The ideas are very simple, almost obvious, but his exposition is brilliant and really reaches deep into the human experience. He makes a convincing argument for how our learned behaviours have led to widespread inability to effectively resolve conflict, and he gives a straightforward model for overcoming this.

jld89• 6 years ago

Yes totally recommend it. I am convinced that communication is the root cause for strife in all relationships, love or otherwise.

justinpw• 6 years ago

I suppose in order to learn how to love, it would be begging the question to scatter that word throughout the article. I wish it would have been mentioned at least once, though.

egypturnash• 6 years ago

Personally I find one of the biggest things that keeps my relationship going is that we have ways to express discontent with each other that unambiguously frames it as not necessarily a big thing.

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.

zubspace4• 6 years ago

One of the best things I learned from my wife: Never go to bed angry. If we have an issue, we talk it through until we find an agreement. It's actually harder than it sounds.

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.

kaonwarb• 6 years ago

One alternative thought based entirely on my own experience: late at night when both parties are exhausted sometimes isn't the best time to work out a thorny issue. I agree letting things fester isn't great in general - but I find that my mind and emotions are often in a better state after some rest.

There are also, as the article suggests, some disagreements just not worth chasing to the bottom.

ticviking• 6 years ago

It's okay to acknowledge that both of us are exhausted and upset. That whatever issue is going on is real and we commit to doing solving it. Often that much is enough to make anger give way to peace, or at least acceptance and resolve.

zubspace4• 6 years ago

I have a natural tendency to walk away from problems or ignoring them. Fortunately I have a wife who cannot rest until we're ok with each other.

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.

ashildr2• 6 years ago

This! We never went to bed angry in 20 years - if we were angry we always “made peace“ before going to bed so we could sleep - and wake up - assured of our love. Here you and us differ: If it‘s late we postpone finding a solution because we know we can pick it up the next day if it feels relevant. In an argument we never bring a list of former lapses. If something is relevant it has to be brought up, not collected.

AnimalMuppet2• 6 years ago

In an argument we never bring a list of former lapses.

Absolutely! Have the fight you're having. The fight you had yesterday or last week or whenever is off topic.

AnimalMuppet2• 6 years ago

As a general principle, I agree... within limits. We deliberately broke that rule once. We decided that were both too tired to usefully have the conversation that we needed to have, so we went to bed. We had the conversation the next day. (But we went to bed with an unresolved issue, not with a broken relationship. We were clear that we were each accepting the other, even though we still had this issue hanging.)

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.

epage• 6 years ago

This advice sounds great in theory but I (and some others I know) have found it to be one of the worse pieces of advice. I know some people whose marriage was almost destroyed by this advice. What it does not recognize is the impact of being tired has on emotional regulation and rational thought. Sometimes its best just to go to sleep and talk about it in the morning. Most of the time for us it turns into a "Huh, now that I can think, that was nothing, sorry about that. I will work to better recognize when I'm not in a good place".

jeffbee• 6 years ago

Great way to ruin a relationship is to insist that every petty squabble gets resolved before anyone can sleep, leading to a cascade into permanent equilibrium where tired, angry people get mad at each other and insist that nobody can go to bed.

zubspace4• 6 years ago

I think most of the times. when we have an argument, it is because we think about something differently or do something in a way which the other side would do differently.

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.

groby_b2• 6 years ago

If you feel the need to resolve every petty squabble, no matter when, your relationship is in trouble anyways.

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"

floatingatoll• 6 years ago

Never go to bed without negotiating a ceasefire.

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.)

ashildr2• 6 years ago

ceasefire Thank you for finding a better word for “not angry” and for writing down the idea behind it. It’s the conscious, mutual decision to solve the problem later, knowing that sleeping safely together as a couple is more important.

HeWhoLurksLate2• 6 years ago

Wow, that's pretty good advice. Thank you!

master-litty• 6 years ago

It’s multilayered advice with a healthy component and a controversial component.

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.

zubspace4• 6 years ago

The thing is, that some people are not able to rest without resolving an issue. It's worse if one side is hyper-sensitive. If you're in such a situation, putting something aside is not an option.

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 :)

pwinnski• 6 years ago

On the one hand, dealing with things rather than ignoring them is a positive.

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.

eloff3• 6 years ago

I think to the contrary, never argue while tired. In my personal experience it does not end well, and those are the arguments I most regret.

blaufast• 6 years ago

The Science of Trust by John Gottmann is a great read if you are interested in this. Unlike most behavioral health, they use actual science and math to describe and dissect behaviors and outcomes

viburnum2• 6 years ago

Couples are happy when they’re attracted to each other. Arguments turn bad is when the attraction is gone. Nobody wants to say “I’m not attracted to you anymore” so they fight dirty instead.

neonate• 6 years ago

That view seems limited. Many relationships, especially longer ones, allow for both attraction and arguments.

viburnum2• 6 years ago

No, what’s limited is assuming argument style is the input and relationship happiness is the output.

rconti3• 6 years ago

I've not sure I've ever really argued with my wife, even though we've had difference of opinion on things. I haven't really seen my parents argue, or her parents argue.

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.

eloff3• 6 years ago

I find most of the time when couples say they don't argue, the real reason is one is a doormat that let's the other get their way all the time. There's not much to argue about in that case. I don't want to say that's the case with you, as I know nothing of your marriage. It's just an observation.

cecilpl2• 6 years ago

That's what my first marriage was like. I told myself it was a great relationship because we never argued, but really I just deferred to her on every decision and went out of my way to avoid any conflict.

rconti3• 6 years ago

I think that's fair. In our particular case, we're both pretty obliging people, and it works. If I was in a relationship with someone who was a 'taker', maybe I would have a hard time pushing back.

saltcured• 6 years ago

I don't really understand how you define "argue" such that you can completely avoid it while still admitting differences of opinion...

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.

badestrand• 6 years ago

I don't really understand how you define "argue" such that you can completely avoid it while still admitting differences of opinion...

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.

kubanczyk• 6 years ago

What I noticed is many people are creating conflicts to probe their relationship. They want to see whether the emotional reaction will be "meh, ok" (bad) or "you do it my way and stfu!!!" (a good start!).

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.

captainredbeard• 6 years ago

“Shit tests” is a term I’ve seen used for this behavior, particularly among women to men in their romantic relationships.

specialist• 6 years ago

"...arguing is a choice."

What are the choices?

How would I even know I might like chocolate if I've only ever heard of vanilla?

rconti3• 6 years ago

I've been in arguments before. And I sure see a lot of people out there arguing about pointless stuff that doesn't need to be an argument.

Instead, I form relationships with reasonable people who are in control of themselves.

essayist• 6 years ago

I'll recommend Imago training [1] to any and all couples. It's reflective listening on steroids and was transformational for us.

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 ...").

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imago_therapy

cagenut• 6 years ago

Sorry but my naive first-pass read of this registers it as contradictory. Your first example was clearly meta about the partners behavior pattern.

jhardy54• 6 years ago

Your first example was clearly meta about the partners behavior pattern.

Bringing up history is not meta. Meta would be starting an argument about the way your partner argues, or similar.

roenxi• 6 years ago

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted - that reads as a pretty fair question to me. I can't tell what makes the meta argument meta. But I can tell why one is going to lead to a much worse argument than the other:

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.

colordrops4• 6 years ago

It's often worse than "meta" though, where a normally reasonable person will intentionally (though probably subconsciously) confuse and mislead when in the heat of an adrenalized fight or flight situation.

austincheney2• 6 years ago

I completely agree with that article. I have been separated from my wife off and on for about 6 years over the 17 years we have been married due to military. We don't argue as much now, because at this point there is little reason as we basically read each other's minds. Most of the time there is conflict to be found its not between each other and talking about feels more like reviewing a git pull request.

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.

3pt14159• 6 years ago

If you have enough savings for retirement, and no dependants, I do not think your wife gets to have a veto over what you choose to do with your life. An opinion to take into consideration, sure, but not a veto.

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.

asdff• 6 years ago

I think that is definitely something that you have to be willing to balk from in a relationship. There will always be things that your partner insist you do, and things that you insist your partner.

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.

groby_b2• 6 years ago

If you change jobs, you impact financial outlook for both of you. I don't think a veto is as unthinkable as you make it out.

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.

pc862• 6 years ago

She doesn't get veto power but he also doesn't get to just quit without plans in place, and "we have enough money and I don't like it" isn't a great justification.

joefkelley• 6 years ago

I think each couple has a slightly different balance on what level of collaborative decision making they can expect, and this is actually a big factor in compatibility.

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.

austincheney2• 6 years ago

So that is what makes a situation like military separation interesting. She is trapped at home raising two teenage children without her spouse. It’s like being a single parent without the financial worries. Life gets lonely.

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.

dec0dedab0de• 6 years ago

Fish Sticks would be a much better name for a dog.

op03• 6 years ago

Find another job man. Or I send over 2 more dogs.

m463• 6 years ago

I have seen a pattern in my life when leaving one job for another.

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!"

thom• 6 years ago

This appears to be a study of common patterns of argument in two samples of self-reportedly happy couples. The kind of happy couples that volunteer for these sorts of studies, presumably. It’s all very nice but I’m not sure it tells us much, not least because every unhappy couple I know behaves in these ways too.

negina• 6 years ago

Non-jealous, compromising people tend to have longer and happier marriages? Sounds about right.

yters• 6 years ago

i have found most things i have gotten very angry at my wife over and we've had big arguments over, i cannot remember a week or two later. was it worth a big relationship damaging outburst, vs waiting a bit to cool off, talk it over later? i am not sure. maybe felt good at the time to get it out, but peaceful discussion with cooler heads and empathy is the only thing that results in lasting change

gonzo41• 6 years ago

Yeah i find the best way to ramp down is to eat some food. Usually I'm only angry because I'm actually hungry. It's the same for my wife.

CarbyAu2• 6 years ago

We call it Hangry.

Assuredly the word came from somewhere else, we lay no claim to it.

paul7986• 6 years ago

My partner of 11

kstenerud2• 6 years ago

This isn't just how happy couples argue; it's how happy PEOPLE argue.

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.

logicchains• 6 years ago

A great piece of advice I heard is "don't treat your partner worse than a stranger". Most people wouldn't dream of being abusive to a stranger they just met, yet they're fine with being abusive to the person they're supposed to care most about.

kstenerud2• 6 years ago

I understand the sentiment, but the way you avoid potential conflicts with strangers is to impose distance, which is not what you want in close relationships.

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

dr_dshiv3• 6 years ago

My wife has a masters degree in marriage and family therapy. We have been to so many marriage therapists. It's expensive but cheaper than the alternative. Just be deliberate about what you want from each session so it doesn't turn into expensive fighting.

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)

watwut• 6 years ago

So you are motivated to make her angry, because then you have steak? And you two use food for you to punish her having emotion?

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.

dr_dshiv3• 6 years ago

Steak isn't worth her being angry. It isn't a punishment for her, unless demonstrating my autonomy in eating choices could be construed as a punishment. She proposed the idea. The concept is just to break out of automatic feedback loops of negative emotions by embedding a positive anticipation.

I'm not recommending this to others. But I do recommend a good steak every week or two on a vegan diet.

mlang232• 6 years ago

Sorry, but this sounds like unhealthy to me. The day I need an external person to deal with the arguments in our relationship is the day I end that relationship. There are many females on this planet. No need to bend over backwards to make one particular relationship work.

colordrops4• 6 years ago

Your kids would be happy to see you bend your back a little.

kevinmobrien• 6 years ago

This is a very close-minded view. Professionals with psychological and/or therapeutic training can offer insights that you don’t have.

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.

slim2• 6 years ago

You don't have children, right ?

hedberg10• 6 years ago

Do you yourself want to be vegan if your wife wasn't there? Might explain why you need marriage therapy. Be yourself first. After doing that, maybe you're attractive enough to attract a mate, maybe even your wife. Don't do it the other way around. Don't be a doormat.

yason• 6 years ago

Most "arguments" in a relationship aren't about the actionable issue at hand. Those issues usually aren't that big they couldn't be calmly discussed if only they didn't reflect on and resonate with larger things, either personal to either party or long-brewing friction in the relationship due to earlier issues not having, in turn, been discussed at the time.

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.

raducu• 6 years ago

This is great insight!

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.

rsa25519• 6 years ago

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.

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)

trabant00• 6 years ago

If you found some strategy that works for you, great. But be wary of offering this a general solution.

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.

Balgair• 6 years ago

Every marriage is a universe, mundane interactions creating supernovae, spectacular histories eroded into dust, a state of existence with billions of nodes.

-Leo Tolstoy

smichel17• 6 years ago

Those issues usually aren't that big they couldn't be calmly discussed if only they didn't reflect on and resonate with larger things, either personal to either party or long-brewing friction in the relationship due to earlier issues not having, in turn, been discussed at the time.

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 :)

oehpr• 6 years ago

I found it was pretty clear, but rereading it, I realized I implicitly corrected a grammatical error.

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

How Happy Couples Argue: Study (2019)

Related Stories