Talk:Happiness/Have a Happy Relationship/The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work

Defensiveness

Gottman considers defensiveness one of the four horsemen. He writes, with regard to a wife whose husband tells her to quit spending so much money on car washes:

“ It's no surprise, considering how nasty her husband is being, that Cynthia defends herself. She points out that she doesn't get her car washed as often as he thinks. She explains that it's more difficult physically for her to wash her car herself than it is for him to wash his truck.

Although it's understandable that Cynthia would defend herself, research shows that this approach rarely has the desired effect. The attacking spouse does not back down or apologize. This is because defensiveness is really a way of blaming your partner. You're saying, in effect, "The problem isn't me, it's you." Defensiveness just escalates the conflict, which is why it's so deadly. When Cynthia tells Peter how hard it is for her to wash her car, he doesn't say, "Oh, now I understand." He ignores her excuse — he doesn't even acknowledge what she's said. He climbs further up his high moral ground, telling her how well he takes care of his vehicle and implying that she's spoiled for not doing the same. Cynthia can't win — and neither can their marriage.

”

What's the alternative to defensiveness, in that sort of situation? Is it appropriate for her to bring up the frequency of her car washes or her physical difficulties at all in that conversation? If so, how could those issue be raised in a way that more effectively solves the problem? Also, how should a husband respond to a wife who is being defensive? Thanks, Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, drop any story of "appropriate." We want to know if it's appropriate so we can judge a person, perhaps. Alternatively, we want a road map, telling us what behavior is appropriate and what is not, so we can be "right", and know that, if it's not working, it is the other person's fault, not ours. However, there is no road map.

Rather, Gottman is pointing simply to what happens. She is defensive, and he is unsympathetic. Defensive is not "wrong." It's defensive, and that can damage intimacy, to be sure. (More accurately, it is a sign that intimacy has disappeared.)

If I'm trying to tell you something, and you become defensive, I may redouble my efforts to explain. That is offensive, but I may rationalize this as necessary to deal with a Big Problem.

Am I aware that I'm doing this?

Speaking from experience, generally not. I think I'm just trying to explain better, it seems to me that you aren't getting it, so, obviously, I need to say more. That is how I rationalize my behavior. However, underneath this is a lack of trust in your ability to regulate your own behavior. Underneath the example Gottman gives is the husband's belief that it is his job to restrain his wife's spending or the family is in danger. Now, he may have some real concern, but he does not present it as his concern, his problem; instead he asserts, as it comes out, that she is or has the problem.

In this scenario, neither of them is actually sympathetic with the other. She is not sympathetic with his concern over money, and he is not sympathetic with her assignment of importance to having the car washed, which is probably not about the car itself, but about avoiding domination. Because they are not mutually sympathetic and tolerant, the possible synthesis, a win-win solution, is not accessible to them.

Instead, they are both caught in slightly different traps. I.e, he's sure that he's right, and she is not about to allow him to dominate her. Eventually, "avoiding domination" will turn into a story that he is not merely being nasty right then, he *is* a nasty person. And who wants to be married to a nasty person?

On the other side, who wants to be married to a woman who will spend money without caring?

"Defensiveness" is an obvious survival reaction. So is "avoiding domination." So what to do? That's the question raised here.

Survival reactions arise instinctively. It is impossible to prevent this entirely, nor should it be prevented. After all, survival comes before other niceties. We can't love someone if we don't survive!

However, we become caught in survival reactions, because they generate emotions, especially fear. If you think your partner is out to dominate you, true or not, it's difficult -- or impossible -- to be loving, and the same if you think that your partner is going to spend all your money and ruin you. Though, hey, at least the car will be clean!

Both sides of this dilemma are trapped, as it is described.

A skilled therapist will help them to name the conflict, which is part of how to escape it. He may be encouraged to admit his fear, not just of going broke, but his fear that his wife cannot be trusted. And she may be encouraged to admit how much she dislikes his judgment of her and his controlling behavior. If they can hear these things from the other without becoming defensive, there is hope for the relationship.

But, Leucosticte, you want practical answers, and you are concerned about "facts." However, the problem here is not about fact, as such. The real problem is trust, I'd give it that name. Most of us are not, without training or support, willing to trust another with the depth that is necessary for a truly satisfying relationship. We are terrified by the prospect of it. What if she betrays me? And, hey, I have a friend whose wife forged credit card applications in his name and put him $100,000 into debt, and it all went up her nose.

Yet, sanely, who would want an intimate relationship with someone who cannot be trusted? Wouldn't that be a formula for continued misery?

"Trust" is not a fact, it is a choice. Do we trust the person we have in our life? If not, we either fix that or end the relationship, because, continued, it is poison. Poison for both people, by the way. It is *terrible* to live with someone who does not trust you.

So, ultimately, that's what must be faced, to trust or not to trust. Choose!

In your question about the situation, Leucosticte, you are trying to decide if "defensiveness" is good or bad. Can't she bring up facts, like how often she actually washes the car? And, if she is defensive, how should he respond to her? So, first question:

Let's look at how he could address the problem. First of all, what is the actual problem? Are they in severe financial crisis? It is obvious that a problem in a marriage is not well-addressed by ordering the other partner to do or not do something. That model of marriage went out the window a long time ago, and it's not clear that it ever worked. Yet that is exactly how this scenario begins: he "tells her to quit spending so much money on car washes." Why? No clue, in fact. What is his actual problem, and does he own it as his problem, and does he bring her in so that it might become their problem, that they would work together to resolve? In the story, no.

How about this as a lead: "Sweetheart, I screwed up this month (or blah blah happened), and we don't have what we have expected to have to spend. I think we need to cut back, so that we don't start bouncing checks and regular payments. I think we need to reduce expenses by $X. Any ideas?"

If no ideas come up, he might suggest: "Let's make a budget, lets look at what we have to spend and decide how to spend it! What is most important to you?"

Dealing with car washes may be fairly far down the list, or she might bring it up right away: "You know I love to have a clean car, but maybe we could wash the car on the weekends, together? I have trouble doing it myself, but together it could be fun! This could save [so much money] a month."

Notice: the result of a functional approach to the issue could strengthen the marriage because they handle it together.

Okay, so suppose she has become defensive. When a person has become defensive, what they need most, generally, is space and safety. They need to be heard. If someone becomes defensive, and I try to tell them that this is foolish, they should just be rational, etc., they -- quite reasonably! -- may see this as an attack.

When a person is defensive, primitive responses are triggered, the person may not be capable of love, trust, etc., nor of the more complex and deeper exploration of possibilities that can exist when one feels safe. It's just the way the brain works.

So if one partner is defensive, the other will functionally avoid anything that can look like an attack. I've found the most powerful response, dealing with high reactivity, is simply shutting up, while remaining present, actually listening, while, at the same time, watching out for my own defensiveness, being vigilant about it. When two people are triggered, watch out! Maybe if my partner is upset, this is not the time to address my own issues! Someone who is reactive is definitely Having a Bad Time. It is not fun to be afraid, it is suffering, and do we care if the person we love is suffering?

When the wife spoke defensively, Gottman notes, he did not acknowledge -- at all -- what she said, he just pursued his own agenda. This is his fundamental error there, and a sign that he's caught in his own reactions, because that lack of response is, to use a technical term, fundamentally stupid. She is not likely to hear him if he is not hearing her, that's how life works.

We cannot make others listen to us except by using nuclear weapons, so to speak. But we can control whether we listen or not. It can take some discipline, to be sure. I find that, sometimes, in spite of a commitment to listen, I still blurt out defensive remarks. But ... I know this is harmful, and I can immediately recognize it and stop (and apologize if needed, otherwise the apology may distract the other person). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, Gottman also says, "The research shows that if your discussion begins with a harsh startup, it will inevitably end on a negative note, even if there are a lot attempts to 'make nice' in between. Statistics tell the story: 96 percent of the time you can predict the outcome of a conversation based on the first three minutes of the fifteen-minute interaction! A harsh startup simply dooms you to failure. So if you begin a discussion that way, you might as well pull the plug, take a breather, and start over." (p. 27) So really, Peter had no immediate way to solve the problem once he'd started that way; as you say, the most productive thing he could do at that point is back off for the time being.

Gottman also notes that "when you have a conflict, the key is to be willing to compromise. You do this by searching through your partner's request for something you can relinquish." (p. 114). In happy, stable marriages, the partners actively search for common ground rather than insisting on getting their way. (p. 101) So, in one of the exercises, which presents the husband with common conflicts in which the wife is voicing a concern, the instructions say, "Assume that within that message is a reasonable request with which you could easily agree. In your notebook describe that reasonable request in one sentence. (In some of these scenarios the demand is implied rather than directly spoken.) Then write down what you could say to express your cooperation." (p. 118)

A more productive response on Cynthia's part, had Peter raised the issue as a complaint rather than a criticism, could have been to first look for the reasonable part of Peter's request and express cooperation, rather than immediately correcting him. This could have led to a compromise.

On the other hand, as you point out, there can also be deeper issues than the immediate issue: "If despite plenty of effort a man is still unable to accept influence from his wife on a particular issue, it's a sign that an unacknowledged, unsolvable problem is stymieing his efforts." (p. 114) Concerning that, Gottman writes, "To navigate your way out of gridlock, you have to first understand its cause. Whether the issue is momentous, like which of your religions to pass on to your children, or ridiculous, like which way to fold dinner napkins, gridlock is a sign that you have dreams for your life that aren't being addressed or respected by each other." (p. 217) Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Notice that if either partner develops and displays skill, the relationship can work (as to any given issue). This does not mean that one always gives in to the other. That will fail, it's predictable. Rather, a critical skill is also how to raise one's own concerns, not merely how to listen to the other's concerns. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Interrelations

I borrowed the "depends on" and "blocks" terminology from Bugzilla, but I was wondering if there were some better words to use. E.g., "is helped by" and "helps"? Or "furthers" or "reinforces"? Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Depends on" is a bit strong, implying that the principle cannot work without something else, and if they all depend on each other, then there isn't a way to start up the process, which I doubt that he's saying. So "furthered by" may say it. "Supported by..."

• However, what "blocks" means is entirely unclear to me. Please explain. No, I'm not going to go to Bugzilla and figure out how a relationship is like a piece of software, even if that may be true in some way. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Blocks" means the bug has to be fixed in order for another bug to be fixed. So, if bug 1 blocks bug 2, then bug 2 depends on bug 1. See, e.g., mediazilla:59618, which blocks mediazilla:60084 and depends on a whole slew of bugs, including mediazilla:60096. See also this graph or this tree. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You are using bug terminology, which implies something wrong that must be fixed. You know, Leucosticte, the above still is not clear to me. What does it mean that a bug depends on another bug? Don't answer that! Rather, what is being talked about re relationships?

If one skill or principle must be practiced before another can apply, that is a kind of dependency, principle B, for application, depends on principle A having been or being applied as well. To go into blocks however, you are categorizing the principles, it seems, according to their inversions, the problems they are supposed to solve. That's going to wrap the whole thing in story. But maybe I don't understand. 'Splain this thing to me. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see they have some definitions here and here. On your talk page, I gave an example of how the husband's bug report might get blocked, as the case may be) by another bug report that it depends on. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Bug resolutions might be dependent or blocked, and it may be necessary to resolve one complaint before another complaint is resolved, and that's what the definitions of dependency and blocking refer to. But the seven principles are not complaints and are not interdependent like that. All of them, as far as I can tell, can apply to any complaint, though some might be more effective for some. They are principles, not complaints. The principles can be applied with no complaints. Or with them.

When a complaint comes up, and one starts to apply the principles, then other complaints may come to light, and one applies the same principles to all of them, whether or not dependencies or blocks arise.

You are attempting to match the principles to each other without any specifics, so you will probably make up situations and try to figure out what needs to be fixed first, which might be highly dependent on the situations you invent. He talks about specifics in the book, I assume. If you want to write a resource on the book, study the book! Express it, show examples from it, discuss it. I recommend against inventing an entirely new system of comparisons about it.

You might as well look for variations in letter counts on pages, seeing if there is some code there. Don't laugh! I knew someone who did that with the Qur'an. It did not end well for him, he was assassinated. Brilliant scheme, he put a lot of work into it. And entirely invented, not there in the original, it was created through the analytical process. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

His Qu'ran code might be more fodder for that list I gave you earlier.

Gottman explicitly says that the seven principles are interrelated and that practicing any of them will make it easier to practice the others. He also, at various points in the book, explains particular ways in which practicing one principle will make it easier to practice another of the principles. That's what this is trying to document. It's just a question of what terms to use to describe those interrelations. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. They are interrelated, but not interdependent. You can document these ways in which practicing one principle makes it easier to practice another. These are not dependencies as with bugs. They are connections, and you could call them that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Chronologically, I think in reviving a marriage, one usually begins with the first three (and especially the first two) principles. The fourth principle can be pretty hard for those who haven't done any work on the first three. The fifth principle requires, or at least is greatly helped by, the first four to already be in place. The sixth principle is one of the most challenging, and leans heavily on the first four principles, which I think is why it comes sixth in the listing. The seventh is more of an optional one; Gottman writes, "If your marriage adheres to my first six principles, there's a good chance that your relationship is stable and happy. But if you find yourself asking, 'Is this all there is?' . . . [w]hat may be missing is a deeper sense of shared meaning." (p. 243) It's sort of like the Forum and Advanced Course, I guess; they both help you practice the principles you learn in the other, but there's a reason why one comes first. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely there is a reason why the Forum comes first. The Forum is a prerequisite for the Advanced Course, as the Advanced Course is for the Self-Expression and Leadership Program. The distinctions of the Forum are needed in the AC, and the distinctions of the AC are needed in the SELP. That the AC is a prerequisite for the SELP stands out as unusual. Normally, as a Forum graduate, you may take *any Landmark course,* with no other prerequisite.

Where does he establish that one of the principles comes first, or even the first three? I'd expect that he has a program that may start somewhere. What is that? He might even go one through six, with the optional seventh. But that may only be educational sequence. I'm not seeing any dependencies. Obviously the interrelationships allow one to go deeper with each one with support from the others. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)