[HN Gopher] How Happy Couples Argue: Study (2019)
___________________________________________________________________
How Happy Couples Argue: Study (2019)
Author : InInteraction
Score : 58 points
Date : 2020-08-19 16:33 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.utk.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.utk.edu)
| loopz wrote:
| 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.
| austincheney wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| joefkelley wrote:
| 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.
| pc86 wrote:
| 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.
| asdff wrote:
| 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.
| sebmellen wrote:
| This is a very healthy perspective on relationships and I
| fear the nuance of this view is often lost in discussions
| about relationships. I'm sure that if you posted this on a
| Reddit relationship forum, you'd get responses telling you
| that this is oppression or abuse, and you shouldn't put up
| with it.
|
| 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.
| groby_b wrote:
| 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.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Fish Sticks would be a much better name for a dog.
| egypturnash wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| kiliantics wrote:
| 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.
| blaufast wrote:
| 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
| thom wrote:
| 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.
| rconti wrote:
| 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.
| tunesmith wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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.
| tunesmith wrote:
| 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.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to
| conclusion.
|
| This is obviously not what they mean in this context.
| tunesmith wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| No the 'conflict' in that sentence is the argument they are
| having.
| tunesmith wrote:
| People can resolve conflict without it turning into an
| argument, which is exactly what that sentence seems to be
| describing. I wouldn't describe them as arguing.
|
| Is that couple having an argument or not? Doesn't this
| depend on how "argument" is defined, which was my
| original point?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| viburnum wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That view seems limited. Many relationships, especially longer
| ones, allow for both attraction and arguments.
| [deleted]
| viburnum wrote:
| No, what's limited is assuming argument style is the input
| and relationship happiness is the output.
| mcphage wrote:
| I think you're confusing necessary and sufficient
| conditions. The article isn't claiming that this argument
| style leads to happiness (ie, that it is _sufficient_ ),
| merely that other argument styles lead to unhappiness (ie,
| that it is _necessary_ ). But plenty of other things can go
| wrong along the way; just because you argue correctly
| doesn't mean you will have a happy relationship.
|
| (Of course, whether or not it is actually necessary is open
| for debate.)
| justinpw wrote:
| 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.
| essayist wrote:
| 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
| [deleted]
| zubspace wrote:
| 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.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| 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.)
| ashildr wrote:
| __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.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| 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.
| jeffbee wrote:
| 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.
| groby_b wrote:
| 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"
| zubspace wrote:
| 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.
| master-litty wrote:
| 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.
| zubspace wrote:
| 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 :)
| jschwartzi wrote:
| You also have to choose the right forums for problem-
| solving. Sometimes 1230 am is not the right time for an in-
| depth discussion of how it makes you feel when your partner
| buys food for himself when he's on his way to see you. You
| can bring it up but you should allow your partner to table
| it if they can't handle it.
| pwinnski wrote:
| 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.
| epage wrote:
| 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".
| kaonwarb wrote:
| 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.
| zubspace wrote:
| 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.
| ticviking wrote:
| 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.
| jschwartzi wrote:
| Especially if you can admit that it's a real problem and
| that you're taking it seriously.
| ashildr wrote:
| 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.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > 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.
| negina wrote:
| Non-jealous, compromising people tend to have longer and happier
| marriages? Sounds about right.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-19 23:01 UTC)