Chapter One
Making a Relationship Work
Graydon G. Goss, MD
Copyright 1997
The work of a relationship is the development of the art of discussion. It's a little like the art of diplomacy.
As a psychiatrist who spends a lot of time with couples, I have had the dubious honor of listening to many, many arguments. When I began my practice, I found it hard to avoid listening to the issues as they came up. Sessions were exhausting and felt non-productive . . . even to me.
One day, I began to listen in a different way. I wondered if there were any "common denominators" to all the fights I witnessed. I began to focus my attention on the critical moments when discussions would deteriorate into arguments, and to identify the triggers which would precipitate the deterioration.
To my surprise, I noted that every argument, regardless of the "issue", began with one of just three simple triggers. Only three! I tested my observation by predicting the evolution of an argument whenever in the course of a discussion I heard one of the three triggers. Sure enough, right after a trigger occurred an argument would begin.
I changed my style of doing therapy at this time. I began to interrupt triggers; to prevent them. The arguing stopped. The sessions began to feel positive and constructive . . . even fun. Relationships improved. The time required to make changes decreased dramatically.
I began to tape record sessions and to have couples tape their discussions at home. When arguments occurred, we had an objective record of them. After the dust had settled, we could go back over the tapes and listen for triggers and learn to avoid them.
It became very clear to me that the triggers were simply bad habits. They were seldom if ever intentional in nature. They were little, hurtful statements which injected pain into discussions and led to defensive responses which inflicted further pain and further defensiveness. They would initiate, therefore, vicious cycles which created adversarial feelings and lead to the degeneration of discussions into battles between opponents. Arguments would result. Nobody ever won. Breaking the habits stopped the triggers and prevented the arguments.
The Three Triggers Which Start Fights:
1 - Accusations
2 - Invalidations
3 - Phony facts
Let's examine these one at a time.
1 - ACCUSATIONS
Accusations are well-intended statements or questions that are meant to express hurt, but that instead imply blame. By hurt I mean any negative emotion.
There are hundreds of kinds of emotional hurt. Each can be described with an adjective. We can, for example feel sad, lonely, embarrassed, impatient, rejected, abandoned or insecure. Hurts are feelings generated in a part of our brains called the limbic system. They arise in response to stimuli in the environment or to self stimulation by the thinking part of our brains, the cerebral cortex.
Hurts are inevitable. Try as we may we cannot avoid them. Nonetheless, most of us try. We deny them, pretend they don't exist, or try to make ourselves numb to them with drugs or alcohol but none of these attempts work for long. Eventually we must deal with hurts. Ideally, we deal with them by expressing them and by resolving them.
In order to do so we must first accept the responsibility for them. When we hurt no one else can make it better, although it is common to believe otherwise.
Once we have assumed the responsibility for our own feelings we can safely express them without burdening or blaming others. For example, if I tell a friend that I am feeling anxious, I am simply disclosing some information about me. If my friend cares, he may offer reassurance or attempt to help in some way but it will ultimately be my job to resolve my anxiety.
It is human nature to attempt to avoid the responsibility for emotional pain. If we do so, we will not express hurt, but rather pin the responsibility on someone else. In doing so we make a transition from feeling hurt to feeling as though we have been hurt by someone or something. We identify a target to blame for what we feel. Our hurt is transformed into anger. Anger is then expressed as an accusation . . . " You have hurt me."
Accusations, therefore, are expressions of anger instead of hurt. They imply malicious intent on the part of others and are hurtful to them. If we accuse people we love of hurting us they will probably defend themselves, as they will feel attacked; wrongly accused. They will deny the accusation and an argument will begin.
Accusations are probably the leading cause of arguments, yet, as is the case with invalidations and phony facts, they are almost always well intended.
People tend to make accusations when they mistakenly express their feelings as if they were the responsibility of someone else. Their intention is to communicate feelings, but they wind up talking about what someone else has done to them. Consider the following examples:
"You never pay any attention to me!" instead of " I'm feeling lonely." "Why can't you ever be on time?" instead of "I'm feeling impatient and have been worried." "Why do we always have to go to the same restaurant, week after week?" instead of " I'm feeling bored. Let's try something different."
In each example the subject of each accusation is someone else and what they are doing. The more healthy alternatives involve simple statements about internal feelings. I think that we have a tendency to make accusations because they convey feelings indirectly, without actually revealing them. We avoid a certain vulnerability when we speak in terms of accusations, but inevitably provoke miscommunication and argumentation in the process.
The pronoun in a statement of feeling is "I". In an accusation it is "you". That's how the responsibility for the hurt gets transferred. That's what starts the fight.
The subject in a statement of feeling is the feeling. If something hurts it hurts. A statement of feeling is, therefore undeniable and not arguable. The subject in an accusation is an action or situation as perceived by the accuser, and will almost inevitably be perceived differently by the accused. The difference in perception will be the focus of the argument. The objective of the argument will be for each person to "prove" that his or her perception is the "right" one. In the course of an argument, further accusations will be made, as well as invalidations and phony facts. Let's take a look at these other triggers for fighting.
2 - INVALIDATIONS
Invalidations are statements or questions which imply that someone's feelings are "wrong" or inappropriate, or should not exist.
In fact, feelings are always "real". If someone is depressed, for example, they are feeling depressed. It makes no difference whether or not there are reasons to be depressed.
An example I often cite took place several years ago. I was getting ready to be interviewed on a television show and had invited one of my colleagues to the studio. Just before going on, he asked me how I felt and I responded by telling him that I felt "a little nervous." He reacted, with the best of intentions, by telling me that I shouldn't be nervous, that there was nothing to be nervous about, and by reminding me of my previous successes on other shows. I found myself getting angry. Why?
Since anger is always precipitated by hurt, I was aware that his statements were triggering hurt in me. I felt as though he was telling me that my anxiety was inappropriate or unjustified. I felt invalidated. Whereas intellectually I knew he was trying to be reassuring, I was in fact feeling attacked. In response, I told him that I appreciated his concern, but would prefer an acknowledgment of my anxiety to an invalidation of it. Something along the lines of "I'm sorry to hear that you're nervous. I'm sure you'll do fine," would make me feel validated instead.
Invalidations are subtle, but they really hurt. Whenever I hear a patient complain that a loved one "doesn't understand how I feel," I know that the relationship is jeopardized by arguments started by invalidations. The solution to invalidation is acknowledgement of feelings, followed by an offer to help if possible.
3 - PHONY FACTS
Phony facts are opinions and perceptions expressed as though they were facts. "I was born in New York," is a fact. "Your mother treats you like a child," is a phony fact. The expression of phony facts almost always invites disagreement, rebuttal or defensiveness. An adversarial situation becomes hard to avoid.
The solution to phony facts are disclaimers, such as: "It appears to me that . . ." or "It is my opinion that . . ." For example one might say "Sometimes it seems to me as though your mother still treats you like a child." This is clearly an opinion. The recipient may disagree but is unlikely to feel attacked by such a statement. No two people ever see things the same way. Getting bogged down in silly arguments over who's perceptions are correct is a leading cause of endless bickering. Arguments over phony facts lead to nothing but disgruntlement and feelings of hopelessness in a relationship.
In summary, all three triggers of arguments are well intentioned but ineffective attempts to communicate. Accusations are hurtful substitutes for expressions of feelings. Invalidations are hurtful substitutes for expressions of concern. Phony facts are hurtful substitutes for expressions of information. The use of the three triggers are the result of habit, not volition.
Making Things Better
Obviously, the creation of a working relationship requires more than the avoidance of arguments. The substitutions of expressions of feelings, concerns and opinions opens the door to the possibilities of compromise.
A compromise is a solution to a disagreement that is found by a couple bilaterally utilizing the techniques of discussion; fully acceptable by both parties without resentment or pressure.
Compromises are essential because disagreements are inevitable. Disagreements are perfectly acceptable and will pose no threat to a relationship as long as compromises can be made which settle them successfully.
Most of us learn to deal with life's vicissitudes as individuals prior to establishing committed relationships. As a result, we tend to act as individuals even after we find ourselves in a relationship. The result is frequently a situation in which two people find their individual styles of problem solving clashing. The intentions of both partners are good. Both are attempting to solve a problem.
If their problem solving styles are different, however, conflict will occur. Like two tennis partners playing doubles, they will both "go for the ball" and collide. I love this tennis analogy.
We all grow up singles players in life. We take lessons from our parents, peers, clergy and other role models. We learn the game of life. We excel in some areas, feel deficient in others. From childhood through adolescence and even into adulthood, the name of the game is competence. We learn to play a damn good singles game.
We approach adulthood. We enter the stage in life where intimacy and relationships become our goal. We desire to play doubles. We look around, searching for a partner . . . another player who's skills seem to match our own.
We date until we find a partner who appears to be up to our own game. We agree to be doubles partners. We formalize a relationship or get married. We assume we'll be able to play together and win because we're both good singles players. We assume that doubles will be an easier game because the work and the responsibilities for winning will be shared. Surprise!
It doesn't take long before we're bruised and bloody, furious at our partner, pissed off and bashing each other over the head with our rackets. The minute the tough shots come over the net we both go for each shot, each playing our own game. Without a joint, team strategy we find ourselves losing to life's vicissitudes. We blame each other for losing. Doubles is much more than two players playing singles on the same side of the net. In fact it's the opposite!
In singles, we strive to take full responsibility for each shot. Our weaknesses and strengths are secrets, never to be revealed. We play our own game, our own way, all the time.
In doubles, we're best to find a partner with a different game, a different style. Someone to appreciate our strengths and make up for our weaknesses. Naturally, we can only play effectively with them if we divulge our secrets ahead of time - reveal our fears and share our most secret strategies. We never again play our own game. We no longer go for each shot - we play instead by the rules we devise together. We merge our styles, take advantage of our differences.
Doubles is much more than two players playing singles. It's a whole new game.
But no one teaches us doubles. We're in singles schools all during our upbringing. How crazy that we should expect to pick up the game of doubles on our own, and so quickly.
A relationship is a doubles game. Very different than being single. Communication is the most important tool for success. Game plans are vital.
A successful team requires that we give up our singles game. Work for the common good. Play a game that is not ours, nor our partners, but a game that is for us. We becomes the operative pronoun. We play doubles. We develop a style that is ours.
e-mail Dr. Goss to request the full text