The Neurodivergent Marriage: Top Complaints of ADHD & non-ADHD At Home

While there are similarities in the challenges faced by couples where one partner has ADHD and the other does not, the top complaints can differ depending on the dynamics introduced by gender roles, societal expectations, and individual behavior patterns.

ADHD IS A PERPETUAL PROBLEM

It's not a fixable one.

Defining ADHD as a perpetual problem rather than a fixable problem in the context of Gottman's Research involves understanding ADHD as an enduring trait that affects individuals' interactions and relationships over time. Gottman identifies perpetual problems as issues rooted in fundamental personality differences or enduring traits—problems that are unlikely ever to be fully resolved but can be managed effectively with mutual understanding, empathy, and skill-building.

ADHD as a Perpetual And Manageable Problem in Relationships

1. Enduring Neurodevelopmental Traits: ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition, not a temporary or solvable issue. Characteristics such as impulsivity, distractibility, hyperfocus, and forgetfulness are part of the individual's neurobiological makeup. Partners cannot "fix" or remove these traits any more than they could alter other innate aspects of their partner's personality.

2. Gottman's Concept of Gridlocked Conflict: Perpetual problems can lead to gridlock when partners repeatedly argue without resolution. In the context of ADHD, this might manifest as ongoing frustration over:

   • Missed deadlines or forgotten commitments.

   • Uneven distribution of household responsibilities.

   • Communication styles that clash due to inattention or hyperfocus.

3. Management through Dialogue and Acceptance:

   • Softened Startups: Discussing ADHD-related challenges in a gentle, non-critical way.

   • Repair Attempts: Using humor, affection, or small gestures to de-escalate conflict when ADHD-related frustrations arise.

   • Building a Culture of Appreciation: Acknowledging the strengths ADHD brings to the relationship (e.g., creativity, spontaneity) helps balance the challenges.

4. Influence of ADHD on the Four Horsemen:

   • Criticism: Partners may become critical if they perceive ADHD traits as carelessness.

   • Defensiveness: The ADHD partner may feel blamed for behaviors they cannot fully control, leading to defensiveness.

   • Stonewalling: Overwhelming caused by emotional intensity may lead either partner to shut down.

   • Contempt: Misunderstanding ADHD as "laziness" or "lack of care" can foster contempt—a relationship's most toxic element.

Managing ADHD as a Perpetual Problem

Gottman emphasizes that successful couples accept perpetual problems as part of their "shared meaning" and create strategies to navigate them. For ADHD, this includes:

• Psychoeducation: Both partners learn about ADHD to shift from blame to understanding.

• Shared Problem-Solving: Creating systems for reminders, time management, and task-sharing that accommodate ADHD traits.

• Emotional Regulation: Practicing self-soothing and co-regulation to reduce the impact of emotional flooding during conflicts.

• Compromise: Building routines and agreements that honor both partners' needs, recognizing that "good enough" is better than perfection.

By framing ADHD as a perpetual problem, couples can focus on managing its impact rather than seeking an unattainable "cure," fostering resilience, connection, and a deeper appreciation of each other's strengths and vulnerabilities.

——-

Similar Complaints Toward Both Men & Women With ADHD In Heterosexual Relationships & How To Address With Compassion:

1. Disorganization

Situation: The ADHD partner struggles with clutter and misplaced items, frustrating the non-ADHD partner.

Done Badly Dialogue:

Non-ADHD Partner: "This house is always a mess because of you! Can’t you ever put anything away?"
ADHD Partner: "Oh, give me a break. It’s not like I’m the only one making a mess!"
Non-ADHD Partner: "You’re impossible to live with!"

Explanation: Why It Impacts the Relationship:

• The ADHD partner feels criticized and overwhelmed, leading to defensiveness.

• The non-ADHD partner becomes resentful, feeling unsupported in maintaining the home.

Done Well Dialogue:

Non-ADHD Partner: "It’s hard for me to relax when there’s clutter. Can we work together to create a system to keep things organized?"
ADHD Partner: "I know it’s messy, and I want to help. Maybe we can start with one area and remind me to keep it tidy."

Explanation: Why It Works:

• The non-ADHD partner communicates their feelings without blame.

• The ADHD partner acknowledges the issue and suggests manageable solutions, fostering teamwork.

Impact on the Relationship:

• Promotes collaboration and reduces resentment.

• Encourages mutual understanding and practical problem-solving.

Quick Repair Response:

"I’m sorry for the clutter. Let’s set aside 15 minutes to tackle it together."

——-

2. Emotional Dysregulation

Situation: The ADHD partner has an impulsive outburst during an argument.

Done Badly Dialogue:
ADHD Partner: [Yelling] "You’re always blaming me for everything! Just leave me alone!"
Non-ADHD Partner: "There you go, losing it again. I can’t take this anymore!"

Explanation: Why It Impacts the Relationship:

• Emotional outbursts create an unsafe emotional environment.

• The non-ADHD partner feels attacked, and the ADHD partner feels misunderstood.

Done Well Dialogue:

ADHD Partner: [Taking a deep breath] "I’m feeling really overwhelmed right now and need a minute to calm down."
Non-ADHD Partner: "I get that this is frustrating for me, too. Let’s take a break and talk when we’re both calmer."

Explanation: Why It Works:

• The ADHD partner practices emotional regulation by pausing and naming their feelings.

• The non-ADHD partner acknowledges the stress and avoids escalating the conflict.

Impact on the Relationship:

• Builds emotional safety and mutual respect.

• Encourages healthier conflict resolution.

Quick Repair Response:
"I’m sorry for raising my voice. Let’s start over when we’re both calm."

——-

3. Time Management Issues

Situation: The ADHD partner forgets an important date.

Done Badly Dialogue:
Non-ADHD Partner: "You forgot again? Do I even matter to you?"
ADHD Partner: "It’s not my fault! You know I have trouble remembering things!"

Explanation: Why It Impacts the Relationship:

• The non-ADHD partner feels unimportant, and the ADHD partner feels blamed for something they struggle to control.

• The cycle of hurt and defensiveness erodes trust.

Done Well Dialogue:

Non-ADHD Partner: "It hurt that you forgot our anniversary. Can we come up with a way to prevent this next time?"
ADHD Partner: "I’m really sorry. Let’s set reminders on our calendars so I don’t let this happen again."

Explanation: Why It Works:

• The non-ADHD partner expresses their feelings constructively.

• The ADHD partner takes responsibility and suggests proactive solutions.

Impact on the Relationship:

• Reduces hurt feelings and fosters accountability.

• Strengthens trust by addressing the issue together.

Quick Repair Response:
"I’m so sorry I forgot. Can we celebrate tonight instead?"

——-

4. Inconsistent Follow-Through

Situation: The ADHD partner starts a home project but doesn’t finish it.

Done Badly Dialogue:
Non-ADHD Partner: "You never finish what you start. Now I have to fix this mess!"
ADHD Partner: "Why bother? You’ll just complain no matter what I do."

Explanation: Why It Impacts the Relationship:

• The ADHD partner feels incapable and criticized, leading to shame or defensiveness.

• The non-ADHD partner feels burdened by unfinished tasks, creating resentment.

Done Well Dialogue:

Non-ADHD Partner: "I feel overwhelmed when projects get left unfinished. How can I help you stay on track with this one?"
ADHD Partner: "I get overwhelmed, too. Maybe we can break it into smaller steps or set a deadline together."

Explanation: Why It Works:

• Encourages collaboration and shared responsibility.

• The ADHD partner feels supported instead of shamed, increasing the likelihood of follow-through.

Impact on the Relationship:

• Reduces tension and improves teamwork.

• Increases the ADHD partner’s confidence in completing tasks.

Quick Repair Response:
"I’ll focus on finishing this part today. Thanks for reminding me."

——-

5. Impulsivity

Situation: The ADHD partner makes an impulsive purchase without discussing it first.

Done Badly Dialogue:
Non-ADHD Partner: "Why would you spend so much without asking me? Are you even thinking?"
ADHD Partner: "It’s my money too! Stop treating me like a child!"

Explanation: Why It Impacts the Relationship:

• Impulsive decisions create financial strain and feelings of betrayal.

• The ADHD partner may feel micromanaged, while the non-ADHD partner feels disrespected.

Done Well Dialogue:

Non-ADHD Partner: "I was surprised by the purchase. Can we agree to talk about big expenses first?"
ADHD Partner: "I’m sorry. I didn’t think it through. Let’s set a spending limit so it doesn’t happen again."

Explanation: Why It Works:

• Sets clear expectations without blame.

• The ADHD partner acknowledges the impulsivity and agrees to a plan.

Impact on the Relationship:

• Builds trust and reduces future conflicts.

• Encourages financial teamwork.

Quick Repair Response:
"I realize I should’ve talked to you first. Let’s review our budget together."

——-

Gender-Influenced Differences:

1. Household Responsibilities:

   • Non-ADHD Man + ADHD Woman: The man may expect traditional gender roles, such as the woman managing the home, and become frustrated if her ADHD affects household organization or caregiving.

   • Non-ADHD Woman + ADHD Man: The woman may feel overburdened if she is expected to manage the household responsibilities while compensating for her partner’s ADHD-related forgetfulness or disorganization.

2. Emotional Expression:

   • ADHD Women are often more open about their struggles and emotions, which can lead to conflicts if the non-ADHD man interprets this as "overreacting" or "too emotional.

   • ADHD Men may be less likely to express their struggles or admit vulnerabilities, which can leave the non-ADHD woman feeling disconnected or unsupported.

3. Parenting Styles:

   • Non-ADHD Man + ADHD Woman: The man may feel frustrated if his partner struggles to maintain routines or discipline with children, especially if societal expectations place more parenting responsibility on women.

   • Non-ADHD Woman + ADHD Man: The woman may feel like she has to "parent" both the children and her ADHD partner, creating resentment and emotional exhaustion.

4. Hyperfocus in Relationships:

   • ADHD Women may hyperfocus on their partner during the early stages of the relationship and later struggle with sustaining attention, leading to feelings of inconsistency.

   • ADHD Men may hyperfocus on hobbies or personal interests, which can make the non-ADHD partner feel neglected.

5. Conflict Resolution Styles:

   • ADHD Women might seek frequent reassurance or emotional validation during conflicts, which can overwhelm a non-ADHD man unaccustomed to such needs.

   • ADHD Men may avoid conflicts or become defensive, frustrating a non-ADHD woman who values open communication and resolution.

Unique Complaints in Each Scenario:

• Non-ADHD Man + ADHD Woman: Complaints may center around unmet traditional gender expectations, emotional intensity, and perceived lack of domestic organization.’

• Non-ADHD Woman + ADHD Man: Complaints may focus more on feeling overburdened by responsibilities, emotional unavailability, and a lack of consistent engagement in family life.

While many challenges overlap, differences stem from the interplay between ADHD traits and societal or relationship dynamics shaped by gender roles. Tailored strategies can help each couple navigate their unique situation.

——-

A Breakdown of Various At Home Environments of Heterosexual, Lesbian & Gay Relationship Situations

——-

ADHD Woman with a non-ADHD Man

In A Home Environment

Here are some of the most common problems that heterosexual non-ADHD men and an ADHD Woman may encounter in a home environment. Note that gender expectations sometimes affect the presentation of symptoms in the home environment.

1. Uneven Division of Chores: The ADHD partner may struggle to maintain routines, complete household tasks, or stick to a cleaning schedule, leaving the neurotypical partner feeling burdened or resentful.

2. Miscommunication: The ADHD partner may have difficulty staying focused in conversations, forget important details, or interrupt frequently, leading to feelings of frustration and misunderstanding.

3. Emotional Outbursts: The ADHD partner may experience heightened emotional responses or difficulty regulating emotions, which can lead to conflict or discomfort for the neurotypical partner.

4. Disorganization: The ADHD partner may struggle with clutter, misplaced items, or a lack of organization, causing stress and tension, particularly if the neurotypical partner values tidiness.

5. Inconsistent Attention: The ADHD partner may alternate between hyperfocus on their partner and seeming distracted or inattentive, leaving the neurotypical partner feeling confused or neglected.

6. Financial Conflicts: Impulsive spending or difficulty managing bills may create stress and arguments over financial priorities and responsibilities.

7. Parenting Differences: If they have children, the ADHD partner may struggle with maintaining structure, discipline, or consistency, leading to disagreements about parenting approaches.

8. Difficulty with Time Management: The ADHD partner may frequently be late, procrastinate, or underestimate how long tasks will take, disrupting schedules and plans.

9. Forgetting Commitments: The ADHD partner may unintentionally forget promises, events, or discussions, which can make the neurotypical partner feel unimportant or unsupported.

10. Conflict Over Focus: The ADHD partner may prioritize personal interests or hyper-fixations over shared responsibilities, leaving the neurotypical partner feeling neglected or overburdened.

———

ADHD Man with non-ADHD Woman

In A Home Environment

Here are some common problems an ADHD man and a non-ADHD woman might encounter in a home environment; note that gender expectations sometimes affect the presentation of symptoms in the home environment.

1. Inconsistent Follow-Through on Tasks: The ADHD partner may start tasks enthusiastically but fail to complete them, leaving the non-ADHD partner to pick up the slack, which can lead to frustration.

2. Impulsivity: The ADHD partner’s impulsive decisions, such as sudden purchases or changes in plans, may create stress and feelings of instability for the non-ADHD partner.

3. Difficulty Listening: The ADHD partner may appear distracted or disengaged during conversations, leaving the non-ADHD partner feeling unheard or unimportant.

4. Emotional Reactivity: The ADHD partner may react strongly to minor frustrations or disagreements, leading to arguments or emotional strain in the relationship.

5. Procrastination: The ADHD partner may delay important tasks or decisions, which can cause tension, especially if the non-ADHD partner relies on structure and planning.

6. Disorganization: The ADHD partner’s tendency to lose items, create clutter, or fail to maintain order in shared spaces can lead to ongoing frustration for the non-ADHD partner.

7. Time Blindness: The ADHD partner may underestimate how long tasks will take or forget scheduled commitments, disrupting routines and plans.

8. Parenting Disparities: If they have children, the ADHD partner’s challenges with consistency and discipline may create tension, especially if the non-ADHD partner values predictable parenting styles.

9. Uneven Emotional Support: The ADHD partner may sometimes hyperfocus on their partner’s needs but at other times appear inattentive or unavailable, creating emotional inconsistency.

10. Financial Struggles: Impulsive spending or poor financial planning on the ADHD partner’s part can lead to arguments over budgeting, saving, and managing expenses.

———

Gay & Lesbian

ADHD and non-ADHD

In A Home Environment

Key Factors in Lesbian & Gay Relationships

Unlike heterosexual couples, lesbian & gay relationships may experience fewer societal pressures related to traditional gender roles. However, emotional connection and communication are often emphasized, which means ADHD-related challenges like inconsistency, forgetfulness, or emotional intensity may feel more disruptive within the dynamic.

While direct research on ADHD in lesbian and gay couples is scarce, existing studies suggest that the combination of ADHD symptoms and the unique stressors faced by LGBTQ+ individuals can compound challenges in relationships. Emotional dysregulation and impulsivity associated with ADHD, coupled with societal stigma and potential lack of family support, may exacerbate mental health issues and affect relationship dynamics. Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced understanding of both ADHD and the specific experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals.

NOTE: Dr. John Gottman and his colleagues conducted a comprehensive 12-year study focusing on gay and lesbian couples to understand their relational dynamics. The findings revealed that same-sex couples often exhibit more positive behaviors during conflicts compared to heterosexual couples. Specifically, gay and lesbian partners tend to use more affection and humor during disagreements and are less likely to employ hostile emotional tactics. This suggests a higher degree of openness to influence from each other, fostering a more equitable power balance within the relationship. —American Psychological Association

Further research supports these observations, indicating that same-sex couples generally divide household labor more fairly and resolve conflicts more constructively than their heterosexual counterparts. These behaviors contribute to relationship satisfaction and stability, highlighting the importance of mutual influence and shared decision-making. As outlined in Gottman's Cascade Model, the ability to accept influence from one's partner is crucial in maintaining harmony and preventing the cascade toward relational dissolution.

In summary, Gottman's research underscores that gay and lesbian couples often demonstrate greater openness to influence, characterized by positive conflict resolution strategies and equitable power dynamics. These findings emphasize the universal importance of accepting influence in fostering healthy, stable relationships across different couple types.

———-

Here are some common ADHD and non-ADHD that can appear in lesbian and gay home environments:

1. Unequal Division of Responsibilities: The non-ADHD partner may feel they are taking on a disproportionate share of household chores and organizational tasks because the ADHD partner struggles with follow-through and consistency.

2. Miscommunication: The ADHD partner may frequently interrupt, lose focus during conversations, or forget important details, leaving the non-ADHD partner feeling unheard or undervalued.

3. Emotional Intensity and Dysregulation: The ADHD partner may experience intense emotional reactions, leading to conflicts or misunderstandings. The non-ADHD partner might feel overwhelmed by these heightened responses.

4. Clutter and Disorganization: The ADHD partner may struggle to maintain a tidy living space, which can frustrate the non-ADHD partner if they value cleanliness and order.

5. Financial Conflicts: Impulsive spending by the ADHD partner or difficulty managing finances can become a significant point of contention, particularly if the non-ADHD partner prioritizes budgeting and planning.

6. Inconsistent Attention and Affection: The ADHD partner may hyperfocus on their partner during some periods and then become distracted or inattentive at other times, leading the non-ADHD partner to feel neglected or confused.

7. Time Management Issues: The ADHD partner may struggle with being punctual, managing schedules, or planning ahead, which can disrupt routines and create frustration for the non-ADHD partner.

8. Conflicts Over Parenting or Pet Care (if applicable); If the couple shares caregiving responsibilities, the ADHD partner might struggle with consistency and routine, leaving the non-ADHD partner feeling like they are carrying most of the load.

9. Sensory Overwhelm and Social Fatigue: The ADHD partner may become easily overwhelmed by sensory input or social obligations, leading to cancellations or withdrawal. This can frustrate the non-ADHD partner if they perceive it as flakiness.

10. Emotional Overcompensation by the Non-ADHD Partner: The non-ADHD partner might feel the need to "manage" the ADHD partner’s emotions, behavior, or responsibilities, leading to feelings of burnout or resentment over time.

——

From “Always” & “Never” to Understanding: Navigating Emotional Absolutes"

Understanding Absolute Language in Conflict

When someone says something like "Never. Ever." during a heated conflict, they are often not speaking literally. Instead, they are expressing deep frustration, hurt, or fear. Absolute language tends to emerge when emotions are high, and a person feels unheard, overwhelmed, or desperate to make their point. This type of language can feel rigid and final, but it’s often more about their feelings' intensity than their words' factual accuracy.

People use absolute language for several reasons. First, it may stem from a need for clarity or control in a chaotic situation. Saying "never" or "always" creates a sense of certainty, even if it’s inaccurate. Second, absolutes can reflect the person’s perception at the moment. When someone says, "You never listen to me," they’re likely expressing a pattern they’ve noticed or a recent series of events that made them feel ignored. Lastly, absolute statements are often a call for attention. They signal that the person feels deeply unheard or invalidated.

Understanding the emotional weight behind these statements is key to addressing them effectively. If we respond defensively, we risk escalating the conflict and missing the underlying message. Instead, listening with compassion and curiosity can help uncover what’s really going on beneath the surface. This aligns with the teachings of Ellyn Bader and John Gottman, who emphasize validating emotions and staying curious about a partner’s experience in moments of conflict.

For example, when someone says, "You never help around the house," they may highlight an unmet need for support or partnership. Responding with, "That’s not true; I took out the trash yesterday," might feel logical, but it misses the emotional context. Instead, a compassionate response like, "It sounds like you’re feeling overwhelmed. Can we talk about how I can help more?" acknowledges their feelings and invites connection.

Absolute language can also reflect underlying fears or insecurities. When a partner says, "I will never trust you again," they may express how deeply hurt they feel. While the word “never” might not hold true over time, the pain behind it is real. Addressing the hurt rather than debating the statement can help rebuild trust and understanding.

Bessel van der Kolk’s research on trauma reminds us that emotional intensity often arises from past wounds. For some, absolute statements may be linked to earlier experiences where their needs were unmet or dismissed. Recognizing this allows us to approach the conversation with empathy rather than judgment. For instance, hearing, "You always leave me out," might reflect feelings of abandonment that go beyond the immediate issue.

Karen Horney’s work on neurotic needs also provides insight. Absolute language might reflect a desperate attempt to meet a core need, such as safety, connection, or validation. By focusing on these underlying needs, we can respond in ways that address the root cause of the conflict rather than getting stuck in surface-level arguments.

Listening with compassion requires patience and a willingness to look beyond the words. This means resisting the urge to counter with logic or defend ourselves. Instead, we can validate the other person’s feelings and ask open-ended questions to understand their perspective. For example, "You always embarrass me in public" could be met with, "I’m sorry I had that impact on you. Can you share more about what happened?"

Compassionate listening also includes taking responsibility when appropriate. If the absolute statement reflects a valid concern, acknowledging our role in the issue can go a long way. For instance, if someone says, "You never make time for me," responding with, "I’ve been caught up in work, and I’m sorry for not prioritizing us. Let’s figure out how to change that," demonstrates accountability and care.

Finally, quick repair responses are vital when dealing with absolute language. Communication mistakes are inevitable, but repairing them swiftly can prevent further damage. Phrases like, "I’m sorry for dismissing how you feel" or "Can we try that conversation again? I want to understand better" show a commitment to the relationship and a willingness to learn.

10 Examples of Listening with Compassion To Emotional Absolutes When In Conflict

1. Absolute Statement: "You never listen to me."

   • Response: "What’s most important for me to understand right now?"

2. Absolute Statement: "You always ruin everything."

   • Response: "What’s making you feel this upset?"

3. Absolute Statement: "I’ll never trust you again."

   • Response: "I know I hurt you and want to work on rebuilding trust with you."

4. Absolute Statement: "You’re always late."

   • Response: "I can see how my being late has upset you. Let’s talk about how I can do better."

5. Absolute Statement: "You never help me."

   • Response: "It sounds like you’re feeling overwhelmed. How can I support you right now?"

6. Absolute Statement: "You always take their side."

   • Response: "I do want to be more supportive. Can you help me understand what you need from me?"

7. Absolute Statement: "You never care about my feelings."

   • Response: "I’m sorry. Can you tell me what’s been on your mind?"

8. Absolute Statement: "I’ll always be second to your work."

   • Response: "It sounds like I need to balance things better. Is this a good time to talk about that? "

9. Absolute Statement: "You never think about anyone but yourself."

   • Response: "What am I missing that you need? What can I do differently to show you I care?"

10. Absolute Statement: "You’ll always find a way to hurt me."

    • Response: "I’m sorry. What’s making you feel so hurt."

By approaching absolute statements with curiosity and compassion, we can transform conflict into an opportunity for deeper understanding and connection. This approach fosters trust, healing, and stronger relationships over time.

Not My Fault, But Is My Responsibility

Imagine this: you’re in the middle of a conversation with someone you love. The topic is sensitive, and suddenly, your chest tightens, your voice rises, and your words come out sharper than you intended. Later, as you replay the scene in your mind, guilt settles in like a heavy weight. You think, Why couldn’t I just stay calm? What’s wrong with me? This familiar spiral often leads us to carry the burden of blame for reactions we didn’t consciously choose, compounding feelings of shame and self-criticism. But what if the story is more nuanced?

In recent years, the growing field of neuroscience has illuminated how much of our behavior is influenced by processes we cannot fully control. The work of pioneers like John Gottman and Sue Johnson shows that our nervous systems are constantly scanning for safety and connection in our relationships. These deep, primal systems are sensitive to even the smallest cues—tones of voice, micro-expressions, or shifts in body language—and they often react faster than our conscious minds can process. When you snap at your partner or retreat in silence during a conflict, it’s often your nervous system’s way of protecting you, not a conscious decision to hurt or withdraw.

Understanding this doesn’t mean we are absolved of responsibility for our actions. Ellyn Bader’s differentiation theory reminds us that while we may not choose our automatic reactions, we are accountable for how we handle them once we’re aware. Accountability, however, doesn’t mean blaming ourselves in unnecessary shame. It means stepping into the mature, grounded space of recognizing what we can and cannot control. We may not be at fault for the way our bodies instinctively react, but it is our responsibility to reflect, repair, and grow. This distinction helps us navigate the delicate balance between self-compassion and personal integrity.

Take, for example, Claire was overwhelmed by shame about her tendency to lash out at her partner during arguments. “I know it’s my fault,” she said, tears in her eyes. “I ruin everything.” But as she unpacked her story, she was able to understandd that a history of abandonment in her childhood that had left her hyper-alert to signs of rejection. Her anger wasn’t a character flaw—it was her nervous system trying to protect her from a perceived threat. With this understanding, Claire could see that while her reactions weren’t her fault, it was her responsibility to learn how to respond differently  and repair connections with thise she loves.

This shift—from blame to responsibility—empowered Claire to make changes without drowning in unnecessary shame. By practicing mindfulness and pausing during conflict, she began to recognize her body’s signals of fear and anger before they took over. Through reflection and repair, she could calmly tell her partner, “When you didn’t text me back, I felt scared that you were pulling away. I’m sorry for snapping at you—I’m working on slowing down before I react.”

The practice of balancing accountability with self-compassion requires intentionality. When we acknowledge that our nervous systems can act on autopilot, we give ourselves permission to be human without excusing behavior that hurts ourselves or others. Sue Johnson’s work highlights how this creates emotional accessibility—the ability to stay present with our loved ones even when things get hard. Repairing relationships after an outburst becomes less about groveling in unnecessary shame and more about showing care, regret and commitment to those connections that get ruptured.

This practice of accountability is not about perfection but progress. It requires humility and compassion, qualities David Schnarch described as foundational for true emotional intimacy. Owning what is within your control allows you to grow; releasing what isn’t frees you from toxic shame. For many, this balance restores a sense of self-worth, as they learn to forgive themselves for being human while still holding themselves accountable to their values and actions.

As we navigate the complexities of relationships, it helps to remember: many of our reactions are not our fault, but they are still our responsibility. This approach gives us room to own our impact without succumbing to unnecesary shame. When we can honestly face our behaviors with compassion and integrity, we not only heal ourselves but also create space for deeper, more meaningful connections with those we love.

It Ain’t Easy, But We CAN Talk About It

ASK YOURSELF PENETRATING QUESTIONS

Your Self-awareness and Emotional Regulation

1. Ellyn Bader:

   • Am I managing my emotional reactivity to stay engaged without becoming defensive or withdrawing?

   • How can I better balance my individuality and connection during this conversation?

2. David Schnarch:

   • Am I willing to tolerate discomfort and self-reflect rather than blame or avoid responsibility?

   • How do I stay present and emotionally grounded, even when the conversation challenges me deeply?

3. Sue Johnson:

   • Am I recognizing and regulating my emotional triggers to foster safety and trust in this interaction?

   • How can I create an emotionally safe space for my partner or family members to express their vulnerabilities?

4. John and Julie Gottman:

   • Am I using repair attempts (e.g., humor, a gentle touch, or acknowledgment) to de-escalate tension?

   • How effectively am I self-soothing so I can listen empathetically rather than focusing on counterarguments?

———

ASK YOURSELF PENETRATING QUESTIONS ABOUT

Your Empathy and Connection

1. Ellyn Bader:

   • Am I truly listening to their perspective without letting my assumptions dominate the narrative?

   • How can I honor our differences while staying emotionally connected?

2. David Schnarch:

   • Am I respecting my partner or family member’s boundaries and individuality, even when I disagree?

   • How do I express my emotions honestly without making the other person responsible for them?

3. Sue Johnson:

   • Am I tuning in to the emotional needs behind their words and behavior?

   • How do I show them they matter to me, even when we’re not aligned on an issue?

4. John and Julie Gottman:

   • Am I fostering a sense of “we” by showing appreciation, respect, and curiosity, even when we disagree?

   • How often do I validate their emotions rather than dismissing or minimizing their concerns?

——-

ASK YOURSELF PENETRATING QUESTIONS ABOUT

Your Communication and Intention

Ellyn Bader:

1. Am I framing my thoughts in a way that focuses on what I feel and need (“I” statements) rather than blaming?

   • How can I intend to approach this conversation with kindness and collaboration?

• Am I expressing myself authentically, even when it’s hard, rather than seeking approval or avoiding conflict?

• How do I balance vulnerability with emotional strength in this interaction?

Sue Johnson:

• Am I keeping the conversation focused on connection and understanding rather than letting it spiral into blame?

• How can I use this moment to strengthen our bond instead of letting it create emotional distance?

  John and Julie Gottman:

• Am I avoiding contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling, or criticism in my words and tone?

• How can I practice gentle start-ups to keep the discussion constructive and emotionally safe?

———

ASK YOURSELF PENETRATING QUESTIONS ABOUT

Your Growth and Repair

Ellyn Bader:

• Am I willing to take responsibility for my part in this issue, even if it feels uncomfortable?

• How can I encourage growth and repair in our relationship through this conversation?

David Schnarch:

• How can I use this conversation as an opportunity to grow as an individual and within this relationship?

• Am I willing to stand firm on my values without invalidating theirs?

  Sue Johnson:

• How do I repair emotional injuries from past conversations to build a stronger foundation of trust?

• What can I say or do to reassure them that I am here for them, even during conflict?

John and Julie Gottman:

• Am I recognizing and responding to their bids for connection, even amid disagreement?

• How can I celebrate small wins during this discussion to reinforce positivity and connection?

———

ASK YOURSELF PENETRATING QUESTIONS ABOUT

Your Vision for the Relationship

Ellyn Bader:

• How can I create space for us to evolve individually while nurturing our connection?

• What practices can I adopt to support differentiation while maintaining emotional intimacy?

David Schnarch:

• Am I willing to lean into the discomfort of tough conversations to create a more authentic relationship?

• How can I redefine intimacy as being fully present with each other, even when it’s hard?

Sue Johnson:

• Am I focusing on our emotional bond and using this conversation to strengthen our attachment?

• How can I communicate that they are my priority, even if we don’t agree on everything?

John and Julie Gottman:

• How can I make this conversation a moment to nurture trust, commitment, and shared meaning in our relationship?

• What long-term habits can I build to ensure that our communication remains a source of connection, not conflict?

The key to talking about difficult things with a spouse or family member is practicing skills that include individuality and emotional connection. The field of psychology calls this Differentiation. Here are suggestions of best practices from the research on Inidividuality and Connection in difficult conversations:

1. Practice Self-Regulation to Avoid Reactivity

• Suggestion: Each partner should take responsibility for managing their emotional reactivity. This means staying aware of personal triggers and using calming techniques (like deep breathing or pausing) to avoid escalating the conflict.

• Purpose: Self-regulation allows each person to engage thoughtfully, listen actively, and respond instead of react. By doing this, partners stay emotionally available and reduce the likelihood of saying something hurtful.

FOR EXAMPLE

Done Badly:
Partner A: "You never listen to me! You’re always so selfish!"
Partner B: "Well, you’re the one who started this, so don’t blame me!"
Why: Both partners are reactive and escalate the conflict, leading to defensiveness.
Impact: Emotional safety is destroyed, and the conversation spirals into a fight.

1. Done Well:
   Partner A: "I feel really frustrated right now. Can we take a moment and talk about this calmly?"
   Partner B: "I’m frustrated too, but I’m willing to hear you out."
   Why: Partner A identifies their feelings without blaming, and Partner B stays open.
   Impact: Both partners regulate their emotions, creating space for a constructive conversation.

2. Quick Repair:
   Partner A: "I’m sorry for snapping earlier. I was overwhelmed, and I didn’t mean to lash out."
   Partner B: "I get it. Let’s try again calmly."
   Why: Acknowledging the reactive behavior rebuilds safety.
   Impact: A smoother reset and renewed willingness to engage.

   
   ——-

2. Use “I” Statements to Promote Ownership and Clarity

• Suggestion: Encourage partners to speak from their perspective using “I” statements (e.g., “I feel hurt when…” or “I need time to process this because…”). Avoid blaming or accusing language, which can escalate defensiveness.

• Purpose: Speaking in this way fosters emotional safety and helps each partner stay connected while maintaining their individuality. It also makes it easier for the other partner to empathize without feeling attacked.

FOR EXAMPLE

• Done Badly:
  Partner A: "You’re always late and don’t care about my time!"
  Why: Partner A uses accusatory language, triggering defensiveness.
  Impact: Partner B feels attacked and becomes less likely to engage.

• Done Well:
  Partner A: "I feel unimportant when you’re late because I value our time together."
  Why: Partner A expresses their feelings without assigning blame.
  Impact: Partner B feels less defensive and more motivated to address the issue.

• Quick Repair:
  Partner A: "I shouldn’t have blamed you earlier. What I really meant is that it hurts when I feel like our time isn’t valued."
  Partner B: "Thanks for saying that—I’ll work on being on time."
  Why: Owning the mistake and restating the issue diffuses tension.
  Impact: The repair opens space for understanding.

——-

3. Reflect What You Hear

• Suggestion: Practice reflective listening by summarizing or paraphrasing what the other person says before responding. For example, “I’m hearing that you feel unsupported when I work late.”

• Purpose: This validates the partner’s perspective, reduces misunderstandings, and ensures both feel heard.

FOR EXAMPLE

Done Badly:
Partner A: "You never support me at work!"
Partner B: "That’s not true! I’m always supporting you—what about last week?"
Why: Partner B invalidates instead of reflecting.
Impact: Partner A feels dismissed, and the conversation derails.

1. Done Well:
   Partner A: "You never support me at work!"
   Partner B: "You feel unsupported at work—can you tell me more about what you mean?"
   Why: Partner B reflects and invites clarification, showing curiosity.
   Impact: Partner A feels heard and clarifies their feelings.

2. Quick Repair:
   Partner B: "I got defensive earlier. Can I try again? I want to understand why you feel unsupported."
   Why: Admitting defensiveness restores trust.
   Impact: Partner A feels valued and re-engages.

——-

4. Acknowledge and Respect Differences

• Suggestion: Recognize that it’s okay to see things differently. Acknowledge the difference without trying to "win" or convince the other person to change their perspective.

• Purpose: This supports the principle of differentiation, fostering mutual respect while maintaining emotional connection.

FOR EXAMPLE
Done Badly:
Partner A: "I can’t believe you think that way! That’s ridiculous!"
Why: Dismissal of differences invalidates Partner B’s perspective.
Impact: Partner B feels disrespected and withdraws.

1. Done Well:
   Partner A: "I see this differently, but I understand how you came to that conclusion."
   Why: Partner A acknowledges the difference respectfully.
   Impact: Partner B feels validated, enabling constructive dialogue.

2. Quick Repair:
   Partner A: "I shouldn’t have dismissed your perspective earlier. Can we revisit this?"
   Why: Reframing as an opportunity to learn restores safety.
   Impact: Mutual respect is rebuilt.

——-

5. Set a Clear Intention for the Discussion

• Suggestion: Before starting, agree on the goal of the conversation. For example, “Let’s talk about how we can both feel supported rather than focusing on blame.”

• Purpose: A shared intention keeps the conversation constructive and emotionally safe.

FOR EXAMPLE
Done Badly:
Partner A: "We need to talk about everything wrong in this relationship right now!"
Why: An undefined agenda overwhelms the conversation.
Impact: Both partners feel attacked and defensive.

1. Done Well:
   Partner A: "Let’s focus on how we can better divide household chores."
   Why: A clear and narrow focus keeps the discussion manageable.
   Impact: Partners are more likely to find solutions.

2. Quick Repair:
   Partner A: "I realize I brought up too many things earlier. Can we start with one issue?"
   Why: Resetting the agenda creates clarity.
   Impact: The conversation becomes more focused and productive.

6. Use a Time-Out When Needed

• Suggestion: If emotions escalate, take a short break to calm down and reflect. Agree to return to the discussion at a set time.

• Purpose: This prevents emotional flooding and ensures that both partners can engage from a calmer, more thoughtful place.

FOR EXAMPLE
Done Badly:
Partner A: "Why would you even do that? What were you thinking?"
Why: The tone feels accusatory and condescending.
Impact: Partner B becomes defensive or shuts down.

1. Done Well:
   Partner A: "Can you help me understand why you chose that? I want to see your perspective."
   Why: Partner A expresses curiosity without judgment.
   Impact: Partner B feels safe to explain their reasoning.

2. Quick Repair:
   Partner A: "I’m sorry—I came across as judgmental earlier. I do want to understand."
   Why: Acknowledging the misstep restores openness.
   Impact: The dialogue resumes with greater trust.

——-

7. Stay Curious, Not Judgmental

• Suggestion: Ask open-ended questions like, “Can you help me understand why this is so important to you?” rather than making assumptions or judgments.

• Purpose: Curiosity fosters empathy and helps uncover deeper emotional needs behind the conflict.

FOR EXAMPLE
Done Badly:
Partner A: (Crosses arms, avoids eye contact, and sighs loudly.)
Why: Negative body language signals disengagement.
Impact: Partner B feels dismissed or unimportant.

1. Done Well:
   Partner A: (Maintains soft eye contact, nods, and leans slightly forward.)
   Why: Positive nonverbal cues reinforce emotional presence.
   Impact: Partner B feels supported and connected.

2. Quick Repair:
   Partner A: "I realize I’ve been closed off. Let me try to be more present."
   Why: Acknowledging disengagement invites reconnection.
   Impact: Partner B feels re-engaged.8. Maintain a Nonverbal Connection

• Suggestion: Use soft eye contact, open body language, or a reassuring touch (if welcomed) to communicate connection, even when the conversation is tough.

• Purpose: Nonverbal cues help partners feel emotionally supported and reduce feelings of distance or threat.

——-

9. Focus on the Present Issue

• Suggestion: Avoid bringing up past grievances or unrelated topics during the conversation. Stay focused on the specific issue at hand.

• Purpose: This reduces the feeling of being overwhelmed and keeps the conversation manageable, making resolution more likely.

  
  ——-

10. Be Willing to Accept Repair Attempts

• Suggestion: Recognize and accept small gestures from your partner that aim to de-escalate the conflict, such as humor, a light touch, or a smile.

• Purpose: Repair attempts are critical for maintaining emotional connection and preventing the conversation from spiraling.

FOR EXAMPLE

Done Badly

• Conversation:
  Partner A: "I’m really sorry for raising my voice earlier."
  Partner B: "Whatever, it doesn’t matter. You always do this."

• Why: Partner B dismisses Partner A’s repair attempt, prolonging the conflict.

• Impact: Partner A feels disheartened, and the emotional connection erodes further.

Done Well

• Conversation:
  Partner A: "I’m really sorry for raising my voice earlier."
  Partner B: "Thank you for saying that. I appreciate it, and I’d like to keep talking calmly."

• Why: Partner B accepts the repair attempt, diffusing tension and fostering connection.

• Impact: Both partners feel reassured and motivated to continue the conversation constructively.

Quick Repair

• Conversation:
  Partner B: "I brushed off your apology earlier, and I shouldn’t have. Thank you for trying to make things right."

• Why: Partner B recognizes and appreciates the earlier repair attempt.

• Impact: The repair restores emotional connection and trust.

  
  ——-

11. Take Responsibility for Your Part

• Suggestion: Own your contribution to the conflict. For example, “I realize I could have communicated my feelings earlier, and I’m sorry for that.”

• Purpose: This demonstrates accountability, reduces defensiveness, and models vulnerability, encouraging connection.

FOR EXAMPLE

Done Badly

• Conversation:
  Partner A: "I didn’t mean to upset you, but you’re the one who always makes such a big deal out of everything."

• Why: Partner A avoids taking true responsibility by deflecting blame.

• Impact: Partner B feels invalidated and defensive, making resolution harder.

Done Well

• Conversation:
  Partner A: "I realize I forgot to tell you about the change in plans. That must have been frustrating for you, and I’m sorry for that."
  Partner B: "Thanks for acknowledging that—it did feel frustrating."

• Why: Partner A owns their contribution without excuses or defensiveness.

• Impact: Partner B feels validated and is more likely to engage positively.

Quick Repair

• Conversation:
  Partner A: "I didn’t take full responsibility earlier. Let me try again—I should have communicated better, and I apologize for that."

• Why: Partner A acknowledges their mistake and revisits the issue with sincerity.

• Impact: This repair rebuilds trust and facilitates resolution.

——-

12. End on a Positive Note

• Suggestion: Conclude the conversation by expressing appreciation for your partner’s efforts or highlighting a shared goal, such as, “I appreciate you staying with me through this. I know it wasn’t easy.”

• Purpose: Ending on a positive note reinforces connection and leaves both partners feeling valued.

FOR EXAMPLE

Done Badly

• Conversation:
  Partner A: "Well, I guess that’s it. Whatever, I’m done talking about this."
  Why: Partner A ends the conversation abruptly and dismissively.
  Impact: Both partners are left feeling unresolved and disconnected.

Done Well

• Conversation:
  Partner A: "I appreciate you staying with me through this conversation. It wasn’t easy, but it means a lot to me that we talked it through."
  Partner B: "Thank you for saying that. I feel better about where we’re at now."
  Why: Partner A expresses gratitude and acknowledges the effort put into the conversation.
  Impact: Both partners leave feeling valued and connected, even after a challenging discussion.

Quick Repair

• Conversation:
  Partner A: "I ended the conversation too abruptly earlier. I just want to say I appreciate you sticking with it, and I’m glad we talked."
  Why: Partner A revisits the ending to reinforce positivity and connection.
  Impact: This repair helps both partners feel seen and appreciated, strengthening their bond.

——-

Signposts of Grief Relief

Here are some signposts that the grip of grief, and where there is unforgiveness, has loosened, based on insights and research from the Grief Recovery Method and related research. This list is not in any particular order.

1. A noticeable reduction in the intensity of grief-related emotions.

2. Being able to recall memories without overwhelming sadness.

3. A renewed interest in daily activities and hobbies.

4. Experiencing a sense of peace and acceptance regarding the loss.

5. Feeling less anger or resentment towards the person or situation.

6. An increased ability to talk about the loss without intense emotional reactions.

7. Improved physical well-being and energy levels.

8. Being able to experience joy and laughter again.

9. A willingness to form new relationships or deepen existing ones.

10. The ability to think about the future with hope.

11. A decrease in physical symptoms often associated with grief, such as headaches or fatigue.

12. A sense of closure or resolution regarding the loss.

13. A feeling of gratitude for the time and experiences shared with the lost loved one.

14. An ability to engage in meaningful activities that were previously avoided.

15. Being able to forgive oneself for any perceived mistakes or regrets.

16. Not feeling guilty about moving forward or experiencing happiness.

17. The capacity to set new goals and pursue them.

18. Feeling a sense of connection to others and the world around.

19. The ability to express emotions openly and healthily.

20. A renewed sense of purpose and meaning in life.

—-

These signs can indicate that someone is beginning to heal and move forward from grief as well as unforgiveness.

The Difference Between a Discussion and a Decison

Difference Between a Discussion and a Decision in Marital and Family Conversations

• THE CORE NEED OF CONSENT: Don’t assume a task from a Discussion

  A discussion is an open exchange of ideas, feelings, and perspectives. It involves exploring possibilities, sharing thoughts, and understanding each other’s viewpoints without the immediate pressure of concluding or taking action. Discussions focus on communication and mutual understanding.

  Example in family: Parents discuss potential vacation destinations with their children, considering everyone’s preferences and limitations. The goal is to explore ideas and understand what matters to everyone.

• Decision:

  A decision is the outcome of a process where a course of action is agreed upon after weighing the inputs from a discussion. It requires clarity, commitment, and often compromise. Decisions translate ideas into actions.

  Example in family: After the discussion about vacation destinations, the parents decide on a destination and set dates, balancing everyone’s preferences with practical considerations.

Examples of Discussions and Decisions Going Wrong

1. Going Wrong in a Discussion:

   • Scenario: A couple discusses financial goals for the year. One partner starts criticizing the other’s past spending instead of focusing on shared goals. The discussion becomes defensive and unproductive.

   • Why It Fails: Instead of staying exploratory and open, the discussion turns into an argument. Emotional triggers derail the conversation.

2. Going Wrong in a Decision:

   • Scenario: Parents quickly decide to move a child to a new school without discussing the decision with the child. The child feels excluded and resents the change.

   • Why It Fails: The decision was made without thorough input from all stakeholders, leading to dissatisfaction and potential resistance.

Examples of Discussions and Decisions Going Right

1. Going Right in a Discussion:

   • Scenario: A couple discusses how to balance time spent with extended family over the holidays. They both share what’s important to them without judgment, listen actively, and gain a deeper understanding of each other’s needs.

   • Why It Succeeds: The discussion remains respectful and exploratory, setting the stage for a collaborative decision.

2. Going Right in a Decision:

   • Scenario: After discussing the holiday plans, the couple decides to split time between their families, with clear communication and a plan for travel.

   • Why It Succeeds: The decision reflects mutual input and prioritizes fairness and practical execution.

Key Distinctions for Satisfying Agreements

1. Purpose:

   • In a discussion: Aim for understanding and idea generation.

   • In a decision: Aim for resolution and action.

2. Timing:

   • Avoid rushing a discussion into a decision without full exploration.

   • Transition to decision-making once clarity and readiness emerge.

3. Involvement:

   • In discussions: Ensure everyone feels heard.

   • In decisions: Ensure everyone feels their input has been valued.

4. Emotional Tone:

   • Discussions thrive on curiosity and openness.

   • Decisions thrive on clarity and unity.

We Can’t Talk About It! Destructive Double Binds

We can’t talk about it!

Destructive Double Binds

Damned If I Do, Damned If I Don’t

In the intricate dance of relationship, communication often determines the health of that relationship. However, one of the most damaging dynamics that can arise is the double bind: a contradictory communication trap where both options available to one partner lead to negative outcomes, and the underlying issue cannot be safely discussed. These patterns often stem from unspoken fears, unmet needs, or unresolved power struggles that hide in two or more conflicting messages where one option negates the other. A common description is: I am damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.

This leaves the recipient unable to resolve the situation without incurring blame or criticism and an environment where discussing the contradiction itself feels unsafe or off-limits.

For example, a spouse might say, “I want you to be more assertive, but I hate it when you challenge me.” If the partner becomes more assertive, they are criticized for being too challenging. If they remain passive, they’re accused of lacking initiative. Either way, they lose, and the issue remains unresolved.

More Examples of Double Binds in Marriage Conversations

1. “Be Honest, But Don’t Hurt Me”

• The Double Bind: One partner says they value honesty but reacts defensively or with anger when the truth is shared.

• Impact: The other partner feels they must either lie to protect feelings or face conflict for being honest.

2. “I Want You to Spend More Time with Me, But Why Aren’t You Working Harder?”

• The Double Bind: A spouse asks for more quality time but criticizes the other for not contributing enough financially.

• Impact: The partner feels torn between meeting emotional needs and fulfilling practical responsibilities.

3. “Support Me, But Don’t Agree with Everything I Say”

• The Double Bind: One partner seeks validation but accuses the other of being a “yes person” if they agree too readily.

• Impact: The other partner feels they can’t win—disagreement leads to conflict, and agreement leads to dismissal.

4. “Be Yourself, But Don’t Embarrass Me”

• The Double Bind: A partner encourages authenticity but critiques behavior they find embarrassing or unconventional.

• Impact: The other person feels pressured to conform while pretending to be “authentic.”

5. “Make Decisions, But Don’t Overstep”

• The Double Bind: One spouse wants the other to take initiative but criticizes them for making the “wrong” decisions.

• Impact: The partner becomes hesitant to act, fearing judgment regardless of their choice.

6. “Show Me Love, But Don’t Smother Me”

• The Double Bind: A spouse complains about feeling unloved but accuses the other of being overbearing when affection is shown.

• Impact: The other partner struggles to find the “right” amount of affection, leading to confusion and emotional withdrawal.

7. “Help Me, But Don’t Make Me Feel Incompetent”

• The Double Bind: A partner asks for help but feels undermined or criticized when the help is provided.

• Impact: The other partner feels they can’t win—helping leads to accusations of control, while withholding help is seen as neglect.

8. “Talk to Me, But Don’t Nag”

• The Double Bind: One partner asks for more communication but dismisses repeated attempts as nagging.

• Impact: The other partner becomes reluctant to communicate, fearing they will be criticized no matter what.

9. “I Want Intimacy, But Don’t Pressure Me”

• The Double Bind: A spouse expresses a desire for more physical or emotional intimacy but reacts negatively to attempts at closeness.

• Impact: The other partner feels rejected and confused, unsure how to meet their spouse’s needs without crossing boundaries.

10. “I Need Space, But Don’t Ignore Me”

• The Double Bind: One partner says they need alone time but complains of feeling neglected when the other gives them space.

• Impact: The other partner feels trapped, unsure whether to prioritize connection or independence.

Why Double Binds Are So Destructive

1. Erodes Trust:

When one partner feels they are set up to fail, it undermines trust and goodwill in the relationship.

2. Stifles Communication:

Double binds create an unspoken rule that the issue itself is off-limits, preventing resolution.

3. Breeds Resentment:

Over time, the trapped partner may feel resentful, leading to emotional withdrawal or defensiveness.

4. Reinforces Power Struggles:

The lack of clarity often reflects deeper issues of control, fear, or insecurity in the relationship.

Break the Cycle:

Talk About Bind And The Underlying Needs Of Those Involved

1.Acknowledge the Double Bind: The first step is recognizing the contradictory nature of the communication.

2.Create Safety for Honest Dialogue: Partners must feel safe to express their needs, fears, and frustrations without judgment.

3.Clarify Needs and Intentions: Ask open-ended questions to understand the underlying emotions behind the conflicting messages.

4.Focus on Collaboration: Shift from a win-lose dynamic to finding solutions that honor both partners’ needs.

5.Seek Professional Support: Individual and Couples therapy can provide tools to navigate and resolve double binds effectively.

——-

10 Examples Of Loosening The Grip

Done Badly. Done Well.

Here are 10 examples of addressing double binds in marriage and family situations.

Marriage & Family Double Binds

1. Double Bind: “You never take initiative in planning date nights, but I want to feel cared for.”

•Done Badly: Partner sarcastically responds, “Well, I guess I’m a failure then!”

•Impact: Creates defensiveness, resentment, and avoidance of deeper needs.

•Done Well: “I hear that you want to feel cared for and want me to take initiative. Can we brainstorm together on what you’d like that to look like?”

•Impact: Builds collaboration and clarity, meeting both partners’ needs.

•Quick Recovery: “I reacted poorly earlier. Let me revisit this. I want to make this work for both of us.”

2. Double Bind: “You always need space, but I feel abandoned when you withdraw.”

•Done Badly: Partner defensively says, “I guess I can never win with you!”

•Impact: Escalates conflict and deepens emotional disconnect.

•Done Well: “I see that when I take space, it makes you feel abandoned. Let’s find ways I can reassure you while still meeting my need for space.”

•Impact: Balances autonomy and connection, fostering trust.

•Quick Recovery: “I overreacted earlier. I value your feelings, and I want to address this better.”

3. Double Bind: “I want you to express your emotions, but when you do, it feels overwhelming.”

•Done Badly: Partner shuts down: “Fine, I won’t tell you anything!”

•Impact: Reinforces emotional avoidance and suppresses vulnerability.

•Done Well: “I realize I’ve sent mixed messages. I do want to hear you, but maybe we can work together to manage how we communicate emotions.”

•Impact: Creates emotional safety and clarity.

•Quick Recovery: “I regret dismissing you earlier. Let’s start over with a fresh approach.”

4. Double Bind: “You should stand up to your family, but I don’t want to cause tension.”

•Done Badly: Partner reacts: “So you want me to ruin my relationship with them?”

•Impact: Amplifies fear of conflict, causing inaction.

•Done Well: “It’s tough to balance your family’s needs and ours. Let’s discuss how to address this respectfully.”

•Impact: Encourages mutual understanding and strategic action.

•Quick Recovery: “I didn’t handle that well earlier. Let’s approach it calmly together.”

5. Double Bind: “I want intimacy, but you never make me feel desired.”

•Done Badly: Partner lashes out: “You never make me feel desired either!”

• Impact: Shifts blame, perpetuating distance.

•Done Well: “It sounds like we both want to feel desired. Let’s talk about ways we can prioritize that together.”

•Impact: Opens pathways for mutual affection and reconnection.

•Quick Recovery: “I shouldn’t have snapped. Can we revisit this?”

Family Double Binds

6. Double Bind: “You’re always at work, but we miss having you home.”

•Done Badly: Parent defensively says, “Well, someone has to pay the bills!”

•Impact: Reinforces guilt and erodes family connection.

•Done Well: “I hear that you miss me. Let’s plan a weekly activity to reconnect as a family.”

•Impact: Builds bonds and addresses underlying longing.

•Quick Recovery: “I shouldn’t have dismissed your feelings. Let’s make a plan.”

7. Double Bind: “We want you to succeed in school, but we also want you to be happy.”

•Done Badly: Parent pressures: “You just need to figure it out!”

•Impact: Increases anxiety and alienation.

•Done Well: “We value your success and happiness. Let’s explore ways to balance both and support you.”

•Impact: Fosters open dialogue and reduces stress.

•Quick Recovery: “I was too pushy earlier. Let’s revisit your goals together.”

8. Double Bind: “You should be independent, but we want you to stay close to home.”

•Done Badly: Family guilts: “You’re abandoning us by moving away!”

•Impact: Stifles independence and breeds resentment.

•Done Well: “We’ll miss you, but we’re proud of your independence. Let’s find ways to stay connected.”

•Impact: Encourages autonomy while maintaining family ties.

•Quick Recovery: “I regret making you feel bad earlier. Let’s celebrate your growth.”

9. Double Bind: “We want you to share, but don’t talk back to us.”

•Done Badly: Parent scolds: “You’re being disrespectful!”

•Impact: Silences children, stifling honest communication.

•Done Well: “I want to hear your thoughts, even if we don’t always agree. Let’s find respectful ways to share.”

•Impact: Builds trust and healthy dialogue.

•Quick Recovery: “I overreacted earlier. Let’s try again.”

10. Double Bind: “You should work hard, but don’t neglect your health.”

•Done Badly: Family criticizes: “You’re either lazy or obsessed!”

•Impact: Triggers confusion and burnout.

•Done Well: “Your hard work is appreciated, but let’s talk about how to prioritize your well-being too.”

•Impact: Promotes balance and long-term wellness.

•Quick Recovery: “I shouldn’t have judged earlier. Let’s figure this out together.”

In all cases, the key to quick recovery is owning the misstep and actively inviting collaboration.

Double binds thrive on unspoken conflicts. Identifying them, then addressing them with vulnerability and collaboration creates the opportunity for new ways of seeing the situation that can now include the former hidden needs and conflicts.

Love Makes You Blind: The Chemistry of Forever Love

The Early Stages of Love: Chemistry at Play

The saying "love is blind" captures a profound truth about romantic relationships: intense feelings of love and attraction can often obscure our ability to see or acknowledge a partner's flaws. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the early stages of a relationship, where idealization and emotional highs can create a temporary veil over reality. However, as relationships mature, this initial blindness can evolve into a deep, enduring love marked by compassion, consideration, intention, and commitment.

Idealization of the Partner

In the excitement of new love, individuals often engage in romantic idealization, focusing on their partner’s positive traits while overlooking any flaws. This idealization is fueled by the novelty of the relationship and the intense emotional connections being formed. People may also project their own desires and values onto their partners, interpreting behaviors through the lens of their expectations rather than recognizing underlying issues.

Emotional Highs

The initial stages of love are characterized by the release of neurochemicals like dopamine and oxytocin. Dopamine, often dubbed the "feel-good" neurotransmitter, heightens feelings of euphoria and pleasure, encouraging individuals to focus on the positives in their partners. Oxytocin, known as the "bonding hormone," is released during physical intimacy, fostering feelings of closeness and attachment. These neurochemical responses contribute to a heightened emotional state that can cloud judgment, leading to an uncritical view of a partner.

The Rational Blindness and Bonding of Orgasm

During orgasm, the brain’s lateral orbitofrontal cortex and prefrontal cortex, areas responsible for rational thinking, self-control, and critical judgment, temporarily deactivate, creating a state of reduced inhibition and heightened emotional and physical sensation. Simultaneously, the brain floods with oxytocin and dopamine, hormones associated with bonding and pleasure, which enhance feelings of love and connection. This neurochemical cocktail, paired with the suppression of fear and judgment (reduced amygdala activity), can make love feel all-encompassing and overwhelming, effectively “blinding” you to rational concerns or potential flaws in your partner, reinforcing intimacy and connection.

Fear of Loss

The desire for connection can create a fear of loss, prompting individuals to avoid addressing potential conflicts. In the early stages of a relationship, the instinct to maintain harmony often takes precedence over confronting issues. This desire to sustain emotional closeness can lead partners to overlook red flags, believing that love alone will resolve any problems.

Transition to Compassion and Consideration

As relationships progress, the initial blindness can transform into a more nuanced understanding of one another, driven by intention and commitment.

Growth Through Experience

As partners navigate the challenges that arise in their relationship, they are often required to confront each other's complexities. This journey fosters deeper understanding and empathy, as they learn to appreciate one another’s struggles. Recognizing that everyone has imperfections allows for a more realistic and compassionate view of the relationship.

Communication and Vulnerability

With the establishment of trust, partners may begin to share their vulnerabilities and concerns openly. Honest communication enables them to address issues constructively rather than avoiding them. As they actively support each other through challenges, a sense of teamwork and resilience develops, further deepening their bond.

Building Resilience

Overcoming difficulties together strengthens the connection between partners. The process of addressing and resolving conflicts cultivates solidarity, reinforcing their commitment to one another. As love matures, partners often learn to accept each other's imperfections, rooted in a deeper understanding of what it means to be human.

The Biological Basis of Forever Love

Dr. Mary Fridman O'Connor, in her book "The Grieving Brain," explores the emotional and biological chemistry that underpins deep, enduring connections—what she refers to as the Forever Bond. This bond is shaped by several key biochemical and neurological factors:

Neurotransmitters and Hormones

- Oxytocin: Released during physical touch and intimacy, oxytocin promotes feelings of closeness and trust, reinforcing emotional bonds.

- Vasopressin: Similar to oxytocin, vasopressin is linked to protective behaviors and commitment, contributing to the stability of long-term relationships.

- Dopamine: This neurotransmitter enhances feelings of pleasure and motivation, crucial for establishing and maintaining attraction.

- Serotonin: Regulating mood, stable serotonin levels contribute to emotional balance and well-being, essential for a healthy Forever Bond.

Brain Regions Involved

- The Limbic System: Responsible for processing emotions and forming memories, the limbic system fosters emotional connections that reinforce the Forever Bond during moments of love and attachment.

- The Prefrontal Cortex: This area of the brain is involved in decision-making and rational thought. A healthy balance in prefrontal cortex activity allows individuals to navigate the complexities of relationships, fostering understanding and compassion.

The Role of Intention and Commitment

While chemistry plays a critical role in the formation of love, intention and commitment are equally vital. Partners who approach their relationship with a conscious intention to understand, support, and grow together create a fertile ground for compassion and consideration. Commitment provides a sense of security and stability, allowing both partners to navigate challenges with resilience.

Therefore

Initially, love can create a blindness to a partner's issues due to idealization, emotional highs, and the desire for connection. However, as relationships evolve and partners face challenges together, this blindness can transform into compassion and consideration. The interplay of biological chemistry, intention, and commitment is essential for developing a mature and enduring love—one where both partners feel seen, understood, and supported in their complexities. The journey from blind love to a lasting Forever Bond is not just about overcoming obstacles; it's about nurturing a deep connection that thrives on empathy, communication, and resilience.

https://open.spotify.com/track/4pjzP2acWZRUvRgZljRirH?si=hw29USBkSPmgSKRiBF3fqg&context=spotify%3Asearch%3Alove%2Bmakes%2Byou%2Bblind

Finding Your Own Voice While Loving A Strong-Voiced Partner

Loving someone with a strong personality can be both exhilarating and challenging. Their confidence and clarity may inspire you, but it can also feel overwhelming sometimes, leaving you unsure how to express your thoughts and needs. Finding your own voice in a relationship like this doesn’t mean competing for attention or dominance or submitting to them—it’s about discovering your own voice and practicing the balance between honoring your individuality (Differentiation) and staying deeply connected (Attachment).

What Holds The “Us” Together As You Face The Challenges Of Finding Your Own Voice in Relationships

Attachment is like the invisible string that connects a child to the people they love and trust the most, like their parents or caregivers. This string helps the child feel safe, loved, and cared for, even when they can’t see or touch that person. It makes children run to their parents when they’re scared or sad, and it gives them the courage to explore the world, knowing someone is there to catch them if they fall. For a six-year-old, you might say, “Your heart has a magic string that connects to mine, so even when I’m not near, you can feel my love and know I’m always here for you.”

As children grow, they also need to develop something called differentiation. Differentiation is the process of learning that while we’re all connected by those invisible strings of attachment and we’re also our unique selves. It’s like having your special backpack full of feelings, thoughts, and ideas that belong only to you. Differentiation helps children understand that it’s okay to think differently from others or to want different things, even from people they love. For a six-year-old, you might say, “You’re like your own superhero with your very own powers. You can make choices and feel your feelings, even if they differ from mine. And guess what? That’s a good thing!”

But what happens when a child’s unique thoughts and feelings aren’t validated? The invisible attachment string can feel tangled or frayed when they feel forced to hide or stop asserting their needs. The child may still love and rely on their family, but they might begin to think that being themselves isn’t safe. Instead of running to their parents when scared or sad, they might hide their true feelings to avoid rejection or conflict. This can make the magic string feel less comforting and more like something they must tiptoe around to keep intact. The child’s unique features are locked up or ignored when differentiation isn’t supported in this environment. Instead of feeling free to share their unique powers—like their feelings, ideas, and needs—they might have to copy what others think or feel to stay connected. Over time, the child might lose confidence in their development, considering their feelings or ideas aren’t as important as other people’s.

How Attachment and Differentiation Work Together In Relationships To Support Two Strong-Voices

In a marriage, the bond between partners is also built on two key aspects: attachment and differentiation. Attachment is the emotional glue—that invisible string— that holds the relationship together, creating a sense of security, trust, and connection. It’s about feeling safe and close, knowing you can rely on each other in need. This is the “we” of the relationship—the shared bond that nurtures intimacy and togetherness. However, differentiation is just as important as the other side.

Differentiation is your ability to hold on to your unique self—your values, needs, and identity—even while deeply connected to your partner. It means staying true to who you are, even as you engage emotionally with your partner’s concerns, ideas, and emotions. Finding your unique, satisfying balance between these two aspects can create a more fulfilling relationship. Attachment allows partners to build trust and a sense of “home” with each other. At the same time, differentiation enables personal growth and resilience. It can deal with conflict without building resentment toward each other, with a pattern of dominance and submission instead of discussion, which can yield compromises with flexible things and support the core needs that need to be supported in each person and family member.

A well-differentiated person can stay present and emotionally engaged without becoming overwhelmed and shutting down or as a pattern of “losing themselves” in the relationship. Together, these dynamics help couples manage challenges, respect each other’s individuality, and grow as individuals and as a team. A healthy marriage challenges each person to work toward blending these forces of closeness and independence, building a relationship where love and personal authenticity can have enough emotional and mental space to thrive side by side.

Guidelines For Developing Your Own Voice With A Strong-Voiced Partner Whom You Love

1. Understand Self-Differentiation As It Differs From Attachment

David Schnarch, Ph.D. author of The Passionate Marriage, describes self-differentiation as regulating emotions, making clear choices, and standing firm in your values while staying emotionally present with your partner. It involves resisting the urge to either:

• Emotionally fuse with your partner by abandoning your needs to keep the peace. (Submit)

• Emotionally cut off by withdrawing to avoid discomfort or conflict. (Stonewall)

Key Takeaway: Self-differentiation is not about creating distance; it about staying close and connected while maintaining your individuality.

2. Tolerate Emotional Discomfort For Growth

According to David Schnarch, Ph.D., emotional growth requires tolerating discomfort. This means staying engaged when your partner’s concerns challenge you or provoke difficult emotions. For example:

• Instead of Immediately agreeing to avoid an argument, practice listening actively and reflecting on what they want you to hear. Ensure they are satisfied that you understand before you shift and calmly state your perspective, even if it creates temporary tension.

Key Takeaway: Emotional discomfort is not a sign of failure but a normal part of meaningful intimacy.

3. Practice Speaking Authentically In Small Steps Taken Often

Schnarch distinguishes between the "SOLID SELF" (Meaning when you speak up in your authentic values and beliefs and personal core needs and are still open to learning more about yourself and your partner—not easy but doable) and the "PSEUDO SELF" (values adopted to gain approval or avoid rejection, also known as Masking, sometimes socially necessary but overuse leads to confusion and fatigue). In this discussion, where there is tension with your partner, you can learn more about your values and core needs. An attitude of discovery and curiosity can open that possibility so you learn more about your core values and needs and know what to hold on to. To hold on to yourself:

• Please reflect on your evolving core values and beliefs to understand what matters.

• Avoid changing your stance to align with your partner’s views without dismissing theirs so you don’t avoid conflict.

• Acknowledge your partner’s concerns without compromising your integrity.

Example: If your partner insists on a particular financial decision that doesn’t align with your priorities, you might respond, "I understand why this feels important to you, but I need to explore options that align with my long-term goals, too."

Key Takeaway: A solid self provides the foundation for authentic connection, respectful negotiation, and discovering creative new options where both people’s core needs can be considered.

4. Practice "Holding Onto Me While Holding Onto You"

Schnarch’s framework involves balancing individuality with connection. This requires engaging in honest, respectful conversations where:

• When expressing your thoughts and feelings clearly while validating your partner’s perspective without trying to edit what you hear, even if you disagree, you can better resist the urge to shut down or give in completely. You can hold on to each other, tolerate the intensity, and lean into understanding instead of proving the other wrong. It is just different.

Example: If your partner is upset about your work schedule, you could say, "I hear that my late nights have been hard for you. I want to find a balance that supports us both, but I must also prioritize this project for the next month."

Key Takeaway: Balancing "me" and "we" allows the relationship to grow without sacrificing either partner’s individuality.

5. Manage Emotional Reactivity

One of Schnarch’s key principles is the need to manage emotional reactivity. This involves:

• Self-soothing: Regulating your emotions during difficult conversations instead of reacting impulsively. - Staying grounded: Remaining calm and clear-headed, even when faced with strong emotions from your partner.

Example: When your partner expresses frustration, avoid defensiveness by responding, "I see this is upsetting for you. Let me think about what you\u2019ve said so I can respond thoughtfully."

Key Takeaway: Managing your emotional reactions fosters mature, constructive dialogue.

6. Embrace "Pressure Points"

Pressure Points are the intense relationship challenges that push you to grow. These moments often occur when partners express conflicting needs or desires. Instead of avoiding these moments:

• Lean into them as opportunities to deepen intimacy and self-awareness. Use them to clarify your values and core needs and strengthen the relationship. Use your self-soothing practices to allow honesty that is most hard to surface to come up and put on the table so it can be known and worked with instead of hidden and avoided and showing up in other unrelated issues.

For example, if your partner challenges a long-held belief or habit, please use the opportunity to look at your stance, articulate your perspective, and engage in a meaningful conversation.

Key Takeaway: Growth happens when you embrace discomfort from Pressure Points and use it to strengthen yourself and the relationship.

Holding on to yourself while staying connected to your partner’s concerns requires developing a strong inner self, tolerating emotional discomfort, and balancing autonomy with intimacy. By practicing self-differentiation, managing emotional reactivity, and embracing challenging moments, you can create a relationship where both partners feel valued and respected without losing their individuality. As Schnarch emphasizes, true intimacy emerges when both partners bring their authentic selves to the relationship, one small, slow step at a time.

In essence, differentiation helps you balance being considerate of your partner’s desires and core needs with staying true to your core needs, fostering a healthier, more collaborative relationship dynamic that can forge new agreements and choices that both can support and change when Life brings something that requires see what has changed in a fundamentally new way to adapt to what is acctually occuring in the moment..

10 Examples

Example 1: Handling Decision-Making

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “We’re spending our vacation with my family this year. End of discussion.”
You: “Fine, whatever. You always get your way anyway.”

Explanation: This response fosters resentment and reinforces an unhealthy power dynamic. It dismisses your own needs and does not invite collaboration.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “We’re spending our vacation with my family this year. End of discussion.”
You: “I hear that spending time with your family is important to you. Can we find a way to balance this with my need for relaxation?”

Explanation: This approach acknowledges your partner’s desire while asserting your own needs. It invites collaboration rather than conflict.

Impact on Relationship: Encourages mutual respect and a shared sense of decision-making.

Quick Repair Response: “I realize my initial reaction wasn’t constructive. Let’s talk about what’s important to both of us.”

Example 2: Addressing Criticism

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “You’re always late. It’s so disrespectful.”
You: “If you weren’t so controlling, I wouldn’t be late.”

Explanation: This response escalates the conflict and deflects accountability.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “You’re always late. It’s so disrespectful.”
You: “I’m sorry my lateness upset you. I’d like to understand how it’s affecting you so we can address it together.”

Explanation: Validating your partner’s feelings and showing a willingness to collaborate defuses tension.

Impact on Relationship: Builds trust and fosters problem-solving.

Quick Repair Response: “I realize my response was defensive. Let’s start over.”

Example 3: Sharing Financial Decisions

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “We’re buying a new car this weekend. I’ve already picked it out.”
You: “You can do whatever you want. I’ll just deal with it.”

Explanation: Avoiding engagement creates emotional distance and a sense of unilateral control.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “We’re buying a new car this weekend. I’ve already picked it out.”
You: “I appreciate your research. Can we discuss the options together to ensure they meet our needs?”

Explanation: Acknowledging your partner’s efforts while asserting your involvement invites teamwork.

Impact on Relationship: Promotes equity and mutual respect in decision-making.

Quick Repair Response: “I should have voiced my thoughts earlier. Let’s revisit this together.”

Example 4: Managing Household Tasks

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “You’re doing the dishes wrong. Just let me handle it.”
You: “Fine. If you think you’re so perfect, do everything yourself.”

Explanation: This response exacerbates conflict and discourages cooperation.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “You’re doing the dishes wrong. Just let me handle it.”
You: “I’m open to hearing your preferences. Let’s talk about how we can share this task effectively.”

Explanation: Staying calm and collaborative prevents escalation and supports shared responsibility.

Impact on Relationship: Strengthens partnership and reduces resentment.

Quick Repair Response: “I got defensive. Let’s figure this out together.”

Example 5: Responding to Micro-Management

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “You’re not folding the laundry correctly. Just let me do it.”
You: “Why do you always have to control everything? Just back off.”

Explanation: This response creates defensiveness and escalates the conflict.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “You’re not folding the laundry correctly. Just let me do it.”
You: “I know you have a specific way of doing things. Can we divide tasks in a way that works for both of us?”

Explanation: You promote mutual respect by acknowledging your partner’s preference while asserting your desire to contribute.

Impact on Relationship: Builds cooperation and reduces friction.

Quick Repair Response: “I didn’t mean to sound dismissive. Let’s talk about how to make this work better.”

Example 6: Planning Social Activities

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “We’re attending my friend’s party on Saturday night. I’ve already RSVP’d.”
You: “You never ask me what I want to do. You’re so inconsiderate.”

Explanation: This response creates feelings of alienation and disconnection.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “We’re attending my friend’s party on Saturday night. I’ve already RSVP’d.”
You: “I’d like to be included in these plans. Can we check in with each other before making commitments?”

Explanation: By expressing your desire to be consulted without attacking your partner, you create a space for a conversation.

Impact on Relationship: Encourages mutual respect and shared decision-making.

Quick Repair Response: “I shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions. Let’s figure this out together.”

Example 7: Balancing Parenting Styles

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “You’re being too lenient with the kids. That’s not how I want things done.”
You: “Well, you’re too strict, so there.”

Explanation: This response leads to polarization and undermines parenting unity.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “You’re being too lenient with the kids. That’s not how I want things done.”
You: “I see we have different approaches. Let’s sit down and discuss a consistent strategy we both agree on.”

Explanation: Collaborating on a shared parenting approach supports alignment and reduces conflict.

Impact on Relationship: Strengthens teamwork and parental partnership.

Quick Repair Response: “I’m sorry for being dismissive. Let’s revisit this as a team.”

Example 8: Navigating Boundaries

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “I don’t want you spending time with that friend anymore.”
You: “You can’t tell me what to do. Stop being so controlling.”

Explanation: This response creates a power struggle and erodes trust.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “I don’t want you spending time with that friend anymore.”
You: “I’d like to understand your concerns. Can we talk about what’s making you uncomfortable?”

Explanation: By seeking to understand your partner’s perspective, you open the door for dialogue rather than defensiveness.

Impact on Relationship: Builds understanding and reduces tension around sensitive topics.

Quick Repair Response: “I didn’t mean to dismiss your feelings. Let’s discuss this openly.”

Example 9: Resolving Miscommunications

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “You never listen to me. What’s the point of even talking?”
You: “That’s not true. You’re the one who doesn’t listen.”

Explanation: This response dismisses your partner’s feelings and escalates the conflict.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “You never listen to me. What’s the point of even talking?”
You: “I’m sorry you feel unheard. Let’s take a moment to clarify what’s important to you.”

Explanation: Validating your partner’s feelings and expressing a willingness to listen fosters connection.

Impact on Relationship: Encourages open communication and emotional intimacy.

Quick Repair Response: “I didn’t mean to shut you down. Let me listen better.”

Example 10: Managing Conflicts About Time

Done Badly Dialogue: Partner: “You never make time for me anymore.”
You: “I’m busy. What do you expect me to do?”

Explanation: This response dismisses your partner’s concerns and creates emotional distance.

Done Well Dialogue: Partner: “You never make time for me anymore.”
You: “I hear that you’re feeling neglected. Let’s plan some quality time together this week.”

Explanation: Acknowledging your partner’s feelings while offering a solution builds trust and connection.

Impact on Relationship: Enhances emotional closeness and mutual understanding.

Quick Repair Response: “I’m sorry for being dismissive. Let’s prioritize time for each other.”

Neurodivergent Traits Appear Uniquely In Self, Self-Image, and Masking

In understanding neurodivergence, it is essential to explore how neurodivergent traits manifest differently in three layers of identity: the Self, self-image, and masking. These layers provide a framework to understand the interplay between one’s authentic nature, perceiving oneself, and navigating societal expectations. Each layer shapes how neurodivergent individuals experience and express their uniqueness daily.

The Self: The Source of the Aliveness of Authenticity

The Self, as described by Carl Jung, is like the complete picture of who a person is. It includes the parts of ourselves we know about and the parts we might not realize yet. For neurodivergent people, traits in the Self are natural and authentic to who they are. Outside pressures don’t shape these traits but come from how their brains are uniquely wired. They are a key part of a person’s identity and stay with them no matter what happens around them.

The phrase "The Self: The Source of the Aliveness of Authenticity" fits well with Jung’s ideas about the Self. He saw the Self as a central part of the mind that moves all the pieces of who we are toward awareness and acceptance of what lives inside a person in all if its vast diversity.

The Self is often thought of as the source of aliveness, energy, and purpose. When people align with their Self, they feel more connected to who they are uniquely inside. Jung believed that the journey to understand and become one’s true Self—a process he called individuation—was essential for feeling this kind of vitality.

Authenticity happens when someone’s actions and feelings match who they are inside. This authentic way of being feels “alive” because it connects what’s happening inside a person with how they live and interact with the world around them.

How the Phrase Could Be Misinterpreted:

If "aliveness" is interpreted purely as emotional or outward energy, it might oversimplify the Self's deeper psychological and spiritual dimensions in Jung's framework. It’s important to note that the Self is not just about feeling "alive" in the energetic sense but about embracing a meaningful, integrated existence.

Therefore

"The Self: The Source of the Aliveness of Authenticity" is an elegant and accurate way to encapsulate Jung’s views on the Self, as long as "aliveness" is understood in the context of deep psychological integration and authenticity. It aligns well with the sources in your memory, particularly Jung's emphasis on wholeness and the vitality that emerges from learning what makes you unique and being okay with it, even if it’s different from others.

Examples of Neurodivergent Traits in the Self

1. ADHD: An individual’s spontaneity and creativity, driven by their brain’s tendency to seek stimulation, might be a core part of their authentic Self.

2. Autism: A natural affinity for patterns, systems, or intense focus on specific interests reflects how the mind instinctively engages with the world.

3. Dyslexia: Unique problem-solving approaches, such as visual-spatial reasoning, might shape how they inherently process information.

How This Functions in Daily Life

In daily situations, neurodivergent traits in the Self manifest organically. For example, a person with ADHD might energize group dynamics with humor and quick thinking. At the same time, an autistic individual might excel in detail-oriented tasks that align with their natural focus.

Self-Image: Conscious Identity and Perception

Self-image refers to how a person consciously perceives and defines themselves. For neurodivergent individuals, self-image involves an awareness of their unique traits and how they align with their sense of identity. Self-image is shaped by personal reflection, societal feedback, and life experiences. Whether neurodivergent traits are embraced or resisted often depends on the individual’s environment and the messages they’ve received about their differences.

Examples of Neurodivergent Traits in Self-Image

1. A person with dyslexia might view themselves as a “creative thinker” who innovatively approaches problems.

2. An autistic individual might embrace the label of “detail-oriented” or “deep thinker” as a source of pride.

3. Someone with ADHD might describe themselves as “spontaneous” and “full of ideas.”

How This Functions in Daily Life

Positive self-image enables neurodivergent individuals to advocate for themselves and pursue opportunities that align with their strengths. For instance, a person with ADHD who views hyperfocus as a superpower might choose a career that allows them to dive deeply into areas of passion, leading to professional and personal growth.

Masking: Navigating Societal Expectations

Masking involves suppressing or altering neurodivergent traits to conform to societal norms and expectations. While masking can help individuals navigate environments that may be less accommodating, it often leads to emotional and mental strain. Masking creates a divide between the authentic Self and outward behavior, leaving individuals disconnected or unseen.

Examples of Neurodivergent Traits in Masking

1. A person with ADHD might suppress their urge to move or speak impulsively during meetings to appear “professional.”

2. An autistic individual might mimic neurotypical social behaviors, such as maintaining eye contact or engaging in small talk, even if it feels unnatural.

3. Someone with sensory sensitivities might endure overwhelming stimuli in public to avoid appearing “difficult.”

How This Functions in Daily Life

While masking can smooth social interactions or help individuals succeed in structured environments, it often comes at a cost. For example, a person with autism who spends all day masking at work might feel drained and require significant alone time to recover. Over time, chronic masking can lead to burnout and a diminished sense of self.

How These Layers Interact

Understanding the interplay between the Self, self-image, and masking is crucial for supporting neurodivergent individuals:

1. Alignment: When self-image aligns with the authentic Self, individuals can live authentically and experience greater clarity, purpose, more well-being, and degrees of fulfillment.

2. Conflict: When masking becomes dominant, it creates a disconnect from the Self, often leading to anxiety, depression, or burnout.

3. Growth: Encouraging positive self-image and reducing the need for masking can help neurodivergent individuals embrace their authentic traits as strengths.

Therefore

Neurodivergent traits appear in different ways in the layers of the Self, self-image, and masking. These layers affect how a person sees the world and experiences life. By understanding the differences between these layers, we can create spaces that help people feel accepted for what they experience and the diverse elements of their inner world. This means encouraging a way to be more compassionate in a way that reduces the pressure to fit in when it feels unnatural. For neurodivergent individuals, this approach can lead to more confidence in addressing life circumstances that lean and favor the unique strengths of their minds while accepting and managing the more challenging ones.

The Relationship of Self, Self-Image and Masking

The concepts of self, self-image, and masking are interconnected but distinct aspects of identity and perception. Here’s an exploration of their similarities and differences:

Similarities

1. Relationship to Identity
   All three concepts are related to the broader construct of identity. They reflect how an individual understands, perceives, and expresses their sense of self.

2. Shaped by Internal and External Factors

   • Self is influenced by innate traits, life experiences, and existential reflection. The fundamental aspect of you that doesn’t change, no matter the situation.

   • Self-image is shaped by how individuals interpret their experiences, societal feedback, and personal achievements or failures.

   • Masking emerges as a response to social and environmental pressures, often as a way to align outward behaviors with societal norms.

3. Impact on Behavior and Well-being
   All three influence behavior and emotional health. A well-integrated self and positive self-image promote authenticity and well-being, while masking can create internal conflicts if it’s misaligned with the true self.

Differences

Key Takeaway

• Self: The fundamental aspect of you that doesn’t change, no matter the situation.

• Self-Image: How you perceive and evaluate yourself.

• Masking: How you modify your external presentation in response to social demands.

The balance between these elements is crucial for emotional and psychological health. A strong and authentic connection to the fundamental aspect of you that doesn’t change—no matter the situation, a positive self-image, and reduced reliance on masking contribute to overall well-being.

The difference between Harm Reduction and Change Therapy in Domestic Violence situations?

In psychotherapy, when a person works on change rather than harm reduction, it is often referred to as abstinence-based treatment, transformational change, or simply behavioral change. The exact term depends on the therapeutic approach and the context. Here are some examples of how it might be framed:

1. Abstinence-Based Approach: In addiction treatment, this involves completely stopping a harmful behavior (e.g., substance use) rather than moderating it.

2. Transformational Change: This focuses on deep, lasting changes to core beliefs, behaviors, or identity, aiming to eliminate harmful patterns altogether.

3. Skill-Building and Growth: Many therapy models, like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), focus on building new skills and changing behaviors rather than simply mitigating harm.

4. Self-Actualization or Personal Growth: In humanistic or positive psychology frameworks, this involves striving for higher levels of functioning and fulfillment rather than just avoiding harm.

For instance, a person working on changing their anger management might focus on developing healthier emotional regulation skills (change) rather than just avoiding physically harmful outbursts (harm reduction).

In psychotherapy, when a person works on change rather than harm reduction, it is often referred to as abstinence-based treatment, transformational change, or simply behavioral change. The exact term depends on the therapeutic approach and the context. Here are some examples of how it might be framed:

1. Abstinence-Based Approach: In addiction treatment, this involves completely stopping a harmful behavior (e.g., substance use) rather than moderating it.

2. Transformational Change: This focuses on deep, lasting changes to core beliefs, behaviors, or identity, aiming to eliminate harmful patterns altogether.

3. Skill-Building and Growth: Many therapy models, like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), focus on building new skills and changing behaviors rather than simply mitigating harm.

4. Self-Actualization or Personal Growth: In humanistic or positive psychology frameworks, this involves striving for higher levels of functioning and fulfillment rather than just avoiding harm.

For instance, a person working on changing their anger management might focus on developing healthier emotional regulation skills (change) rather than just avoiding physically harmful outbursts (harm reduction).

In the context of psychotherapy addressing domestic violence, a focus on change rather than harm reduction involves moving beyond strategies that aim to minimize immediate risks (e.g., avoiding physical altercations) to addressing the underlying causes and dynamics of abusive behaviors or victimization. Here’s how it might look for both parties:

For the Perpetrator of Violence:

1. Harm Reduction:

   • Strategies might involve teaching anger management techniques to reduce the frequency or severity of violent outbursts.

   • Safety planning to de-escalate potentially volatile situations.

2. Change-Oriented Approach:

   • Accountability-Based Interventions: Programs like batterer intervention programs (BIPs) focus on helping perpetrators understand the root causes of their behavior, take responsibility, and develop nonviolent relational skills.

   • Transforming Belief Systems: Challenging and changing harmful beliefs about power, control, and entitlement that perpetuate abusive behavior.

   • Skill-Building: Developing empathy, emotional regulation, and healthy communication to replace the reliance on violence as a conflict resolution tool.

For the Survivor of Violence:

1. Harm Reduction:

   • Safety planning to ensure immediate physical safety (e.g., identifying escape routes, contacting support networks).

   • Learning coping strategies to reduce the psychological impact of abuse.

2. Change-Oriented Approach:

   • Empowerment Therapy: Working on self-esteem, boundary-setting, and recognizing red flags in relationships.

   • Trauma Recovery: Addressing trauma responses, such as learned helplessness or hypervigilance, to rebuild a sense of agency.

   • Rebuilding Identity: Focusing on long-term goals, personal growth, and life skills to move beyond the cycle of abuse.

Key Therapies Used in Change-Oriented Work:

• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): Helps both parties identify and modify harmful thought patterns contributing to the cycle of abuse.

• Trauma-Focused Therapy: For survivors, this helps heal the emotional wounds caused by the violence.

• Motivational Interviewing (MI): Supports the perpetrator in finding intrinsic motivation to change.

• Systems-Focused Approaches: Examines family dynamics or cultural factors contributing to abuse.

Change in this context often involves dismantling the abusive cycle entirely, fostering healthier patterns of behavior, and ensuring long-term safety and emotional well-being for all involved.

Therefore

John and Julie Gottman’s research distinguishes two primary types of domestic violence: situational domestic violence (SDV) and characterological domestic violence (CDV). Situational domestic violence arises from escalated conflicts between partners, typically in the context of stress, poor communication, or inability to de-escalate tension. It is often mutual or reciprocal and may occur sporadically rather than as a pervasive pattern. This form of violence is not rooted in a desire to control or dominate the partner but rather stems from a breakdown in emotional regulation and communication. The Gottmans highlight that SDV can occur in otherwise healthy relationships and is not predictive of ongoing abuse if the underlying conflict patterns are addressed.

In contrast, characterological domestic violence is deeply rooted in an abuser’s personality structure and is characterized by intentional efforts to dominate, control, or harm the partner. It is often unidirectional, with one partner exerting power over the other through a sustained pattern of physical, emotional, or psychological abuse. This type of violence is linked to personality disorders, attachment trauma, and a deeply entrenched sense of entitlement or insecurity. Unlike SDV, CDV is not situational or reactive but a chronic and systematic pattern of behavior. Victims of CDV often experience isolation, fear, and diminished self-esteem due to the persistent nature of the abuse. The Gottmans emphasize that CDV is far more damaging and requires interventions that prioritize victim safety and often involve legal or systemic responses.

The treatment approaches for these two forms of violence differ significantly. For situational domestic violence, the Gottmans recommend therapeutic interventions that focus on improving communication, conflict resolution skills, and emotional regulation. Couples therapy, particularly Gottman Method Couples Therapy, can help partners learn to de-escalate conflicts and foster healthier dynamics.

However, for characterological domestic violence, couples therapy is not appropriate or safe. Instead, treatment focuses on protecting the victim and addressing the abuser’s patterns through individual therapy, accountability programs (such as Batterer Intervention Programs), and legal intervention if necessary.

The Gottmans stress the importance of accurately identifying the type of domestic violence present to ensure that treatment prioritizes safety, healing, and long-term relational health.

Shame, Necessary and unnecessary, and what to do about both.

Shame is a universal human emotion deeply embedded in our evolutionary and social wiring. It serves a dual purpose as a guide to moral behavior and a potential source of harm when misplaced or magnified. Understanding the difference between necessary and unnecessary shame can help us navigate this emotion in our relationships and personal growth.

Necessary shame arises when we violate our own values or harm others, serving as a natural corrective. It prompts reflection, accountability, and a desire to restore balance. Without it, our relationships and communities might lack empathy, honesty, and moral direction.

10 Examples of Necessary Shame:

1. Breaking a promise to a close friend and recognizing the breach in trust (Gottman: repair through turning toward the relationship).

2. Speaking harshly to your partner in anger and later feeling remorse for the harm caused (Sue Johnson: rebuilding trust through emotional attunement).

3. Failing to meet a professional obligation and realizing it impacted a colleague’s work (Ellyn Bader: owning your role in relational systems).

4. Betraying a partner’s trust by keeping a secret (David Schnarch: confronting personal integrity).

5. Ignoring a child’s emotional needs and realizing the long-term effects (Stan Tatkin: the importance of secure functioning).

6. Acting insensitively toward a grieving friend and later understanding their pain (Grief Recovery Method: emotional honesty in relationships).

7. Failing to contribute equally to a shared responsibility at home (Murry Bowen: acknowledging interdependence in family systems).

8. Mocking someone’s vulnerability and realizing it was rooted in your own insecurities (Bateman: exploring shame’s adaptive roots).

9. Lying to avoid accountability and later facing the consequences (Gottman: reestablishing trust through openness).

10. Neglecting self-care to the detriment of your well-being and relationships (Sue Johnson: self-compassion as part of secure bonding).

How to Address Necessary Shame:

• Acknowledge it: Name the action and its impact.

• Apologize authentically: Offer a sincere, non-defensive apology.

• Make amends: Take corrective action to repair the harm.

• Learn and grow: Reflect on the values violated and how to uphold them moving forward.

Unnecessary shame stems from internalized societal messages, unresolved trauma, or harsh self-criticism. It often exaggerates mistakes, isolates individuals, and undermines self-esteem. It is rarely productive and can perpetuate cycles of insecurity and fear.

10 Examples of Unnecessary Shame:

1. Feeling ashamed for needing help with mental health (Gottman: reducing stigma by normalizing vulnerability).

2. Blaming yourself for a relationship breakdown that wasn’t entirely your fault (Sue Johnson: unpacking emotional wounds in secure connections).

3. Experiencing shame over a physical or learning disability (Ellyn Bader: challenging systemic beliefs about worth).

4. Internalizing guilt for a partner’s infidelity (David Schnarch: rejecting false responsibility).

5. Feeling unworthy after losing a job, even when it wasn’t personal (Stan Tatkin: recognizing external factors).

6. Being ashamed of grieving “too long” or in a way others don’t understand (Grief Recovery Method: honoring individual grief processes).

7. Hiding emotions because you fear being labeled as “too sensitive” (Bateman: dismantling societal pressures around emotional expression).

8. Feeling shame for setting healthy boundaries in toxic relationships (Bowen: understanding differentiation and self-respect).

9. Berating yourself for small mistakes due to perfectionism (Sue Johnson: fostering self-compassion in attachment relationships).

10. Carrying shame from childhood for parental criticism or neglect (Stan Tatkin: reframing early experiences through secure attachment).

How to Address Unnecessary Shame:

• Identify its origin: Trace the source of the shame (family, society, or trauma).

• Challenge distorted beliefs: Question whether the shame is justified or exaggerated.

• Seek external validation: Lean on trusted relationships for perspective and support.

• Practice self-compassion: Treat yourself with the kindness you would offer a friend.

• Engage in corrective experiences: Revisit old wounds with new, healing interactions.

Tools and Techniques

To manage shame effectively, consider the following evidence-based approaches:

1. Gottman’s Repair Techniques: In moments of relational shame, prioritize repair attempts like empathetic listening and affection.

2. Sue Johnson’s Emotional Attunement: Practice identifying and validating the emotions underlying shame to create a connection.

3. Ellyn Bader’s Developmental Lens: Understand shame as part of relational growth and address it within the context of relationship dynamics.

4. Schnarch’s Crucible Approach: Use shame to guide personal integrity and emotional maturity.

5. Bowen’s Differentiation: Balance autonomy and connection by resisting societal pressure to conform.

6. Tatkin’s Secure Functioning: Focus on creating a safe relational environment where shame is minimized.

7. Grief Recovery Method: Address unresolved grief that contributes to unnecessary shame and free yourself from its grip.

Therefore

Whether necessary or unnecessary, shame can profoundly shape our lives and relationships. Necessary shame is a compass for moral behavior and relational repair, while unnecessary shame often limits our potential and disconnects us from others. By recognizing the type of shame we experience and addressing it with tools like self-compassion, emotional attunement, and secure connections, we can transform shame from a paralyzing force into a catalyst for growth.

When shame is met with understanding and courage, it no longer defines us—it guides us toward healing and authenticity.

——-

Gratitude for Sources: Drawing from the works of John and Julie Gottman, Ellyn Bader, Sue Johnson, David Schnarch, Murry Bowen, Stan Tatkin, Gregory Bateman, and the Grief Recovery Method, this article unpacks how shame operates and offers actionable strategies for managing both its constructive and destructive aspects.

Disagree Better: Clarify Intentions, Don’t Assume

Here are 10 examples of how to "Clarify Intentions, Don’t Assume" in marriage. Kindness, Compassion, and Mercy turned inward, in small, slow steps.

1. Misinterpreting a Spouse’s Silence

Done Badly:
Spouse 1: "You’re ignoring me again. You always do this when something’s wrong."
Why it Hurts: This assumes the silence is deliberate and dismissive, which could escalate conflict and make the silent partner defensive or withdrawn.

Done Well:
Spouse 1: "I noticed you’ve been quiet. Is something on your mind, or are you needing some space?"
Why it Helps: Open-ended and non-judgmental, it invites the spouse to share without feeling accused. It demonstrates curiosity and care.
Impact: Encourages emotional safety and mutual understanding.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1: "I’m sorry I jumped to conclusions about your silence. Can we start over? What’s going on for you right now?"

2. Assuming Intent Behind Forgetfulness

Done Badly:
Spouse 1: "You forgot our anniversary dinner again. Clearly, you don’t care about us."
Why it Hurts: It attaches malicious intent to a mistake, which can lead to guilt or resentment.

Done Well:
Spouse 1: "I was really looking forward to celebrating tonight. Can we figure out another time to do something special together?"
Why it Helps: Expresses feelings without blame, keeping the focus on connection.
Impact: Prevents resentment and keeps the focus on shared goals.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1: "I realize I let my frustration get the better of me. Let’s talk about what happened and plan something together."

3. Misreading Exhaustion as Rejection

Done Badly:
Spouse 1: "You never want to be intimate anymore. Are you even attracted to me?"
Why it Hurts: This personalizes the issue and pressures the partner, damaging emotional intimacy.

Done Well:
Spouse 1: "You’ve seemed really tired lately. Is there something I can do to support you?"
Why it Helps: Shows care and acknowledges the partner’s possible challenges.
Impact: Builds emotional connection and fosters trust.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1: "I didn’t mean to make it about me. I care about you and want to understand what’s going on."

4. Blaming Instead of Exploring Financial Stress

Done Badly:
Spouse 1: "You’re always spending money on useless stuff! No wonder we’re stressed."
Why it Hurts: It attacks the partner’s actions and creates defensiveness.

Done Well:
Spouse 1: "I’m feeling stressed about our finances. Can we talk about how we’re managing things together?"
Why it Helps: Uses "I" statements and invites collaboration.
Impact: Encourages teamwork and shared problem-solving.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1: "I’m sorry for blaming you. Let’s figure this out as a team."

5. Assuming Intent in Parenting Decisions

Done Badly:
Spouse 1: "You’re undermining me by giving the kids dessert after I said no!"
Why it Hurts: Assumes deliberate undermining, leading to conflict and hurt feelings.

Done Well:
Spouse 1: "I noticed you gave the kids dessert. Can we talk about how we want to handle treats together?"
Why it Helps: Focuses on collaboration and aligns on parenting goals.
Impact: Builds consistency and respect in co-parenting.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1: "I realize I overreacted. Let’s align on how we handle things next time."

6. Misjudging Late Work Hours

Done Badly:
Spouse 1: "You’re working late again. Do you even care about spending time with me?"
Why it Hurts: Implies lack of care and creates emotional distance.

Done Well:
Spouse 1: "I miss spending time with you. Is there a way we can set aside some time together soon?"
Why it Helps: Expresses need without blame.
Impact: Keeps the focus on connection and shared priorities.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1: "I’m sorry for making assumptions. I really just miss you and want us to connect."

7. Misinterpreting a Partner’s Text Tone

Done Badly:
Spouse 1 (text): "Why are you being so cold? Did I do something wrong?"
Why it Hurts: Assumes negative intent and escalates anxiety unnecessarily.

Done Well:
Spouse 1 (text): "Hey, your text seemed short. Is everything okay on your end?"
Why it Helps: Asks for clarification without assuming negativity.
Impact: Avoids unnecessary conflict and builds understanding.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1 (text): "I’m sorry for jumping to conclusions. I was just feeling off."

8. Assuming Control in Vacation Planning

Done Badly:
Spouse 1: "You booked the hotel without even asking me! Do my opinions even matter?"
Why it Hurts: Suggests disrespect and causes defensiveness.

Done Well:
Spouse 1: "I saw you booked the hotel. I’d love to go over details together next time—can we?"
Why it Helps: Expresses a preference while affirming effort.
Impact: Promotes teamwork and mutual respect.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1: "I didn’t mean to make you feel unappreciated. I value your effort."

9. Assuming Intent Behind Criticism

Done Badly:
Spouse 1: "You always find something to complain about. Can’t you just appreciate me?"
Why it Hurts: Creates defensiveness and discourages open communication.

Done Well:
Spouse 1: "When you mentioned that earlier, it felt like criticism. Can we talk about what you need?"
Why it Helps: Encourages open dialogue and clarifies intent.
Impact: Builds mutual understanding and fosters safety.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1: "I’m sorry for reacting that way. I want to understand what you meant."

10. Misreading a Partner’s Disinterest as Rejection

Done Badly:
Spouse 1: "You’re not listening. Clearly, you don’t care about what I have to say."
Why it Hurts: Turns the issue into a personal attack, leading to disconnection.

Done Well:
Spouse 1: "It seems like I’ve lost your attention. Is this not a good time to talk?"
Why it Helps: Opens the door to scheduling a better time or clarifying distractions.
Impact: Maintains connection while respecting both partners’ needs.

Quick Repair:
Spouse 1: "I shouldn’t have assumed you don’t care. Can we revisit this later?"

These examples, rooted in the principles of communication and emotional attunement advocated by the experts mentioned, demonstrate how clarifying intentions prevents unnecessary conflicts and strengthens relationships.

Go or Stay? The Character Defect of Lying, And The Impact On A Relationhip

As a character defect, lying erodes the foundation of trust within relationships and diminishes one's integrity. When someone consistently lies, they often do so to avoid consequences, manipulate outcomes, or protect their ego. Over time, this behavior creates a tangled web of deceit that distances them from others and fractures meaningful connections. Lying also weakens self-esteem, as the individual becomes trapped in a cycle of dishonesty that leaves them out of alignment with their authentic self. This disconnection can breed shame and guilt, perpetuating a pattern where lies feel easier than confronting the truth.

At its core, lying often stems from deeper fears, insecurities, or unresolved emotional pain. For instance, someone who lies about their achievements might fear rejection or judgment. This reveals how lying is often a surface-level behavior, masking more profound vulnerabilities. However, rather than addressing these fears directly, lying serves as a temporary fix, ultimately compounding the issues it aims to avoid. Recognizing lying as a defect allows individuals to reflect on its roots and begin the journey toward honest, open communication, fostering trust and emotional intimacy.

Character Defects vs. Emotional Issues

A character defect differs from an emotional issue in that it reflects a persistent pattern of behavior or attitude that stems from deeper flaws in one’s moral or ethical compass. For example, lying as a character defect is tied to dishonesty and a lack of integrity, requiring accountability and conscious effort to change. In contrast, emotional issues are reactions or responses to internal or external stressors, such as anxiety, depression, or grief, which may stem from trauma or unresolved feelings. While emotional issues are often transient and benefit from processing and support, character defects require an ongoing commitment to self-awareness and behavioral change to align actions with values. The character defect of lying can profoundly damage a committed relationship, creating ripple effects that undermine trust, emotional safety, and long-term stability. Here’s an analysis of its impact based on relational frameworks:

1. Erosion of Trust

Lying directly undermines the foundational trust in a relationship. Trust is essential for partners to feel secure and valued.

• Impact:
  When lies are discovered, the betrayed partner questions the reliability of future promises or reassurances. This can lead to hypervigilance, suspicion, and emotional exhaustion, which erode intimacy.

• Example (Gottman Framework):
  Trust is built on the "small moments of connection" that accumulate over time. Lying disrupts these moments, creating emotional distance and fear of vulnerability.

2. Emotional Safety Breakdown

Emotional safety arises when partners feel they can share openly without fear of betrayal or judgment. Lying creates a climate of uncertainty and invalidation.

• Impact:
  The betrayed partner may feel dismissed, manipulated, or gaslit, leading to resentment or emotional withdrawal. Over time, this reduces the capacity for meaningful emotional exchanges.

• Example (Sue Johnson/EFT):
  Emotional connection relies on "accessible, responsive, and engaged" behavior. Lying makes a partner seem inaccessible and unresponsive, fostering feelings of abandonment and insecurity.

3. Reinforcement of Shame and Avoidance

The lying partner may lie to avoid shame, fear of conflict, or accountability. However, this perpetuates a cycle of avoidance rather than resolution.

• Impact:
  Lying impedes personal and relational growth by masking underlying issues. It creates a vicious cycle where the partner lies to avoid consequences, but the lie itself causes more significant relational damage.

• Example (Bader’s Developmental Model):
  Avoidance of accountability reflects an inability to navigate differentiation (balancing autonomy with connection). The lying partner may stay stuck in immature patterns that sabotage intimacy.

4. Resentment and Power Imbalance

When one partner lies consistently, it creates a power imbalance where the lying partner manipulates reality and the other must compensate.

• Impact:
  The betrayed partner often feels powerless, as their understanding of the relationship becomes distorted by dishonesty. This imbalance fosters resentment and, over time, emotional disengagement.

• Example (Bowen’s Family Systems Theory):
  Chronic dishonesty disrupts the balance in the relational system, increasing anxiety and creating triangulation (e.g., involving others to validate the truth).

5. Loss of Integrity and Respect

Lying damages the lying partner’s credibility, diminishing respect in the relationship.

• Impact:
  Respect is a cornerstone of love and partnership. When lying is habitual, the betrayed partner may struggle to view the liar as dependable or honorable, leading to a decline in admiration and love.

• Example (David Schnarch/Crucible Model):
  Integrity is crucial for differentiation and maintaining self-respect. Chronic lying reflects a lack of integrity, which diminishes attraction and mutual respect.

6. Compounded Grief

Each lie, when discovered, may feel like a loss to the betrayed partner—a loss of trust, safety, and the shared vision of the relationship.

• Impact:
  Unresolved grief accumulates, often leading to emotional shutdown or explosive confrontations. Over time, the relationship becomes more about damage control than connection.

• Example (Grief Recovery Method):
  Lying prevents the betrayed partner from resolving the grief associated with past betrayals, as new wounds continue to reopen old ones.

7. Sabotage of Conflict Resolution

Effective conflict resolution requires honesty and openness. Lying derails this process by introducing falsehoods that obscure the root issues.

• Impact:
  Conflicts remain unresolved, creating a backlog of unaddressed tensions. The betrayed partner may eventually give up trying to resolve issues, leading to emotional detachment.

• Example (Stan Tatkin/PACT Model):
  Secure functioning relationships rely on transparency and collaboration. Lying undermines both, leaving partners unable to navigate conflicts effectively.

Repairing the Damage: A Path Forward

For a relationship to recover, the lying partner must commit to behavioral change and the rebuilding of trust. Steps include:

1. Radical Honesty: Acknowledge lies without excuses and commit to transparency.

2. Accountability: Take full responsibility for the impact of dishonesty on the relationship.

3. Empathy: Actively validate the betrayed partner's feelings of hurt, anger, and betrayal.

4. Consistency: Follow through on promises to rebuild trust incrementally over time.

5. Therapy: Work individually (e.g., to address the root causes of lying) and as a couple to foster deeper connection and safety.

When handled poorly, lying can be the cornerstone of relational demise.

When Facing A Character Defect Of Lying Sincerely, With a Long Term Plan To Change

For someone with a character defect of lying to repair relationship damage and face their own dishonesty, they must commit to deep personal work, transparency, and rebuilding trust. Here's a guide to help navigate this process:

1. Acknowledge the Harm Done

• Take Responsibility: Fully own the fact that lying has caused pain and damaged trust. Avoid minimizing or justifying the behavior. For example:
  "I recognize that my dishonesty has hurt you and damaged our relationship. I take full responsibility for my actions."

• Validate the Impact: Acknowledge the emotional toll on the other person, such as feelings of betrayal, anger, or insecurity.

2. Offer a Sincere Apology

• Apologies must go beyond words. Be genuine, specific, and focused on the harm caused, not excuses.
  "I deeply regret lying to you. I understand how my actions have hurt you and made you question my honesty. I am truly sorry."

• Refrain from blaming external factors or shifting responsibility.

3. Commit to Radical Honesty

• Transparency is key to rebuilding trust. This includes being open, even about uncomfortable truths, and admitting when you’ve made a mistake.

• Avoid "white lies" or withholding information, as these can erode trust further. Commit to living with integrity in all interactions.

4. Identify the Root Causes of Lying

• Reflect on why you lie. Is it to avoid conflict, protect your ego, or control outcomes? Understanding the motivations behind your dishonesty is crucial to change.

• Seek professional help, such as therapy, to explore deeper issues like fear, insecurity, or trauma that might fuel the behavior.

5. Develop Self-Awareness and Accountability

• Practice self-reflection to recognize moments when you’re tempted to lie and redirect yourself toward honesty.

• Hold yourself accountable for every instance of dishonesty, even if it’s small. Share these moments with a trusted person or partner to demonstrate your commitment to change.

6. Rebuild Trust Over Time

• Trust is restored through consistent, trustworthy behavior, not promises. Show through your actions that you’re committed to change. Examples include:

  • Following through on commitments.

  • Being honest about your thoughts, feelings, and mistakes.

  • Respecting boundaries and being patient with the other person's healing process.

• Accept that rebuilding trust may take months or years, depending on the severity of the damage.

7. Seek Support and Guidance

• Consider individual or couples counseling to gain tools for honest communication and to navigate relationship repair.

• Surround yourself with people who value honesty and can help hold you accountable.

8. Work on Personal Growth

• Engage in practices that build integrity, such as mindfulness, journaling, or attending support groups focused on behavioral change.

• Commit to becoming someone who aligns their words and actions with their values.

9. Be Patient with the Process

• Understand that repairing damage and addressing a character defect takes time and persistent effort. Be prepared for setbacks but stay committed to growth.

• Respect the other person’s process, including their right to set boundaries or choose whether to continue the relationship.

Facing the Character Defect of Lying

To face the defect itself, you must adopt a mindset of ongoing self-improvement. View honesty not just as a means to repair relationships but as a core value essential for living authentically. Recognize that lying compromises not only your relationships but also your integrity and self-esteem. By committing to this work, you can transform the way you relate to others and to yourself, building a foundation of trust and authenticity.

Letting go of a relationship who has the character defect of lying

Letting go of a partner who has the character defect of lying can be a painful yet necessary process, especially if their behavior consistently undermines trust and the health of the relationship. Here's a step-by-step guide to navigating this challenging journey:

1. Acknowledge the Impact of Their Lying

• Reflect on how their dishonesty has affected your emotional well-being, trust, and overall relationship. Write down specific instances or patterns to clarify why letting go is necessary.

• Accept that while their behavior is their responsibility, staying in a relationship where lying is persistent can hinder your personal growth and peace of mind.

2. Accept What You Can and Cannot Change

• Recognize that a character defect like lying is deeply rooted and requires their willingness and effort to change. If they’ve shown no consistent commitment to addressing this, understand that you cannot force them to change.

• Shift your focus to what you can control: your decision to prioritize your own well-being and values.

3. Prepare Yourself Emotionally

• Letting go of someone often involves grieving the relationship and the hopes you had for it. Acknowledge your emotions—sadness, anger, disappointment—and give yourself permission to feel them.

• Build a support system of trusted friends, family, or a therapist to provide guidance and emotional grounding during this time.

4. Communicate Your Decision Clearly

• When ending the relationship, be direct and honest, but compassionate. Focus on the impact of their behavior and why you’re choosing to step away. For example:
  "I care about you, but I’ve realized that the lack of honesty in our relationship is something I can’t continue to accept. I need to prioritize my well-being and be in a relationship built on trust."

• Avoid engaging in blame or arguments; instead, remain calm and firm in your decision.

5. Establish Boundaries

• After the breakup, set clear boundaries to help you move forward. This might mean limiting or cutting off contact, especially if staying in touch might reopen old wounds or hinder healing.

• If the person tries to manipulate you with promises to change, remember that actions speak louder than words. Without sustained effort on their part, such promises may be empty.

6. Focus on Your Healing

• Take time to reconnect with yourself. Engage in activities that bring you joy, fulfillment, and a sense of purpose.

• Reflect on the lessons learned from the relationship and how they can inform your future choices in partnerships.

7. Rebuild Trust in Yourself

• One of the lasting impacts of being with someone who lies can be self-doubt. Remind yourself that your decision to leave was an act of self-respect and courage.

• Work on trusting your instincts and judgment, which can be reinforced through self-reflection, therapy, or journaling.

8. Visualize a Healthier Future

• Imagine a relationship built on honesty, respect, and mutual understanding. Use this vision to remind yourself of what you deserve and to reaffirm your decision to let go.

• Keep in mind that letting go creates space for healthier connections, whether with others or with yourself.

While letting go can be heart-wrenching, it’s an act of self-love that paves the way for healing and a more authentic, fulfilling life.

——————-

• Don Elium, MA MFT •

925 256-8282 phone/text

• Northern and Southern California TeleHealth Counseling sessions •

Don@don-elium-psychotherapy.com

Masking Vs. Lying

Masking, or presenting a curated version of oneself in social situations, can be a helpful survival tool. It also can become a barrier to authentic connection. In relationships, social interactions, and even during transitions like divorce, masking serves a dual purpose: it can protect vulnerability. Still, it may also obscure one's true feelings and thoughts about life when overused. Exploring this dynamic through the lens of relationship and emotional health experts like John and Julie Gottman, Ellyn Bader, Ph.D., Sue Johnson, David Schnarch, Ph.D., Murry Bowen, and Stan Tatkin provides a nuanced understanding of its necessity and limits.

Masking as a Tool, Not an Identity

In many social situations, masking is a tool to navigate complex emotional landscapes. For example, during a divorce, an individual may suppress raw emotions to maintain civility or protect children from unnecessary distress. Similarly, masking allows people to engage in professional or social settings where vulnerability might feel unsafe. However, as the Gottmans emphasize in their research on trust and intimacy, masking must be balanced with moments of authentic vulnerability to build and maintain connection. Masking becomes problematic when it is habitual, leading to disconnection from one’s inner emotional truths and others. It can cause heightened anxiety and exhaustion as a necessary consequence.

Sue Johnson's Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) highlights how vulnerability in safe relationships fosters deeper connections. A person who has masked extensively might feel disconnected from their own reality, but safe emotional spaces—often cultivated in therapy or with trusted loved ones—can help restore authenticity. Stan Tatkin’s emphasis on understanding nervous system responses in relationships underscores the role of safety in shedding masks. When individuals feel secure, their nervous systems shift from a protective stance to openness, allowing them to express themselves, reduce anxiety, and feel a connectedness, belonging, that soothes and strengthens.

Masking vs. Lying

While masking involves presenting a filtered version of oneself, it differs from lying. Lying involves an intentional misrepresentation of truth, often to deceive. Conversely, masking can stem from a need to protect oneself or manage social dynamics. For example, an individual might mask their sadness at a social gathering to avoid uncomfortable questions. In contrast, lying involves fabricating a story about why they behave a certain way.

David Schnarch’s concept of differentiation helps illustrate this distinction. Differentiation involves balancing the need for self-expression with the ability to maintain emotional independence. When individuals mask excessively to gain approval or avoid conflict, they risk losing differentiation. Contrastingly, selective masking, guided by self-awareness and intention, can help individuals navigate complex situations without compromising integrity.

Degrees of Honesty and Integrity

Life’s complexity defies all-or-nothing solutions. Absolute attitudes, such as always telling the full truth or entirely suppressing emotions, often promote denial or create conditions for dishonesty. Murry Bowen’s family systems theory suggests that emotional health thrives in the tension between individuality and connection. Degrees of honesty allow people to express themselves authentically while considering the relational dynamics at play.

For instance, sharing every unfiltered emotion might escalate tensions in a high-conflict divorce, whereas measured honesty can foster cooperation. Similarly, masking in friendships can serve a relational purpose, such as maintaining harmony during temporary conflicts. However, chronic masking in close relationships risks eroding trust, as true intimacy requires mutual understanding and authenticity.

Restoring Authenticity Through Vulnerability

When individuals lose their sense of self through excessive masking, restoration begins with vulnerability in safe emotional environments. Whether through therapy, as highlighted by Sue Johnson and Ellyn Bader, or in secure relationships, as emphasized by Stan Tatkin, vulnerability helps individuals reconnect with their emotions and needs. This process requires courage and a supportive context, as revealing one’s true self, what you really think and feel about things, can feel risky after prolonged masking.

Masking And Exhaustion

Masking, while often a necessary social tool, requires significant emotional and mental energy. Constantly monitoring one’s behavior, words, and emotions to fit into expected norms or avoid vulnerability can feel like running a mental marathon. For neurodivergent individuals, those navigating high-conflict relationships, or anyone coping with social anxiety, the energy output can be incredibly taxing. Each interaction may involve carefully crafting responses, suppressing authentic feelings, and interpreting subtle social cues—tasks that drain cognitive resources and emotional reserves. This expenditure often leaves individuals feeling mentally and physically fatigued after prolonged masking.

Over time, chronic masking can lead to emotional exhaustion, emotional crash, and even burnout. Constantly suppressing one’s true feelings creates an internal conflict, as authenticity is stifled to meet external expectations. This misalignment can erode a person’s sense of identity, leaving them disconnected and ungrounded. Moreover, maintaining a façade can take a toll on physical health, contributing to symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, respiratory-heart concerns and muscle tension. To restore balance, it’s essential to create safe spaces where masking can be set aside, allowing vulnerability and authenticity to replenish the energy lost in maintaining the mask.

Conclusion

Masking, when used as a tool, helps navigate the complexities of life while maintaining social harmony and protecting vulnerability. However, over-reliance on masking can lead to losing authenticity, undermining relationships and personal well-being. By embracing degrees of honesty and integrity, individuals can more skillfully navigate complex situations while preserving their true thoughts and feelings. Restoring authenticity is possible through safe emotional connections, where vulnerability fosters healing and self-discovery.

______

•Don Elium, MA MFT•

925 256-8282 phone/text

• Northern and Southern California TeleHealth Counseling Sessions •

Don@don-elium-psychotherapy.com

Natural Emotion vs. Triggered Emotion

An emotional trigger is a specific experience, situation, or stimulus that elicits an intense, often disproportionate emotional reaction based on past experiences, unresolved trauma, or underlying vulnerabilities. Triggers are typically tied to unresolved emotional pain and can activate automatic, intense responses without conscious thought. Recognizing the difference between a triggered emotional response and a natural, present-moment emotion requires awareness, reflection, and context evaluation.

Natural Emotion vs. Triggered Emotion

1. Natural Emotion:

• Arises organically in response to a present experience.

• Is proportional to the situation and often aligns with social or cultural norms.

• It feels authentic and connected to the here and now.

• Example: Feeling sad at a friend's tearful goodbye as they move away. The sadness fits the situation and subsides with time.

2. Triggered Emotion:

• Reactivates unresolved past pain, often resulting in an amplified or inappropriate emotional response.

• It may feel overwhelming, repetitive, or disconnected from the current context.

• It often includes a strong sense of urgency or reactivity.

• Example: Becoming enraged when someone critiques your work because it reminds you of a critical parent or past authority figure, even though the critique was mild and constructive.

How to Differentiate the Two

1. Intensity and Duration:

• A natural emotion usually fades once the triggering event resolves or when processed appropriately.

• A triggered emotion may linger, spiral, or intensify without resolution.

2. Connection to the Present:

• Natural emotions are rooted in the present context and make sense.

• Triggered emotions feel like an echo of the past, often leaving the person feeling like they’ve “been here before.”

3. Physiological and Psychological Clues:

• Triggered responses may feel like a flood of physical sensations: heart racing, body tension, or nausea.

• Thoughts during a triggered state often include "always" or "never" (e.g., "I always mess this up!").

4. Cognitive Understanding:

• In natural emotions, cognitive assessments match reality.

• Cognitive distortions (e.g., catastrophizing, mind-reading) are more likely with triggered emotions.

Clarifying the Difference with Examples

Example 1: A Friend Cancels Plans

• Natural Response: Feeling mildly disappointed but understanding their reason for canceling.

• Triggered Response: Feeling abandoned, angry, or panicked because it reminds you of times you felt left out or rejected in childhood.

Example 2: Receiving Constructive Feedback

• Natural Response: Feeling slightly embarrassed or motivated to improve.

• Triggered Response: Feeling humiliated, defensive, or unworthy because it mirrors critical treatment from a parent or authority figure.

Why This Matters

Understanding the difference empowers individuals to respond thoughtfully rather than react impulsively. It creates an opportunity for personal growth by acknowledging and healing past wounds. For example:

• Sue Johnson’s EFT explores how emotional triggers disrupt secure attachment and help partners create repair.

• John and Julie Gottman emphasize self-soothing and recognizing flooding as signs of emotional reactivity in their Sound Relationship House Theory.

• The Grief Recovery Method identifies how unresolved grief can lead to disproportionate reactions, helping individuals release those triggers.

Practical Tips

• Pause and Reflect: When emotions spike, ask, “What’s happening right now? Is this feeling about now or something earlier?”

• Track Patterns: Journaling about intense emotional responses can reveal recurring themes tied to past wounds.

• Self-Compassion: Remind yourself that triggers are natural and healing is possible.

• Seek Support: Professional therapy (e.g., EMDR, grief-trauma-focused approaches) can help untangle past pain from present moments.

———

10 Examples

1. Topic: Forgetting an Anniversary

• Done Badly:

• Response: "You never care about this relationship. I always have to remind you!"

• Explanation: The emotional trigger (feeling unimportant) leads to an accusatory tone, escalating conflict.

• Impact: Partner feels attacked and defensive, reducing emotional safety.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I felt hurt when our anniversary was forgotten. Celebrations like this are important to me."

• Explanation: Expresses emotions without blame, fostering understanding.

• Impact: Encourages empathy, repair, and deeper connection.

• Quick Recovery: "I realize I blamed you out of frustration earlier. Let me explain why this matters to me."

2. Topic: Criticism About Chores

• Done Badly:

• Response: "You’re so lazy; I always do everything around here!"

• Explanation: A triggered response tied to past feelings of being unappreciated or overburdened.

• Impact: Creates resentment and division.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I feel overwhelmed doing chores alone. Can we talk about sharing tasks?"

• Explanation: Shares feelings and invites collaboration.

• Impact: Builds teamwork and reduces tension.

• Quick Recovery: "I know I sounded harsh earlier. I’d like to work together on a solution."

3. Topic: Forgetting to Call

• Done Badly:

• Response: "You never think about me! I guess I’m not a priority."

• Explanation: A triggered fear of neglect leads to overgeneralization.

• Impact: Erodes trust and amplifies insecurities.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I was worried when I didn’t hear from you. Can we figure out how to stay in touch?"

• Explanation: Focuses on feelings and needs without assumptions.

• Impact: Strengthens communication and emotional security.

• Quick Recovery: "I realize I made assumptions earlier. Can we talk about what happened?"

4. Topic: Being Late

• Done Badly:

• Response: "You’re always late! You don’t care about my time."

• Explanation: A triggered response from past feelings of disrespect.

• Impact: Creates defensiveness and discourages accountability.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I felt disrespected when you were late. It’s important to me to start on time."

• Explanation: Names feelings while staying solution-oriented.

• Impact: Encourages accountability and mutual respect.

• Quick Recovery: "I regret accusing you earlier. Let’s discuss how to avoid this in the future."

5. Topic: Financial Decision Without Consultation

• Done Badly:

• Response: "How could you spend that much? Are you trying to ruin us?"

• Explanation: A triggered fear of insecurity causes harsh criticism.

• Impact: Undermines trust and collaborative decision-making.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I felt anxious when I saw the charge. Can we review our finances together?"

• Explanation: Shares concerns respectfully and invites partnership.

• Impact: Strengthens trust and shared responsibility.

• Quick Recovery: "I realize I reacted strongly. Let’s figure out how to handle this better."

6. Topic: Disagreeing About Parenting

• Done Badly:

• Response: "You always undermine me in front of the kids!"

• Explanation: A triggered fear of losing authority leads to defensiveness.

• Impact: Erodes teamwork and co-parenting dynamics.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I felt unsupported when we disagreed in front of the kids. Can we talk privately next time?"

• Explanation: Shares feelings and seeks solutions privately.

• Impact: Encourages collaboration and respect.

• Quick Recovery: "I overreacted earlier. Let’s discuss this calmly."

7. Topic: Withholding Affection

• Done Badly:

• Response: "You don’t care about me anymore! You never touch me."

• Explanation: A triggered fear of rejection amplifies criticism.

• Impact: Increases emotional distance.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I’ve been missing our physical connection. Can we talk about what’s going on?"

• Explanation: Invites vulnerability and dialogue.

• Impact: Promotes intimacy and understanding.

• Quick Recovery: "I expressed my frustration poorly. Let’s reconnect."

8. Topic: Partner’s Friendships

• Done Badly:

• Response: "You care more about your friends than me!"

• Explanation: Triggered insecurity leads to unfair comparisons.

• Impact: Foster’s jealousy and conflict.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I felt left out when you spent so much time with your friends. Can we balance things better?"

• Explanation: Expresses feelings constructively.

• Impact: Encourages prioritization of the relationship.

• Quick Recovery: "I didn’t express that well earlier. Here’s what I’m feeling."

9. Topic: Handling a Disagreement

• Done Badly:

• Response: "You’re impossible to talk to! This is why we never work."

• Explanation: Triggered hopelessness leads to criticism.

• Impact: Erodes relational stability.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I’m struggling to feel heard right now. Can we slow down and try again?"

• Explanation: Requests clarity and calmness.

• Impact: Promotes productive dialogue.

• Quick Recovery: "I know I shut down earlier. Let’s try again."

10. Topic: Partner Not Listening

• Done Badly:

• Response: "You don’t even care enough to pay attention!"

• Explanation: A triggered feeling of unworthiness leads to accusations.

• Impact: Creates distance and frustration.

• Done Well:

• Response: "I felt unheard earlier. Can we revisit that conversation?"

• Explanation: Expresses a need without blame.

• Impact: Encourages empathy and engagement.

• • Quick Recovery: "I was too reactive earlier. Let’s talk again calmly."

Disagree Better: Address Conflict Directly, Don’t Avoid

Here are 10 examples of addressing conflict directly in marital disagreements, each with research-backed insights from John and Julie Gottman, Ellyn Bader, Sue Johnson and EFT, David Schnarch, Murry Bowen, and Stan Tatkin.

1. Discussing Hurt Feelings

Done Badly:

Partner A: “Whatever, it’s fine. I don’t want to talk about it.”

Partner B: “Okay, let’s just drop it then.”

Explanation: Avoidance leads to resentment, emotional withdrawal, and unspoken pain.

Done Well:

Partner A: “It hurt when you didn’t acknowledge my effort last night. Can we talk about it?”

Partner B: “I didn’t realize that hurt you. Let’s figure this out.”

Explanation: Directly naming the hurt fosters understanding and prevents emotional disconnection (Gottman, EFT).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner A: “I’m sorry for how I brought this up. Can I try again?”

2. Addressing Criticism

Done Badly:

Partner A: “You always forget about me! You never care about what I need.”

Partner B: “That’s not true. You’re just overreacting!”

Explanation: Criticism and defensiveness escalate conflict and undermine trust (Gottman).

Done Well:

Partner A: “I felt forgotten when you didn’t check in about my day. Can we talk about how we connect?”

Partner B: “I’m sorry you felt that way. Let’s talk about what you need from me.”

Explanation: Using “I” statements softens the startup and invites collaboration (Gottman).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner A: “I didn’t mean to sound blaming. Let me say that differently.”

3. Managing Disagreements on Parenting

Done Badly:

Partner A: “You’re too harsh with the kids. I can’t deal with this anymore.”

Partner B: “Well, you’re too soft on them! What’s your point?”

Explanation: Accusations and dismissiveness damage the co-parenting dynamic (Bader, Bowen).

Done Well:

Partner A: “I feel uneasy when we disagree about discipline. Can we talk about what’s working and what isn’t?”

Partner B: “I hear that. Let’s sit down and figure out a plan together.”

Explanation: Collaborative discussion promotes teamwork and emotional safety (Tatkin).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner A: “Sorry if I sounded critical—I want us to be on the same page.”

4. Handling Financial Stress

Done Badly:

Partner A: “You’re terrible with money! I’m always cleaning up your mess.”

Partner B: “You’re not perfect either! Stop blaming me.”

Explanation: Blame triggers defensiveness and damages intimacy (Gottman).

Done Well:

Partner A: “I feel anxious about money. Can we work on a budget together?”

Partner B: “I didn’t realize it was causing you stress. Let’s tackle this as a team.”

Explanation: A collaborative tone encourages problem-solving and connection (EFT, Schnarch).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner B: “I realize I jumped to defend myself. Let’s slow down and try again.”

5. Navigating Emotional Needs

Done Badly:

Partner A: “You never make time for me anymore.”

Partner B: “That’s not fair. I’m busy, okay?”

Explanation: Generalizations and dismissiveness deepen emotional disconnection (EFT).

Done Well:

Partner A: “I miss spending quality time with you. Can we plan something soon?”

Partner B: “Thanks for letting me know. I miss that too. Let’s schedule it.”

Explanation: Vulnerable sharing invites reconnection (Sue Johnson, EFT).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner B: “I didn’t mean to brush you off. Let’s focus on this.”

6. Addressing Sexual Intimacy Concerns

Done Badly:

Partner A: “You don’t care about our sex life at all.”

Partner B: “Well, maybe if you were more affectionate, I’d care!”

Explanation: Attacks and counterattacks destroy sexual and emotional safety (Schnarch).

Done Well:

Partner A: “I miss the intimacy we used to have. Can we talk about how we can reconnect?”

Partner B: “I feel nervous talking about this, but I want us to work on it together.”

Explanation: Vulnerability and courage build emotional and sexual intimacy (Schnarch).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner A: “That came out wrong. Let me rephrase.”

7. Acknowledging Mistakes

Done Badly:

Partner A: “I’m sorry, but it wasn’t really my fault.”

Partner B: “Yeah, you always have excuses.”

Explanation: Half-hearted apologies deepen mistrust (Gottman).

Done Well:

Partner A: “I’m sorry for how I acted. It wasn’t fair to you.”

Partner B: “Thank you for saying that. It means a lot.”

Explanation: Ownership and accountability foster trust (Bader, Bowen).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner A: “Let me try again—I want to fully own this.”

8. Discussions About In-Laws

Done Badly:

Partner A: “Your family is always meddling. I’m done.”

Partner B: “Well, your family isn’t perfect either!”

Explanation: Blanket criticism fuels defensiveness and division (Bowen).

Done Well:

Partner A: “I feel uncomfortable with how your mom approaches things. Can we talk about boundaries?”

Partner B: “I understand. Let’s figure out how to address this together.”

Explanation: Specificity and a teamwork mindset promote resolution (Bowen, Tatkin).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner A: “I realize I sounded harsh. Can I start over?”

9. Handling Busy Schedules

Done Badly:

Partner A: “You never make time for us! You’re too busy for this marriage.”

Partner B: “Oh, so now I’m the bad guy?”

Explanation: Blame and defensiveness create distance (Gottman).

Done Well:

Partner A: “I miss having time together. Can we talk about how to balance things better?”

Partner B: “I miss that too. Let’s look at our schedules and plan something.”

Explanation: Collaborative problem-solving reduces stress and strengthens connection (Tatkin, EFT).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner B: “That came out wrong. Let’s try again.”

10. Resolving Recurring Arguments

Done Badly:

Partner A: “This always happens! You never change.”

Partner B: “Why should I? You’re the problem!”

Explanation: Absolute language and escalation prevent resolution (Gottman).

Done Well:

Partner A: “This is a pattern that’s hard for me. I want us to find a way out of it.”

Partner B: “I see what you’re saying. Let’s figure out a better way to handle this.”

Explanation: Acknowledging patterns invites shared responsibility and growth (EFT, Schnarch).

Quick Repair Response:

Partner A: “I realize I’m making this about blame. Let me reframe.”

These examples show how addressing conflict directly with emotional awareness, collaboration, and vulnerability can foster stronger, more resilient relationships.

Fixable Vs. Perpetual Problems: Fix or Manage?

. . . & The Willingness To Discover The Difference

Definitions:

1. Fixable Problems: These are situational and can be resolved through problem-solving, compromise, or behavioral adjustments. They typically stem from external circumstances rather than deep-seated differences.

   • Gottman: Fixable problems relate to specific issues (e.g., chores, schedules).

   • Bader: Often arises during the early stages of couple development, where roles are being negotiated.

   • Doherty: Fixable problems are practical and can be addressed with willingness and effort.

2. Non-Fixable (Perpetual) Problems: These are rooted in fundamental personality differences, core values, or long-standing preferences. They often resurface, requiring ongoing management rather than resolution.

   • Gottman: 69% of marital conflicts are perpetual but manageable with dialogue.

   • Tatkin: These stem from attachment styles or neurological wiring.

   • Johnson: Non-fixable problems are managed best when partners remain emotionally connected.

Why They Need Different Approaches:

• Fixable Problems: Require problem-solving skills and compromise. Addressing these well strengthens trust and teamwork.

• Non-Fixable Problems: Require acceptance and empathy. The goal is not to change your partner but to create a safe space for differences to coexist.

10 Examples with "Done Badly" and "Done Well" Conversations

1. Household Division of Labor

• Fixable or Perpetual? Fixable if situational; perpetual if stemming from deep value differences.

• Done Badly Conversation: "You’re lazy and never help out. I do everything!"

  • Explanation: Blame triggers defensiveness.

  • Impact: Leads to resentment.

• Done Well Conversation: "I feel overwhelmed managing the house. Can we discuss a fairer way to divide tasks?"

  • Explanation: A collaborative approach fosters teamwork.

  • Impact: Builds mutual respect.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I appreciate your effort. Let’s find a solution together."

2. Frequency of Intimacy

• Fixable or Perpetual? Often perpetual due to differences in libido or intimacy needs.

• Done Badly Conversation: "Why don’t you ever want me? This is ridiculous."

  • Explanation: Shaming creates distance.

  • Impact: Erodes trust.

• Done Well Conversation: "I’d love to feel closer to you physically. How can we find a rhythm that works for us both?"

  • Explanation: Balances vulnerability with curiosity.

  • Impact: Builds emotional and physical intimacy.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I didn’t mean to pressure you. Let’s revisit this gently."

3. Spending and Saving Money

• Fixable or Perpetual? Fixable if due to budgeting needs; perpetual if rooted in differing financial philosophies.

• Done Badly Conversation: "You’re irresponsible with money! You’re ruining us."

  • Explanation: Criticism fosters conflict.

  • Impact: Creates tension and distrust.

• Done Well Conversation: "I feel anxious about our finances. Can we plan together?"

  • Explanation: A problem-solving focus invites collaboration.

  • Impact: Strengthens partnership in financial decisions.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I overreacted earlier. Let’s work on this together."

4. Social Preferences (Introvert vs. Extrovert)

• Fixable or Perpetual? Perpetual; rooted in personality differences.

• Done Badly Conversation: "You never want to go out. Why are you such a hermit?"

  • Explanation: Labeling creates shame.

  • Impact: Leads to feelings of incompatibility.

• Done Well Conversation: "I enjoy going out more than you do. How can we balance our needs?"

  • Explanation: Seeks compromise and mutual respect.

  • Impact: Fosters connection while honoring differences.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I love you for who you are. Let’s plan something we both enjoy."

5. Parenting Styles

• Fixable or Perpetual? Fixable if situational; perpetual if rooted in values.

• Done Badly Conversation: "You’re way too strict with the kids!"

  • Explanation: Criticism undermines co-parenting.

  • Impact: Creates conflict and weakens unity.

• Done Well Conversation: "I’d like to align on how we handle discipline. Can we talk?"

  • Explanation: Encourages shared decision-making.

  • Impact: Strengthens parental collaboration.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I respect your perspective. Let’s revisit this together."

6. Attachment Needs

• Fixable or Perpetual? Perpetual; rooted in attachment styles.

• Done Badly Conversation: "Why are you so needy? I can’t deal with this!"

  • Explanation: Dismissal creates insecurity.

  • Impact: Triggers disconnection.

• Done Well Conversation: "I notice you’re feeling anxious. How can I reassure you?"

  • Explanation: Provides emotional attunement.

  • Impact: Builds safety and trust.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I’m here for you. Let’s figure this out."

7. Career Priorities

• Fixable or Perpetual? Fixable if situational; perpetual if values differ.

• Done Badly Conversation: "You care more about work than us!"

  • Explanation: Guilt trips lead to defensiveness.

  • Impact: Erodes trust and connection.

• Done Well Conversation: "I admire your dedication to work but feel disconnected. Can we talk about balance?"

  • Explanation: Balances appreciation with expressed needs.

  • Impact: Encourages compromise and connection.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I didn’t mean to make you feel unappreciated."

8. Emotional Regulation

• Fixable or Perpetual? Perpetual; rooted in temperament.

• Done Badly Conversation: "You’re always so angry. Grow up!"

  • Explanation: Escalates tension.

  • Impact: Creates emotional distance.

• Done Well Conversation: "When you’re upset, it’s hard for me to connect. How can I support you?"

  • Explanation: Shows curiosity and care.

  • Impact: Encourages emotional safety.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I overreacted earlier. Let’s try again."

9. Cultural Differences

• Fixable or Perpetual? Perpetual; rooted in identity.

• Done Badly Conversation: "Why do you have to be so traditional?"

  • Explanation: Dismisses identity.

  • Impact: Causes alienation.

• Done Well Conversation: "Our traditions are different. How can we honor both?"

  • Explanation: Invites understanding and inclusion.

  • Impact: Builds mutual respect.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I value your traditions. Let’s find a way to include them."

10. Division of Emotional Labor

• Fixable or Perpetual? Fixable with effort; perpetual if deeply ingrained.

• Done Badly Conversation: "I’m tired of doing all the emotional work!"

  • Explanation: Blame fosters resistance.

  • Impact: Weakens connection.

• Done Well Conversation: "I feel like I’m carrying a lot emotionally. Can we share this more?"

  • Explanation: Encourages shared responsibility.

  • Impact: Strengthens teamwork.

• Quick Repair Dialogue: "I didn’t mean to sound accusing. Let’s talk."

Each example highlights the importance of tailoring responses to whether a problem is fixable or perpetual. Perpetual problems demand acceptance and ongoing management, while fixable ones thrive on solutions and teamwork.

————

Don Elium, MFT 925 256-8282 Text/Phone in Northern and Southern California

Portions of this article contain collected AI-generated material that has been edited and checked for accuracy.

Open To Influence

Gottman’s research, particularly studies on relationships and conflict resolution, found that men were generally less open to influence than women. Specifically, in their studies, about 65% of men resisted being influenced by their female partners, while only 35% of women showed similar resistance toward being influenced by their male partners.

This difference highlights a familiar relational dynamic: men in these studies were more likely to resist accepting their partner's influence. The ability to be open to influence was identified as a critical factor for healthy, sustainable relationships, especially for men in heterosexual partnerships. Couples, where both partners could be mutually influenced, were found to have higher satisfaction and stability in their relationships.

In Dr. John Gottman's research on same-sex couples, it was observed that gay and lesbian partners tend to be more open to accepting influence from each other compared to heterosexual couples. Specific percentages for men in committed gay relationships were not detailed in the available studies. However, the findings suggest that same-sex couples, including gay men, often exhibit more significant mutual influence and power-sharing dynamics.

The Gottman Institute

This openness to influence is associated with healthier conflict resolution and increased relationship satisfaction. For instance, same-sex couples are more likely to use humor and affection during disagreements and are less likely to display controlling or hostile behaviors. These dynamics contribute to a more positive interaction pattern within the relationship.

Overall, the relationship satisfaction and quality were about the same across all couple types (gay, straight, lesbian). However, the study did find some differences in how same-sex and different-sex couples argue.

“Gay and lesbian couples are more upbeat in the face of conflict,” Gottman explains, “Compared to straight couples, gay and lesbian couples use more affection and humor when they bring up a disagreement. They are also likely to remain more positive after a disagreement.”

Big Think

While exact percentages are not provided, the overall trend indicates that men in committed gay relationships may be more receptive to their partner's influence, fostering healthier and more resilient partnerships.

——-

Here are 10 examples illustrating conversations where being open to influence is done badly, their explanations, impacts on relationships, followed by how they can be done well, their explanations, impacts on relationships, and a quick repair phrase.

1. Decision About Moving

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "I’ve decided we’re moving to the city next month for my job."

  • Partner B: "What about my career? Don’t I get a say?"

  • Explanation: Partner A unilaterally makes a major decision, disregarding Partner B’s input.

  • Impact: Leads to feelings of exclusion and resentment.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "I was offered a job in the city. Can we talk about what this would mean for both of us?"

  • Partner B: "I appreciate you bringing this up. Let’s discuss our options together."

  • Explanation: Invites collaboration, valuing both perspectives.

  • Impact: Strengthens trust and partnership.

• Quick Repair: "I’m sorry for not discussing this earlier. Let’s decide together."

2. Handling Finances

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "We’re cutting out your shopping budget to save money."

  • Partner B: "Excuse me? You didn’t ask how I feel about this!"

  • Explanation: Imposes a decision without mutual agreement.

  • Impact: Creates imbalance and defensiveness.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "I’m worried about our finances. Can we review the budget together?"

  • Partner B: "That’s a good idea. Let’s work on it this weekend."

  • Explanation: Demonstrates mutual responsibility and respect.

  • Impact: Builds teamwork and financial harmony.

• Quick Repair: "I shouldn’t have decided that alone. Let’s plan together."

3. Parenting Conflict

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "You’re too soft on the kids. That’s why they misbehave."

  • Partner B: "And you’re too harsh! I won’t let you take over!"

  • Explanation: Criticism escalates conflict and shuts down communication.

  • Impact: Undermines co-parenting and creates tension.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "I think we approach discipline differently. Can we talk about a plan that works for both of us?"

  • Partner B: "Sure, let’s find a way to be consistent together."

  • Explanation: Encourages constructive dialogue and compromise.

  • Impact: Strengthens co-parenting and family dynamics.

• Quick Repair: "I’m sorry for criticizing. Let’s figure this out together."

4. Vacation Planning

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "We’re going to the beach, no discussion."

  • Partner B: "I guess my opinion doesn’t matter, then."

  • Explanation: Dismisses the partner’s preferences.

  • Impact: Causes frustration and feelings of being undervalued.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "I’d love to go to the beach. What kind of vacation are you in the mood for?"

  • Partner B: "Let’s combine the beach with something you’d enjoy."

  • Explanation: Shows willingness to balance preferences.

  • Impact: Enhances connection and mutual satisfaction.

• Quick Repair: "I didn’t mean to exclude your ideas. Let’s plan together."

5. Social Plans

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "We’re going to my friend’s party. You don’t need to decide."

  • Partner B: "Why don’t I get a say in how we spend our time?"

  • Explanation: Assumes control over joint social plans.

  • Impact: Builds resentment and erodes teamwork.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "There’s a party at my friend’s house. How do you feel about going?"

  • Partner B: "I’d rather skip it, but let’s talk about other plans we could make."

  • Explanation: Invites a balanced decision.

  • Impact: Respects autonomy and strengthens partnership.

• Quick Repair: "I should have asked first. What do you want to do?"

6. Handling Stress

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "You’re making a big deal out of nothing."

  • Partner B: "You don’t care about how I feel!"

  • Explanation: Dismisses the partner’s emotions, invalidating their experience.

  • Impact: Creates emotional distance.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "You seem really stressed. What can I do to help?"

  • Partner B: "Thanks for noticing. I just need someone to listen."

  • Explanation: Shows empathy and support.

  • Impact: Builds emotional intimacy and trust.

• Quick Repair: "I’m sorry I brushed you off. I’m here to listen."

7. Career Choices

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "I’m taking the job offer. End of discussion."

  • Partner B: "Why don’t you care how this affects us?"

  • Explanation: Makes a major decision without consulting the partner.

  • Impact: Causes hurt and lack of trust.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "I’m considering a new job offer. Can we talk about what this would mean for us?"

  • Partner B: "Thanks for including me. Let’s weigh the pros and cons."

  • Explanation: Encourages shared decision-making.

  • Impact: Strengthens teamwork and mutual respect.

• Quick Repair: "I should’ve consulted you first. Let’s discuss it now."

8. Managing Time

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "I’m spending my weekend how I want."

  • Partner B: "And you’re leaving me with everything else to handle?"

  • Explanation: Ignores shared responsibilities.

  • Impact: Builds resentment and imbalance.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "I’d like to relax this weekend. What’s on your plate, and how can we balance things?"

  • Partner B: "Let’s work together to make it fair."

  • Explanation: Balances individual needs with partnership.

  • Impact: Creates mutual respect and understanding.

• Quick Repair: "I didn’t mean to leave you hanging. How can I help?"

9. Health Goals

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "You need to start exercising more."

  • Partner B: "Why are you always criticizing me?"

  • Explanation: Comes across as controlling and critical.

  • Impact: Lowers self-esteem and creates tension.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "I’m thinking of starting a workout routine. Want to join me?"

  • Partner B: "That sounds good. Let’s support each other."

  • Explanation: Frames the suggestion positively and invites collaboration.

  • Impact: Builds shared goals and encouragement.

• Quick Repair: "I didn’t mean to criticize. Let’s approach this together."

10. Emotional Support

• Done Badly:

  • Partner A: "You’re always complaining about work. Just get over it."

  • Partner B: "You don’t even care how hard it is for me."

  • Explanation: Dismisses the partner’s emotions, increasing emotional distance.

  • Impact: Causes feelings of being unsupported and alone.

• Done Well:

  • Partner A: "Work sounds really challenging. Do you want to talk about it?"

  • Partner B: "Thanks for asking. I just need to vent."

  • Explanation: Provides validation and emotional support.

  • Impact: Strengthens emotional connection and trust.

• Quick Repair: "I’m sorry for dismissing you. I’m here now."

These examples demonstrate the importance of being open to influence and show how small adjustments can improve communication, trust, and relationship satisfaction.

——-

Don Elium, MFT 925 256-8282 Text/Phone in Northern and Southern California