Posts Tagged ‘Dysfunctional Behaviors’

Fighting Fair in Relationships

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

There are many types of contentious verbal contests, such as philosophical discussions, academic and political debates, and courtroom arguments.  In each type of contest there are generally accepted rules of fairness, and what counts as a dishonest trick.  (See for example: List of Fallacies – Wikipedia, A List of Fallacious Arguments, Misuse of Statistics – Wikipedia, Propaganda and Debating Techniques by A. Orange, Conversational Terrorism: How Not to Talk! by Dean & Laura VanDruff, 38 Ways to Win an Argument by Scrivs)  My post isn’t about these sorts of contests, but instead is about fighting fair in intimate relationships.  For these sorts of arguments, if you are trying to maintain or strengthen the relationship, and not seeking to end it, here are some rules of thumb. (1)

To start with, discuss and agree to the rules of fair fighting with your partner before you ever get into a fight with them.  Get to know what your and their personal fighting style is.  Don’t let issues build up; discuss them when they come up.  Don’t surprise your partner out of the blue, but set aside a time you both agree on.   Treat the other person with respect and as an equal.  Listen to them, and try to really understand him/her.  Try paraphrasing what you hear them saying, and see it through his/her eyes.  Don’t assume or speculate about what they are thinking.  In other words, don’t pretend to be able to read their mind, or expect them to read yours.  Take responsibility for your feelings and actions by using “I” statements.  Be direct and honest about how you feel and what you want.  Try to limit your fighting to only one issue at a time.  Define its scope, state it clearly, and don’t bring in unrelated items or unrelated past mistakes.  Keep it real by dealing with the problem, and not merely a symptom of the problem.  Ask yourself what your real goal is before you begin, that is, what you really want.  Be specific about your complaints, and use examples.  Focus on solving the problem, rather than trying to simply win for its own sake.  That is, you should be trying to find a mutually satisfying win-win solution by attacking the issue, and not the other person.  You do this by negotiating, compromising, log rolling, and brainstorming solutions.  Propose solutions and ask your partner to also do so.  Discuss the pros and cons of each proposal. 

Don’t name-call or blame the other person with ”you” statements.  Don’t threaten violence, swear, denounce, curse, express contempt, engage in sarcasm, taunting, or character assassination.  Don’t hit below the belt by attacking the other person’s sensitive areas.  Try not to raise your voices.  If your partner breaks a fair fighting rule, don’t escalate.  Keep your intensity proportional to the size of the problem.  Ask questions that will clarify the situation, and not ones that will put the other person on the defensive.  Therefore, try to not ask questions that begin with, “Why?”  Avoid making comparisons to other people, and don’t belittle the other person’s accomplishments.  Don’t reduce your partner to a statistical generalization by stereotyping him/her as merely a member of a category.  Don’t exaggerate.  Don’t say you “always” or “never,” unless it is literally true (and it almost never is).  Avoid saying the words “you should”, “you must”, ”you ought”, “I told you so”, “When will you ever learn”, “How many times do I have to tell you?”  Give the other person equal time.  Don’t interrupt or talk over the other person.  Don’t use disrespectful non-verbals, such as eye rolling, harrumphing, sighing, smirking, yawning, etc.  Limit your fight to no more than 30 minutes, and if necessary schedule another round for later.  If things get too heated take a half hour time out.  Be careful about introducing other people’s opinions about the situation.  Don’t fight in front of the kids.

You need to give the other person the room to change their mind and save face, because you don’t want to end up merely trying to score points in a game of, “Now I’ve got you, you SOB.” (Transactional Analysis – Wikipedia)   That is, don’t play manipulative games. (2)  If you do set limits and promise consequences, be prepared to really carry them out.  Don’t talk about divorce unless you mean it.  Don’t demand to win coming in the door.  Apologize when you are wrong, but be careful that you aren’t the only one who ever apologizes.  Don’t quibble over trivial details.  Try not to just walk out of an argument.  However, you might need to do so if the situation is getting out of hand or isn’t productive.  Tell them why, and let them know when you will be back.  If it’s appropriate hold hands during your discussion.  If and when you reach an agreement, write it down and set a trial period for the new behavior.  At the end of this period see if you need to modify the agreement.  Finally, if nothing seems to work it might be time to bring in a trained counselor.

(1) For an earlier post that discusses similar interpersonal negotiation concepts you can take a look at, The Uplift Program for Happiness - Lost Wanderer, part of which reviews the book Creating Optimism.
(2) Again, from Transactional Analysis, Eric Burns documented a number of such games, for example, Poor Me, Silent Treatment, Martyr, Don’t Touch Me, Uproar, Kick Me, If it Weren’t for You, Yes - But, See What You Made Me Do, and If You Loved Me.  See also: Psychological Manipulation – Wikipedia

(37 Rules to Fighting Fair by Happy Lists, Fair Fighting Rules: A Formula for Resolving Conflict - divorcehelpforparents.com, Fair Fighting: Turning Arguments into Discussions by Mark Smith, Fair Fight Rules - Stayhappilymarried.com, Fair Fight Rules: From “Domestic Violence” by Barbara Corry, M.A. – Klamath Crisis Center, Fair Fighting Rules for Couples by Nathan Cobb, Ph.D.Cobb Counseling Inc., Fighting Rules: From the book “Men Don’t Listen” by Wayne Misner - Dr. Irene’s Verbal Abuse (Site)!, Some Rules for Fair FightingTexas Woman’s University Counseling Center, How to Fight Fair – Dr. Phil, Fighting Fair to Resolve Conflict, Fair Fighting Rules – Knapp Family Counseling)

Anorexia & The Secret Language of Eating Disorders by Peggy Claude-Pierre

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

I first heard about The Secret Language of Eating Disorders on the TV show 20/20.  At the time the author claimed 100% cure rate, and although I’ve since read that some of her former clients relapsed, she still appears to have a remarkably high success rate.  If you read the reviews, anorexics say that she understands how they think, that anorexia is a kind of very slow suicide. 

Critics point out that she only has a B. A. degree and isn’t scientifically rigorous in her approach, but given the failure of experts to cure this condition, I think those are fairly weak criticisms if she really has had the success she claims.   

One Spoonful at a Time by Harriet Brown is the on-line personal story of a mother’s desperate coping with her daughter’s anorexia.  She reports using the Maudsley approach in which family members sit with patients at mealtimes calming and encouraging them to eat.  Studies show a 90% success rate with this method, and the techniques used sound similar to Claude-Pierre’s approach. 

In her article Brown discusses an interesting 1940s study by Dr. Ancel Keys, who put 36 men through a year long study of starvation.  Especially during the refeeding phase of Keys’ study, the volunteers became depressed, antisocial, anxious, irritable, and obsessional, just like anorexics.  One insight which was learned from this was that the psychology of starvation in the midst of plenty isn’t the same as when there isn’t any food around, which is why you don’t see anorexia in deprived populations.  

Risk factors for the condition are: the person is naturally slender, they find it easy to diet, is a perfectionist, lives in the United States, and is in an activity such as ballet which encourages thinness.  Finally, one of the reasons why relapse is so common is that once the disease has progressed anorexics become metabolically inefficient, the weight loss becomes self-feeding to some extent, and the patient needs more calories than other people to maintain or gain weight.

Delusions as Strategic Deception

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

I ran across this article by Edward H. Hagen, “Non-bizarre Delusions as Strategic Deception” which looks at 5 classes of delusions that he argues are the outcome of evolutionary selection for status enhancement of very low ranking individuals in a community.  The 5 delusions are: paranoiac, grandiose, erotomanic, somatic, and jealous.  What makes these “non-bizarre” delusions is that for a given individual a belief falling into each of these classes could in fact be true.  Someone might really be after you.  You might have special knowledge.  An important person might be in love with you.  You could really be blind or lame.  Your mate might be unfaithful.  But, given the particulars of the specific individual’s case, their beliefs are clearly wrong.  

Hagen argues that what all these classes of delusion have in common is that they would have been likely to have garnered aid from others in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA), and that very low ranking individuals who developed these conditions would have preferentially survived.  Over time his would have led to those genes that coded for such delusions to have been selected for.  And it turns out that given the right conditions about 50% of people will develop such delusions.  Such persons are very resistant to treatment because this isn’t a case of the brain doing something it wasn’t designed to do, but the brain actually working correctly. 

It turns out that there is one thing that will cure the person.   They will inevitably recover if their status is significantly raised.  It makes sense, because this is what the mechanisms are designed to accomplish, and if they accomplish their task then there is no reason for the delusion to persist.

I’ve known two people who developed paranoiac delusions, both of whom were failing badly in life at the time of the development of their conditions.  The best liar is someone who doesn’t know he is lying.  What makes it clear that the people are sincere in their beliefs, and that this is an involuntary process, is that, while the mechanisms at work might have been adaptive overall in the EEA, in today’s world they just make the individual’s situation worse, and yet the person persists in really believing in them.

Conversational Terrorism

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

This site, Conversational Terrorism: How Not To Talk! by Dean & Laura VanDruff lists numerous ways people can use cheap tricks to be obnoxious and manipulate conversations.  Here are but a few of their examples:

OVER YOUR HEAD:  “I’d like to respond to that, but taking into account your background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that you would not be able to understand.”

WISHFUL THINKING:  “You support capital punishment because of a deep-rooted death wish common among those who have suffered emotional traumas during childhood.” 

I’M NOT SAYING THIS:  “Have I ever brought up the $523.52 you owe me? Never! Have I ever embarrassed you or made you feel bad over it? Have I ever told you how much I need that money? No, I never have.” 

RIGHT BY ASSOCIATION: “I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated, and those who quickly recognize the validity of the point to be more educated. The point is….”

BRAIN SEIZURE:  “I’m not sure if I fail to disagree with that or not.”

HYPOTHETICAL INSULT:  ”Let’s just say we knew for sure you were a sexual pervert…”

DISTORTED ACTIVE LISTENING:  “If I hear you correctly your point is…” (get it all wrong)