4 ms·

I read about a British maths expert that wrote some formula that would accurately predict if couples would stay together. His key variable was working out if pe

I read about a British maths expert that wrote some formula that would accurately predict if couples would stay together. His key variable was working out if people have a willingness to compromise.

ArtDev 9y ago
That is oversimplified. John Gottman has been doing research on this topic for decades: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman He has 7 predictors. I highly recommend his book: "The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work".
kleer001 9y ago
I thought the defining characteristic was buying bids (more than 2/3 of the time, or so). You know, someone makes a comment or suggestion and the other person accepts it (not necessarily agreeing with). In awful relationships that simple transaction is short circuited by passive aggression or the similar negative behaviour.
abalashov 9y ago
I've been through two failed marriages and my conclusion has been that this fixation with "compromise" is woefully misguided and constitutes an antipattern, although, for all I know, that's why I've been through two failed marriages. :-) Still, on a theoretical level, the religion that's been made of compromise in therapeutic settings is a pet peeve of mine. The first problem is that compromise is viewed by most laypeople as "splitting the difference" or "meeting in the middle". That may work for a lot of property and financial disputes, and maybe even business disputes in general, but it doesn't always work in life and relationships, though I don't deny that many things can indeed be compromised. But sometimes an equitable settlement is one where I get 90% and you get 10%, commensurate with the hand the parties are playing and the amount of leverage they have. Although most businesspeople experienced in negotiation know this instinctively, they don't seem to teach it in how-to-be-a-better-spouse school. Besides that: 1) Compromise encourages parties to take extreme and unreasonable positions with the expectation of being "bargained down" to more or less what they really want. This contributes to "position inflation". 2) It may be that, as a practical matter, compromise is the worst possible option, far worse than either of the starting positions. This happens a lot in relationships. Most damningly, in my view: 3) The pressure to move toward the middle creates an artificially level playing field where it may not exist. It does not weigh whether one side's position is a lot more reasonable, fair and thoughtful than the other. Aside from the unfair aspect of this ipso facto, it also encourages position inflation. Some disputes lend themselves to splitting down the middle. Others have nonlinear/discontinuous qualities where "some" is not better than "none". TL;DR sometimes one party's position sucks a lot more than the other's, and the aim to compromise only furthers the negative consequences of this iniquity.
- unit91 9y ago
  I almost never compromise with my wife, and we're very happy. That seems shocking, I know, but here's why: Compromise is born from an adversarial starting position. But my wife isn't my adversary. I love her, and I would die for (and nearly have), and so I (try to) give of myself freely and completely. If both people really care about each other more than themselves, happiness follows easily and naturally. The real questions are (1) what do I need to do to learn to love my spouse more than I love myself? and (2) where do I find a person who will reciprocate that kind of love? Experientially, I've found the answer to both questions is to have a deep commitment to God, who teaches and models this behavior to us.
  - thegayngler 9y ago
    Religion is what ultimately broke up my parent's marriage and strained my relationship with them on numerous occasions.
  - abalashov 9y ago
    I think #2 is the stumbling block for most people. That's where the question of common values and shared beliefs becomes critically important.
  - yetihehe 9y ago
    I am an atheist and want to commit myself to my spouse (which believes in God, goes to church, etc.), but it currently looks like she doesn't really want to reciprocate. So I don't believe you that commitment to God is an answer.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      Same. My spouse and I are both athiests.
    - croon 9y ago
      I'm raised Christian from both parents, and my wife who wasn't has gone more of a Dawkins atheist route. I would best describe us as soft agnostic and hard agnostic. I think the key is accepting that none of us know what the fuck is going on in an unobservable space. We'll raise our child(ren) by letting them develop their own world model, rigid where provable, soft where not. Always retesting. I want to believe David Lynch made Blue Velvet on purpose as opposed to the ramblings of a mad man, even though no one can prove that to me. That is a soft belief, just like faith in "something" (should be). We are happily accepting of each other. If we instead would've had fundamentally different views on what facts and beliefs are, that would have been a problem.
kelnos 9y ago
I find things like that to be weird because I feel like they're focusing on the wrong thing. If you optimize for overall happiness, "staying together" might not be the best path to that. Compromise can (and I suspect often does) reduce happiness to a degree where breaking up could give both people a better outcome in the long run.

I read about a British maths expert that wrote some formula that would accurately predict if couples would stay together. His key variable was working out if people have a willingness to compromise.

ArtDev 9y ago

That is oversimplified. John Gottman has been doing research on this topic for decades: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman He has 7 predictors. I highly recommend his book: "The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work".

kleer001 9y ago

I thought the defining characteristic was buying bids (more than 2/3 of the time, or so). You know, someone makes a comment or suggestion and the other person accepts it (not necessarily agreeing with). In awful relationships that simple transaction is short circuited by passive aggression or the similar negative behaviour.

abalashov 9y ago

I've been through two failed marriages and my conclusion has been that this fixation with "compromise" is woefully misguided and constitutes an antipattern, although, for all I know, that's why I've been through two failed marriages. :-) Still, on a theoretical level, the religion that's been made of compromise in therapeutic settings is a pet peeve of mine. The first problem is that compromise is viewed by most laypeople as "splitting the difference" or "meeting in the middle". That may work for a lot of property and financial disputes, and maybe even business disputes in general, but it doesn't always work in life and relationships, though I don't deny that many things can indeed be compromised. But sometimes an equitable settlement is one where I get 90% and you get 10%, commensurate with the hand the parties are playing and the amount of leverage they have. Although most businesspeople experienced in negotiation know this instinctively, they don't seem to teach it in how-to-be-a-better-spouse school. Besides that: 1) Compromise encourages parties to take extreme and unreasonable positions with the expectation of being "bargained down" to more or less what they really want. This contributes to "position inflation". 2) It may be that, as a practical matter, compromise is the worst possible option, far worse than either of the starting positions. This happens a lot in relationships. Most damningly, in my view: 3) The pressure to move toward the middle creates an artificially level playing field where it may not exist. It does not weigh whether one side's position is a lot more reasonable, fair and thoughtful than the other. Aside from the unfair aspect of this ipso facto, it also encourages position inflation. Some disputes lend themselves to splitting down the middle. Others have nonlinear/discontinuous qualities where "some" is not better than "none". TL;DR sometimes one party's position sucks a lot more than the other's, and the aim to compromise only furthers the negative consequences of this iniquity.

unit91 9y ago
I almost never compromise with my wife, and we're very happy. That seems shocking, I know, but here's why: Compromise is born from an adversarial starting position. But my wife isn't my adversary. I love her, and I would die for (and nearly have), and so I (try to) give of myself freely and completely. If both people really care about each other more than themselves, happiness follows easily and naturally. The real questions are (1) what do I need to do to learn to love my spouse more than I love myself? and (2) where do I find a person who will reciprocate that kind of love? Experientially, I've found the answer to both questions is to have a deep commitment to God, who teaches and models this behavior to us.
- thegayngler 9y ago
  Religion is what ultimately broke up my parent's marriage and strained my relationship with them on numerous occasions.
- abalashov 9y ago
  I think #2 is the stumbling block for most people. That's where the question of common values and shared beliefs becomes critically important.
- yetihehe 9y ago
  I am an atheist and want to commit myself to my spouse (which believes in God, goes to church, etc.), but it currently looks like she doesn't really want to reciprocate. So I don't believe you that commitment to God is an answer.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Same. My spouse and I are both athiests.
  - croon 9y ago
    I'm raised Christian from both parents, and my wife who wasn't has gone more of a Dawkins atheist route. I would best describe us as soft agnostic and hard agnostic. I think the key is accepting that none of us know what the fuck is going on in an unobservable space. We'll raise our child(ren) by letting them develop their own world model, rigid where provable, soft where not. Always retesting. I want to believe David Lynch made Blue Velvet on purpose as opposed to the ramblings of a mad man, even though no one can prove that to me. That is a soft belief, just like faith in "something" (should be). We are happily accepting of each other. If we instead would've had fundamentally different views on what facts and beliefs are, that would have been a problem.

kelnos 9y ago

I find things like that to be weird because I feel like they're focusing on the wrong thing. If you optimize for overall happiness, "staying together" might not be the best path to that. Compromise can (and I suspect often does) reduce happiness to a degree where breaking up could give both people a better outcome in the long run.