22 ms·
How Happy Couples Argue: Study (2019)
- loopz 6y agoFor unhappy couples, there might be more differences and stronger opinions remaining unresolved. So could be different from individual to individual, and for different couples and environments. Some couples are a good fit, and others might never reconcile their differences. Most long-lasting couples go through a phase of rejection and reconciliation.
- tunesmith 6y agoI wonder if this is a language confusion. An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to conclusion. People regularly have to argue together to work together, because things change over time and we have to adjust to the changes. But the other sense of argument is that one person has one conclusion, and the other person has a different conclusion, and they are battling about it and are upset about it. That's the sort of thing that can be entirely avoided if people start with shared premises and argue "together". I think there are a lot of happy couples that actually never argue in the battling/upset sense.
- jerf 6y ago"An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to conclusion." Dictionary definition discussions are weak at the best of times, but they're super weak when the definition you're choosing for the word isn't even the most common one, whereas the article clearly is using the most common one, and is perfectly correct in that usage. We all know that's not the definition in question.
- tunesmith 6y agoI'm sort of surprised by both the replies to my comment so far, because I think it's the article itself that conflates the two definitions. When the quote is, "Happy couples tend to take a solution-oriented approach to conflict, and this is clear even in the topics that they choose to discuss" that's clearly pointing to the more academic definition of "argument" and not the "upset about opposing points of view" definition. If two people are taking a solution-oriented approach regarding a conflict they are choosing to discuss, would you normally describe them as "arguing" in the emotional sense? I'd also disagree that one is significantly more common than the other, when the phrase "making an argument" is so commonly understood.
- arcticfox 6y agoI'd be shocked to find more than 1 in 1000 English speakers to interpret an couple arguing as anything other than > 1) an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. As opposed to a definition common in other contexts, eg academic, legal, political, like > 2) a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
- tunesmith 6y agoWould 999 out of 1000 people describe "taking a solution-oriented approach to conflict" as a heated exchange of diverging or opposite views? It's probably just a sloppy article - the paper's abstract doesn't describe that behavior as "arguing". In fact, the string "arg" doesn't show up on the study's page at all: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335327845_What_are_the_Marital_Problems_of_Happy_Couples_A_Multimethod_Two-Sample_Investigation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335327845_What_are_...
- chrisseaton 6y ago> An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to conclusion. This is obviously not what they mean in this context.
- tunesmith 6y agoThey are literally describing "Happy couples tend to take a solution-oriented approach to conflict, and this is clear even in the topics that they choose to discuss" as an argument.
- chrisseaton 6y agoNo the 'conflict' in that sentence is the argument they are having.
- tunesmith 6y agoPeople can resolve conflict without it turning into an argument, which is exactly what that sentence seems to be describing. I wouldn't describe them as arguing. Is that couple having an argument or not? Doesn't this depend on how "argument" is defined, which was my original point?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- HeWhoLurksLate 6y ago'Heated Debate' is another similair phrase- IMO the difference between a 'heated debate' and an argument and a fight has to do with the level of severity of the thing involved, as well as the scope of where the heat is being brought, and what's being attacked. Here's kinda what I'm thinking for a division- Debating is more or less arguing a point or idea with someone else, heated debates are still arguing over the point. Fighting happens when the debate and points argued over shift from being about the merits of the point to the merits of the speaker (e.g. their history, esp. when, as others mentioned, it becomes a highly critical / mean meta-analysis) - this is the kind of thing that becomes especially harmful to partnerships. Also, W/RT damage to partnerships, etc., a heated debate about what desktop wallpaper someone should pick can probabmy damage a relationship just fine.
- kiliantics 6y agoA book I'd recommend for anyone who wants to improve the communication in their relationships -- romantic or otherwise -- to help resolve any kind of conflict, is "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg. The ideas are very simple, almost obvious, but his exposition is brilliant and really reaches deep into the human experience. He makes a convincing argument for how our learned behaviours have led to widespread inability to effectively resolve conflict, and he gives a straightforward model for overcoming this.
- jld89 6y agoYes totally recommend it. I am convinced that communication is the root cause for strife in all relationships, love or otherwise.
- justinpw 6y agoI suppose in order to learn how to love, it would be begging the question to scatter that word throughout the article. I wish it would have been mentioned at least once, though.
- egypturnash 6y agoPersonally I find one of the biggest things that keeps my relationship going is that we have ways to express discontent with each other that unambiguously frames it as not necessarily a big thing. Mostly this way is pretending to be a goofy cartoon version of George and Martha from “Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Wolfe”. Or, rather, of what we imagine would be their online role-play avatars - how a rotting lich and a hyena lady ended up together in a stable orbit of mutual loathing is an open question, but it gives us a great way to express exaggerated versions of the things causing friction between us, and amuse each other with trying to turn them into comedy. It makes checking in on the actual issue afterwards a lot easier, as we’ve already burnt off a lot of whatever anger may have wanted to make us snap at each other in these exaggerated personas in the first place.
- zubspace 6y agoOne of the best things I learned from my wife: Never go to bed angry. If we have an issue, we talk it through until we find an agreement. It's actually harder than it sounds. The worst thing you can do is not talking about something or avoiding the topic. I think mutual understanding is one of the cornerstones of a healthy relationship.
- kaonwarb 6y agoOne alternative thought based entirely on my own experience: late at night when both parties are exhausted sometimes isn't the best time to work out a thorny issue. I agree letting things fester isn't great in general - but I find that my mind and emotions are often in a better state after some rest. There are also, as the article suggests, some disagreements just not worth chasing to the bottom.
- ticviking 6y agoIt's okay to acknowledge that both of us are exhausted and upset. That whatever issue is going on is real and we commit to doing solving it. Often that much is enough to make anger give way to peace, or at least acceptance and resolve.
- jschwartzi 6y agoEspecially if you can admit that it’s a real problem and that you’re taking it seriously.
- zubspace 6y agoI have a natural tendency to walk away from problems or ignoring them. Fortunately I have a wife who cannot rest until we're ok with each other. I agree that it's unproductive to talk about something when emotions are out of control. Both should take a break, a walk, time to cool down. What I think is, that late in the evening I get into a state, where I am too exhausted to defend my point of view. And sometimes that is the key to accept a different opinion more easily. But your right. Some problems cannot be solved in an evening. I guess it alreday helps to talk about them and maybe agree to disagree for now.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- blaufast 6y agoThe Science of Trust by John Gottmann is a great read if you are interested in this. Unlike most behavioral health, they use actual science and math to describe and dissect behaviors and outcomes
- viburnum 6y agoCouples are happy when they’re attracted to each other. Arguments turn bad is when the attraction is gone. Nobody wants to say “I’m not attracted to you anymore” so they fight dirty instead.
- neonate 6y agoThat view seems limited. Many relationships, especially longer ones, allow for both attraction and arguments.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- viburnum 6y agoNo, what’s limited is assuming argument style is the input and relationship happiness is the output.
- mcphage 6y agoI think you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The article isn't claiming that this argument style leads to happiness (ie, that it is sufficient), merely that other argument styles lead to unhappiness (ie, that it is necessary). But plenty of other things can go wrong along the way; just because you argue correctly doesn't mean you will have a happy relationship. (Of course, whether or not it is actually necessary is open for debate.)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rconti 6y agoI've not sure I've ever really argued with my wife, even though we've had difference of opinion on things. I haven't really seen my parents argue, or her parents argue. I don't really get why people seek out conflict and blame. It just seems unhealthy all around. Some people thrive on conflict, though. They like to argue. They like to blame, to engage. Or at least, they NEED to, even if they don't like it. Or maybe one partner seeks out conflict, and the other one hates it. But, ultimately, I think arguing is a choice. One could argue that partnering young leads to more issues because it doesn't allow you to form an individual identity. On the other hand, it could strengthen your bond because your identities were built together. Partnering late in life, when you don't "need" each other leads to less dependency; but it could also lead to the partners finding it just as easy to get rid of each other.
- eloff 6y agoI find most of the time when couples say they don't argue, the real reason is one is a doormat that let's the other get their way all the time. There's not much to argue about in that case. I don't want to say that's the case with you, as I know nothing of your marriage. It's just an observation.
- cecilpl2 6y agoThat's what my first marriage was like. I told myself it was a great relationship because we never argued, but really I just deferred to her on every decision and went out of my way to avoid any conflict.
- eloff 6y agoI'm glad to hear the qualifier "first" used in that case. Hope things are better for you now.
- rconti 6y agoI think that's fair. In our particular case, we're both pretty obliging people, and it works. If I was in a relationship with someone who was a 'taker', maybe I would have a hard time pushing back.
- essayist 6y agoI'll recommend Imago training [1] to any and all couples. It's reflective listening on steroids and was transformational for us. The basic process starts w/reflective listening, then goes deeper to get at the underlying wound ("when you do that, it brings up all the times my parents..."), then to what might happen in a perfect world ("the toothpaste cap would magically fly back on the tube after 30 seconds of inactivity"), then to some concrete make-ups. The other things we do that helps is to stick with the current argument (which I find difficult, sometimes) and to not go "meta" ("see, honey, there's a pattern here where you ..."). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imago_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imago_therapy
- cagenut 6y agoSorry but my naive first-pass read of this registers it as contradictory. Your first example was clearly meta about the partners behavior pattern.
- jhardy54 6y ago> Your first example was clearly meta about the partners behavior pattern. Bringing up history is not meta. Meta would be starting an argument about the way your partner argues, or similar.
- Scarblac 6y agoAh, that is insightful, thanks. So next time she does that, I will tell her that that's not a good way to argue because I read that on HN, right. :-)
- roenxi 6y agoI'm not sure why you're being downvoted - that reads as a pretty fair question to me. I can't tell what makes the meta argument meta. But I can tell why one is going to lead to a much worse argument than the other: Saying "when you do that, it brings up all the times my parents..." suggests that the problem lies in what the speaker is thinking and the speaker clearly knows it. Compared to "see, honey, there's a pattern here where you ..." - the problem is still in what the speaker is thinking, but that sentence suggests the speaker doesn't understand that and is about to present their thinking as historical fact. If they phrased it "honey, what you just did made me think there's a pattern here where you..." would probably still be a bruising conversation but it will probably end in a much better place. The speaker has, based on a lot of arguments I've seen, almost certainly misunderstood the pattern they think they see.
- austincheney 6y agoI completely agree with that article. I have been separated from my wife off and on for about 6 years over the 17 years we have been married due to military. We don't argue as much now, because at this point there is little reason as we basically read each other's minds. Most of the time there is conflict to be found its not between each other and talking about feels more like reviewing a git pull request. When we do argue its usually minor and due to differences of opinions search for conflict resolution. The last argument we had was whether we should kick the daughter out of the house. We spent less energy on that argument than I probably spent choosing what to eat for lunch, which is strange considering the severity of the subject. The last serious argument we had was about 22 months ago when she got another dog without asking. Somehow I guessed the subject exactly when she started the conversation with: "Don't be mad..." I was livid. I told her if she wanted to keep the dog she had to name him "Gay Fish" (South Park reference). That never happened. What can you do when you haven't seen your spouse in a year and are on the other side of the planet? In hind-sight things are pretty healthy if that's the most serious of arguments. The thing we disagree about the most is that I cannot arbitrarily quit my high paying corporate job where I literally do nothing. Although I hate being bored and so many of my coworkers (not just at the current job) are incredibly insecure and exceedingly sensitive my spouse is adamant I need a good reason to enter a different line of work. After all that its funny, in a very sickly schadenfreude kind of way, to see the curiously trivial absurdities or bizarre self-serving behaviors other couples destroy their marriage over.
- 3pt14159 6y agoIf you have enough savings for retirement, and no dependants, I do not think your wife gets to have a veto over what you choose to do with your life. An opinion to take into consideration, sure, but not a veto. But maybe this is why I've never gotten married despite wanting to. I don't like it when other people try to pressure me into doing things I know I shouldn't have to do on premises that I don't agree with. Shrug.
- asdff 6y agoI think that is definitely something that you have to be willing to balk from in a relationship. There will always be things that your partner insist you do, and things that you insist your partner. When I would put up a fuss over my mother making me do something as a kid, she would eventually exclaim "Would you just humor me and do it?" Being an adult now I get that reaction. A lot of the times it's hard to describe your position to someone else, like my mother attempting to make me do something as a kid that I don't understand the ramifications of since I'm a kid, like going to the doctor's office. Obviously going to the doctor's office is necessary maintenance for a human, but as a kid you only see it as getting in the way of your playtime. Being an adult is knowing that you will sometimes be the kid or the parent in this sort of scenario plenty of times, and that it's usually a lot easier to swallow your pride and humor your partner, rather than die on your hill like a child throwing a tantrum over not wanting to go to the doctor's office.
- thom 6y agoThis appears to be a study of common patterns of argument in two samples of self-reportedly happy couples. The kind of happy couples that volunteer for these sorts of studies, presumably. It’s all very nice but I’m not sure it tells us much, not least because every unhappy couple I know behaves in these ways too.
- negina 6y agoNon-jealous, compromising people tend to have longer and happier marriages? Sounds about right.
- yters 6y agoi have found most things i have gotten very angry at my wife over and we've had big arguments over, i cannot remember a week or two later. was it worth a big relationship damaging outburst, vs waiting a bit to cool off, talk it over later? i am not sure. maybe felt good at the time to get it out, but peaceful discussion with cooler heads and empathy is the only thing that results in lasting change
- paul7986 6y agoMy partner of 11
- kstenerud 6y agoThis isn't just how happy couples argue; it's how happy PEOPLE argue. You'll find just as much conflict in the workplace as you'll find with your family, and how that conflict is handled will determine how healthy your workplace environment is. You can't agree on everything (and that's a good thing, because it keeps ideas fresh), but you MUST agree on how to talk about and resolve differences, how to communicate, and how to cooperate.
- logicchains 6y agoA great piece of advice I heard is "don't treat your partner worse than a stranger". Most people wouldn't dream of being abusive to a stranger they just met, yet they're fine with being abusive to the person they're supposed to care most about.
- kstenerud 6y agoI understand the sentiment, but the way you avoid potential conflicts with strangers is to impose distance, which is not what you want in close relationships. You'll offend your partner far more often than you would a stranger because you are intimate and vulnerable to each other, which makes it far more likely that you'll hurt each other unintentionally, but also far more likely that you'll have a full and meaningful relationship, provided you practice good relationship hygiene. A good resource is Dr. Gottman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXX8wzvT7c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXX8wzvT7c
- dr_dshiv 6y agoMy wife has a masters degree in marriage and family therapy. We have been to so many marriage therapists. It's expensive but cheaper than the alternative. Just be deliberate about what you want from each session so it doesn't turn into expensive fighting. I recently went vegan (for her) but with exceptions for when she would get angry at me. It was amazing. Instead of my blood starting to boil when her voice would raise, my mouth would start to water. Now, I've never eaten so many steaks. (And she is much more aware of her anger)
- watwut 6y agoSo you are motivated to make her angry, because then you have steak? And you two use food for you to punish her having emotion? I am no psychological expert nor expert in family therapy, but is that all really healthy? I mean physically healthy too ... diet based on somebody elses emotions sounds fishe.
- dr_dshiv 6y agoSteak isn't worth her being angry. It isn't a punishment for her, unless demonstrating my autonomy in eating choices could be construed as a punishment. She proposed the idea. The concept is just to break out of automatic feedback loops of negative emotions by embedding a positive anticipation. I'm not recommending this to others. But I do recommend a good steak every week or two on a vegan diet.
- ampersandy 6y agoOh, so it's more of a "I know she's mad at me now, but we're going to resolve this conflict and in the end I get a delicious steak", which motivates you to work on fixing whatever made her mad. Is that it?
- dr_dshiv 6y agoI can't fix what makes her mad. She just sometimes gets mad.
- 6y ago
- yason 6y agoMost "arguments" in a relationship aren't about the actionable issue at hand. Those issues usually aren't that big they couldn't be calmly discussed if only they didn't reflect on and resonate with larger things, either personal to either party or long-brewing friction in the relationship due to earlier issues not having, in turn, been discussed at the time. A good way to force perspective into arguments is to just listen, not take it personally and not make a confrontation as soon as you observe that your significant other is angry. S/he just needs to lash out first after which you can get to the root of the problem which probably wasn't that mundane little thing that started "it all". In other words, don't argue at the same time, don't be angry at the same time! While those arguments are coming right at you it's rarely personal in the real sense. It makes it hard to have an argument if you don't argue back. You only start discussing when you've let the anger come out first.
- raducu 6y agoThis is great insight! I've watched a coleague/friend do this and it is both amazing and disturbing -- it might seem almost robot-like to some(like, "why aren't you getting mad, doesn't the bullshit this other person said make your blood boil?"). I try to do the same, but it is incredibly hard, given the other issues in the relationship. Trying to fix smaller issues in order to create a precedent and good will and a feeling of competency feels like navigating a minefield.
- rsa25519 6y ago> In other words, don't argue at the same time, don't be angry at the same time! While those arguments are coming right at you it's rarely personal in the real sense. It makes it hard to have an argument if you don't argue back. You only start discussing when you've let the anger come out first. This applies to online disagreements, too. Responding immediately is not often better than waiting, if you choose to respond at all. Waiting lets you say those things that only come to mind while you're in the shower the next morning (metaphorically and literally)
- trabant00 6y agoIf you found some strategy that works for you, great. But be wary of offering this a general solution. Specifically for your post I know several persons who start to argue with their partner with the intention of getting an emotional response. And when the other person tries not to argue they just escalate to heavier stuff. Also, sometimes arguments ARE personal. The reason for the argument is just pretext and you partner really can't stand you any more. In which case IMHO you should get out, not look for strategies to have healthy arguments. To keep it short there are a lot of particular situations and no general solutions to couple problems.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]