3 ms·

This is an extreme example/edge case and if that's truly the case you are either not participating in good faith or would likely benefit from cognitive behavior

This is an extreme example/edge case and if that's truly the case you are either not participating in good faith or would likely benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy. You're approaching the topic of a healthy marriage from game theory where your spouse is another player/opponent, not from empathy and good-faith participation or even just as a team with a common goal. Is your goal to "have it your way all the time", or is it to have a healthy and loving marriage with your spouse? If you approach it from the latter perspective, the question doesn't really make any sense.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
redbar0n 5y ago
To be fair, it’s not really about coldly «saying something is important». I think the question is really better restated as: What if one person just feels more strongly about things (most or all of the time)? Should feelings always trump? Should feelings always be allowed to trump rationality/proportionality in a marriage conflict? PS: > You're approaching the topic of a healthy marriage from game theory made me laugh out loud :D
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > What if one person just feels more strongly about things (most or all of the time)? Should feelings always trump? Should feelings always be allowed to trump rationality/proportionality in a marriage conflict? It depends if to you “marriage” is a business transaction or an emotional relationship. Though there are likely to be problems if you a x your partner envision it differently.
  - the_omegist 5y ago
    Transactional Analysis and Eric Berne (author of The Games People Play) disagree. Emotions and (business) transactions are not mutually exclusive.
- llbeansandrice 5y ago
  I feel like this moves the goal posts but that's fine, this is a more legitimate question. This is the actual hard part of the marriage/relationship that the commenter higher-up is talking about. Compromise is table stakes. Communicating well with your partner, making sure they are an equal participant and making sure they feel heard and valued is what's important. Again, focusing on who is going to "win" is not a healthy perspective in my opinion. Questions like "do feelings beat rationality?" Is the same thing as saying "does paper beat rock?" The purpose of the article was not that dishes and minor arguments about dishes on the counter resulted in a divorce. The point is that she felt belittled and unheard. He was winning the dish battles, but lost his marriage. >Should feelings always trump? No! But they might! Each marriage and relationship is different and they change over time (as people tend to do). For one couple this could be true, but that doesn't really mean anything. Again, this approach is thinking about marriage as a series of small arguments to win, with your spouse as the opponent. Compromise is table stakes. Whether the dishes got done or not really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not these people got divorced, the issue was a lack of communication and one partner not feeling heard. This is a less-bad framing of the earlier question, but it still suffers from the same flawed perspective. The goal is to have a healthy and happy marriage where both individuals feel heard and respected and like a team. What if you feel more strongly about something than your partner? Do you feel like your thoughts and feelings on the matter are being heard? (Note: feeling heard is not the same as "I got my way") Do you feel like an equal team member in the decision? It's okay to feel annoyed or frustrated at the result, that's part of life, you don't always get your way. But it's a huge difference between "I felt like my opinion was fully heard and considered, even if we didn't decide on my point of view." and "I felt dismissed, belittled, and unheard. $spouse/boss/friend/person didn't really listen to what I had to say and I don't feel valued."
  - redbar0n 5y ago
    It was not so much a question on _who_ is going to win, as to _what_ is going to win. In other words: What are deemed legitimate criteria, and even the most important criteria, in a conflict? It’s a question of value systems. Making feelings paramount, like several above suggested, seems like a pragmatic quick fix. If one part obviously feels so much stronger than the other, why shouldn’t the other just give way? But it is not without its problems. Stronger feelings doesn’t mean more right, and doesn’t mean the holder has a more justified basis for being accommodated. Even though it may patch things up more easily in the short term. There’s also a personality component: some people tend to feel more strongly about most things, and others may not feel particularly strong about anything (although they are not void of feelings/opinions). Causing relational skew. The latter person giving way, to smooth things over, and to not stir strong feelings in the other, can turn out to blow up hard in the long run. But yeah, as you say: HOW something is done is oftentimes just as important as WHAT is done (the outcome).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

redbar0n 5y ago

To be fair, it’s not really about coldly «saying something is important». I think the question is really better restated as: What if one person just feels more strongly about things (most or all of the time)? Should feelings always trump? Should feelings always be allowed to trump rationality/proportionality in a marriage conflict? PS: > You're approaching the topic of a healthy marriage from game theory made me laugh out loud :D

dragonwriter 5y ago
> What if one person just feels more strongly about things (most or all of the time)? Should feelings always trump? Should feelings always be allowed to trump rationality/proportionality in a marriage conflict? It depends if to you “marriage” is a business transaction or an emotional relationship. Though there are likely to be problems if you a x your partner envision it differently.
- the_omegist 5y ago
  Transactional Analysis and Eric Berne (author of The Games People Play) disagree. Emotions and (business) transactions are not mutually exclusive.
llbeansandrice 5y ago
I feel like this moves the goal posts but that's fine, this is a more legitimate question. This is the actual hard part of the marriage/relationship that the commenter higher-up is talking about. Compromise is table stakes. Communicating well with your partner, making sure they are an equal participant and making sure they feel heard and valued is what's important. Again, focusing on who is going to "win" is not a healthy perspective in my opinion. Questions like "do feelings beat rationality?" Is the same thing as saying "does paper beat rock?" The purpose of the article was not that dishes and minor arguments about dishes on the counter resulted in a divorce. The point is that she felt belittled and unheard. He was winning the dish battles, but lost his marriage. >Should feelings always trump? No! But they might! Each marriage and relationship is different and they change over time (as people tend to do). For one couple this could be true, but that doesn't really mean anything. Again, this approach is thinking about marriage as a series of small arguments to win, with your spouse as the opponent. Compromise is table stakes. Whether the dishes got done or not really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not these people got divorced, the issue was a lack of communication and one partner not feeling heard. This is a less-bad framing of the earlier question, but it still suffers from the same flawed perspective. The goal is to have a healthy and happy marriage where both individuals feel heard and respected and like a team. What if you feel more strongly about something than your partner? Do you feel like your thoughts and feelings on the matter are being heard? (Note: feeling heard is not the same as "I got my way") Do you feel like an equal team member in the decision? It's okay to feel annoyed or frustrated at the result, that's part of life, you don't always get your way. But it's a huge difference between "I felt like my opinion was fully heard and considered, even if we didn't decide on my point of view." and "I felt dismissed, belittled, and unheard. $spouse/boss/friend/person didn't really listen to what I had to say and I don't feel valued."
- redbar0n 5y ago
  It was not so much a question on _who_ is going to win, as to _what_ is going to win. In other words: What are deemed legitimate criteria, and even the most important criteria, in a conflict? It’s a question of value systems. Making feelings paramount, like several above suggested, seems like a pragmatic quick fix. If one part obviously feels so much stronger than the other, why shouldn’t the other just give way? But it is not without its problems. Stronger feelings doesn’t mean more right, and doesn’t mean the holder has a more justified basis for being accommodated. Even though it may patch things up more easily in the short term. There’s also a personality component: some people tend to feel more strongly about most things, and others may not feel particularly strong about anything (although they are not void of feelings/opinions). Causing relational skew. The latter person giving way, to smooth things over, and to not stir strong feelings in the other, can turn out to blow up hard in the long run. But yeah, as you say: HOW something is done is oftentimes just as important as WHAT is done (the outcome).