3 ms·
> 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. You're still
by llbeansandrice 5y ago
> 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.
You're still approaching this as "A's feelings vs B's rationale". The original article is highlighting one (common) path this takes: one person's feelings are not being heard and they feel devalued and belittled. But you're still approaching it as partner vs partner rather than as a team vs the issue with a goal of everyone feeling loved, heard, and understood.
It is on both sides to make sure that the other person feels heard and an equal partner. If person B feels like their rationale isn't being considered at all, or that their feelings are not, it's the same situation.
>The latter person giving way, to smooth things over,
A valid feeling is that they are giving a lot. Their partner feels strongly about things ABC, but there's no free lunch. Changes to your behavior obviously have consequences. Folks are giving specific examples like "My spouse cares about laundry being in the hamper, I don't really so I don't mind putting in the extra effort to make them happy." But if one feels like they are giving more than they are getting, that's a communication issue beyond whether the dishes get done. The same as the person who feels strongly not being heard.
Your example: "can turn out to blow up hard in the long run" is necessarily different. There's resentment implicitly brewing. Maybe the spouse often starts these conversations more aggressively. Something like "Why can't you ever put your clothes away?" It starts off aggressive, is accusatory, and assumes that the spouse is acting in bad faith.
Put more succinctly, if things do blow-up in the long run then there's a similar communication failure that has occurred and one member of the partner ship doesn't feel like a capable and equal partner in the eyes of their spouse.
HOW something is done: how these feelings and thoughts are communicated is not just as important oftentimes, but is absolutely more important always. Specifically for small stuff like dishes, laundry, etc. "What" wins is entirely irrelevant and will vary from issue to issue and couple to couple.
If it's something more consequential like having children, parenting values, financial values, etc. that's more fundamental that the topic here and is likely just two people who are incompatible with irreconcilable values.
- redbar0n 5y ago> You're still approaching this as "A's feelings vs B's rationale". Not necessarily. I also wrote: «If one part obviously feels so much _stronger_ than the other, why shouldn’t the other just give way? … 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_).» I’m thinking about the degree of feelings involved. (No one is fully and solely rational, after all.) I agree with you on the other points you make.
- llbeansandrice 5y agoI suppose the statement I made is slightly imprecise, but the framing is still A's feelings and rationale vs B's feelings and rationale. Which is the entire paradigm I'm saying is bunk and pointless.