6 ms·

This style of communication is well defined and works quite well. It’s sometimes called Imago Dialogue. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ccf42ef3

by shon 3y ago

This style of communication is well defined and works quite well. It’s sometimes called Imago Dialogue. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ccf42ef3560c333a837696c/1563313473096-KXTFTV77HO2KN4FTSTEG/Imago%2B-%2Bsender.jpg?format=1500w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ccf42ef3560c3... As you said, If you can get the other person over the shock of talking about feelings it’s a very useful tool to keep a relationship running well or even repair a damaged one with scar tissue.

wenc 3y ago
Yes, I learned about Imago dialogue through a book called "Getting the Love You Want" (which sounded gimmicky, but it was recommended by a therapist friend, and I've found it surprisingly practical, not just for intimate relationships but also just relationships with friends and coworkers). The book Nonviolent Communication also basically teaches a similar structured conversation technique. It's the stuff that most marriage therapists teach, but it was a revelation to me. I'm a brutally direct communicator (and I justify myself by saying "I'm honest and expect honesty from people") but I also tend to damage relationships (surprise! communication is not about 1 person's preference but 2). After many relationships that didn't work out, I decided to take a step back and ask myself what I could be doing better, and one of the things was learning to communicate in a way that others found less alienating, without compromising my own style. I stumbled upon the Imago technique and it has worked really well. One of the major takeaways for me that it is important to validate people and be curious, whether you agree with them or not. I used to think this was a contradiction, and that bad ideas need to be corrected immediately, but I've since learned that it's possible to validate people without agreeing with them. The point is to make them feel heard first, and then I can present my own view. Here's an example of how validation works (without agreeing): https://www.onsolidgroundcounseling.com/post/2015/08/31/creating-closeness-in-disagreement-the-power-of-validation https://www.onsolidgroundcounseling.com/post/2015/08/31/crea...
- JackFr 3y ago
  When many people describe themselves as brutally honest, they seem to believe that being honest is a license for brutality.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rgifford 3y ago
    Oddly I quite like these people -- provided they're internally and externally consistent. It's refreshing to say, "you're being an asshole" and have a friend go, "oh my bad, I do that sometimes." Most young folks can't imagine having been an asshole and they call themselves emotionally intelligent without realizing their feelings are a tyranny. They've unsubscribed from anything that ever brought them even minor discomfort. Their social contract basically amounts to "lie to me and I'll lie to you." They are huge wusses. If a friend asks you if their hair looks nice, it's kinder to say, "your hair looks like my nana's and she's been dead for 10 years" then it is to let dozens of folks think the same thing of them. I have a couple friends who would tell me the first thing -- they're whose opinion I trust. If they told me that, I'd piss my self laughing even if I just paid $70 for the haircut. Modern day stoics IMO. They're smart enough to know how to be like-able, they understand the fluff-each-other's-shared-delusions game, they just don't want to play. When they tell you something kind, you know it was real. Most of my friends who are brutally honest try to say the things they're thinking as much as possible. They want that from others too. It can be super off putting, especially if you need to believe certain things about yourself.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      > provided they're internally and externally consistent. People claiming to be "brutally honest" is usually a red flag because they are almost never consistent about it. Its usually a phrase used to self-justify brutality with little regard for honesty. Its sort of like the whole "if you dont accept me at my worse you dont deserve me at my best". There is nothing wrong in principle if it is taken literally - everyone has bad days and its unreasonable to expect perfection all the time; humans make mistakes, etc. But pretty much everyone using that phrase uses it as a self-justification to do what they want without regard for who they hurt. Idk, im always wary of any phrase that can be twisted to justify behaving badly towards others. Some people hurt other people, and they'll take any turn of phrase, twist it, in order to self-justify to themselves that what they are doing is ok.
- bradknowles 3y ago
  I was introduced to Imago therapy many years ago, back when I was still just dating the woman who is now my wife. I've recommended the book "Getting the Love You Want" to several people. I can tell you this much -- of all the things I've done in my life, and all the various types of pain I've suffered, the "active listening" part required of Imago is the very hardest thing I've ever done. And probably the most important.
hackernewds 3y ago
Personally, in a past relationship, I found this to be incongruent to a functioning relationship where every single feeling felt by my partner were valid and I was responsible for managing all her triggers. Example was yelling followed by "you held my hand too firmly, and it made me feel trapped like I were in my childhood". I believe there should be a degree of moderation and assignment of responsibility and repair that is not only designated to the other person.
- DanHulton 3y ago
  I mean, you halfway got there. Your partner's feelings definitely were valid, but the latter part of that sentence, where you were responsible for managing all her triggers, that's not fair to you, and that's not what anybody is advocating. In fact, it would have been perfectly fair for you to respond and tell her that. It definitely sounds like not every time she brought these things up, it wasn't resolved mutually satisfactorily, and PLENTY of scar tissue built up instead. You get to advocate for yourself just as much as she did for herself. And sometimes during these conversations, you uncover irreconcilable differences, sure. Some relationships just aren't meant to be. But boy is it ever nicer when you discover these differences earlier, after honest and reciprocal conversations, as opposed to years later when all the suppressed argument come bursting forth at once. (Speaking from personal experience.)
- shortcake27 3y ago
  You don’t get to decide whether someone else’s feelings are valid or not. Sounds like you were just in the wrong relationship. I would argue this type of communication helped you realise that sooner - imagine if your partner bottled that up without telling you.
  - astrange 3y ago
    > You don’t get to decide whether someone else’s feelings are valid or not. This is a dangerous thing to tell people dealing with an abuser/a psychopath/BPD whatevertheyrecalled. I'm willing to state many people's feelings are not valid. (Stronger statement: true selves don't exist and other people's opinion of you is often more correct than your self-identification.)
solarmist 3y ago
Thank you! My wife and I stumbled upon this technique on our own, but there’s a lot more details and things needed to make it work smoothly.

by shon 3y ago

wenc 3y ago

Yes, I learned about Imago dialogue through a book called "Getting the Love You Want" (which sounded gimmicky, but it was recommended by a therapist friend, and I've found it surprisingly practical, not just for intimate relationships but also just relationships with friends and coworkers). The book Nonviolent Communication also basically teaches a similar structured conversation technique. It's the stuff that most marriage therapists teach, but it was a revelation to me. I'm a brutally direct communicator (and I justify myself by saying "I'm honest and expect honesty from people") but I also tend to damage relationships (surprise! communication is not about 1 person's preference but 2). After many relationships that didn't work out, I decided to take a step back and ask myself what I could be doing better, and one of the things was learning to communicate in a way that others found less alienating, without compromising my own style. I stumbled upon the Imago technique and it has worked really well. One of the major takeaways for me that it is important to validate people and be curious, whether you agree with them or not. I used to think this was a contradiction, and that bad ideas need to be corrected immediately, but I've since learned that it's possible to validate people without agreeing with them. The point is to make them feel heard first, and then I can present my own view. Here's an example of how validation works (without agreeing): https://www.onsolidgroundcounseling.com/post/2015/08/31/creating-closeness-in-disagreement-the-power-of-validation https://www.onsolidgroundcounseling.com/post/2015/08/31/crea...

JackFr 3y ago
When many people describe themselves as brutally honest, they seem to believe that being honest is a license for brutality.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rgifford 3y ago
  Oddly I quite like these people -- provided they're internally and externally consistent. It's refreshing to say, "you're being an asshole" and have a friend go, "oh my bad, I do that sometimes." Most young folks can't imagine having been an asshole and they call themselves emotionally intelligent without realizing their feelings are a tyranny. They've unsubscribed from anything that ever brought them even minor discomfort. Their social contract basically amounts to "lie to me and I'll lie to you." They are huge wusses. If a friend asks you if their hair looks nice, it's kinder to say, "your hair looks like my nana's and she's been dead for 10 years" then it is to let dozens of folks think the same thing of them. I have a couple friends who would tell me the first thing -- they're whose opinion I trust. If they told me that, I'd piss my self laughing even if I just paid $70 for the haircut. Modern day stoics IMO. They're smart enough to know how to be like-able, they understand the fluff-each-other's-shared-delusions game, they just don't want to play. When they tell you something kind, you know it was real. Most of my friends who are brutally honest try to say the things they're thinking as much as possible. They want that from others too. It can be super off putting, especially if you need to believe certain things about yourself.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    > provided they're internally and externally consistent. People claiming to be "brutally honest" is usually a red flag because they are almost never consistent about it. Its usually a phrase used to self-justify brutality with little regard for honesty. Its sort of like the whole "if you dont accept me at my worse you dont deserve me at my best". There is nothing wrong in principle if it is taken literally - everyone has bad days and its unreasonable to expect perfection all the time; humans make mistakes, etc. But pretty much everyone using that phrase uses it as a self-justification to do what they want without regard for who they hurt. Idk, im always wary of any phrase that can be twisted to justify behaving badly towards others. Some people hurt other people, and they'll take any turn of phrase, twist it, in order to self-justify to themselves that what they are doing is ok.
bradknowles 3y ago
I was introduced to Imago therapy many years ago, back when I was still just dating the woman who is now my wife. I've recommended the book "Getting the Love You Want" to several people. I can tell you this much -- of all the things I've done in my life, and all the various types of pain I've suffered, the "active listening" part required of Imago is the very hardest thing I've ever done. And probably the most important.

hackernewds 3y ago

Personally, in a past relationship, I found this to be incongruent to a functioning relationship where every single feeling felt by my partner were valid and I was responsible for managing all her triggers. Example was yelling followed by "you held my hand too firmly, and it made me feel trapped like I were in my childhood". I believe there should be a degree of moderation and assignment of responsibility and repair that is not only designated to the other person.

DanHulton 3y ago
I mean, you halfway got there. Your partner's feelings definitely were valid, but the latter part of that sentence, where you were responsible for managing all her triggers, that's not fair to you, and that's not what anybody is advocating. In fact, it would have been perfectly fair for you to respond and tell her that. It definitely sounds like not every time she brought these things up, it wasn't resolved mutually satisfactorily, and PLENTY of scar tissue built up instead. You get to advocate for yourself just as much as she did for herself. And sometimes during these conversations, you uncover irreconcilable differences, sure. Some relationships just aren't meant to be. But boy is it ever nicer when you discover these differences earlier, after honest and reciprocal conversations, as opposed to years later when all the suppressed argument come bursting forth at once. (Speaking from personal experience.)
shortcake27 3y ago
You don’t get to decide whether someone else’s feelings are valid or not. Sounds like you were just in the wrong relationship. I would argue this type of communication helped you realise that sooner - imagine if your partner bottled that up without telling you.
- astrange 3y ago
  > You don’t get to decide whether someone else’s feelings are valid or not. This is a dangerous thing to tell people dealing with an abuser/a psychopath/BPD whatevertheyrecalled. I'm willing to state many people's feelings are not valid. (Stronger statement: true selves don't exist and other people's opinion of you is often more correct than your self-identification.)

solarmist 3y ago

Thank you! My wife and I stumbled upon this technique on our own, but there’s a lot more details and things needed to make it work smoothly.