7 ms·

How to fight & argue in a relationship, how to fight fair

84 points by bootload 18y ago

jhancock 18y ago
good article. I'm sure if you can master these techniques at home, you are set for just about any disagreement with others.
brandnewlow 18y ago
That's as rigorous and detailed a flowchart for winning a domestic dispute that I've ever seen.
- gruseom 18y ago
  winning a domestic dispute That sounds like an oxymoron to me. The other person's "loss" will invariably feed back into the system.
  - Maktab 18y ago
    I disagree with some of the suggestions in the essay, but I think your assumption here is a little unfair. You're right that serious domestic disputes never actually have a 'winner', in that their very existence is an indication of a breakdown in the relationship somewhere to the extent that emotions boiled up to the point of a verbal fight. Even if you win one of those arguments in the traditional sense, both sides still lose because of the breakdown in trust and the hurt experienced by the losing side. But Crichton seemed to understand that. His essay contains advice not on how to triumphantly win each and every fight as though you were in a high school debate, but rather on how to resolve domestic disputes without them turning into fights, how to limit the emotional damage fights can cause and, importantly, how to do all of that without being weak and merely acquiescing to the demands of your partner no matter what. As such, it's really better described as a guide to domestic dispute resolution.
    - gruseom 18y ago
      I was reacting to the vocabulary of "fighting", "winning" and "losing". What you're saying sounds more reasonable. Crichton seems to be trying to have it both ways.
      - Maktab 18y ago
        I agree, he is. The tone of the article is unsuited to its message, probably because he judged that a more sensationalist piece would attract more readers than a more insipid essay on the peaceful resolution of domestic disputes. So I'm not defending the way he wrote it. Just pointing out that beyond the tone and poorly-used words, the message is pretty solid and worth reading.
        gruseom 18y ago
        On a completely unrelated note, I was browsing through your HN comment history, which is quite interesting, and am wondering: what sort of work do you do, and where?
        Maktab 18y ago
        My day job is as a Java developer at a retail chain-focused software firm in Johannesburg, South Africa. I'm 23, this is my first programming job. Before that I was a political analyst for a time, but quit that profession after I realised it wasn't really my passion. Not much to tell, really.
        gruseom 18y ago
        Well, that's interesting. It was harder than average to guess your background. In fact, I didn't guess it. Africa, politics, and programming is an unusual combination.
  - time_management 18y ago
    It's not zero sum. You can both win, or both lose. Or she can win and you can lose, but only if she's not a very nice person (e.g. a controlling bitch). Or you can win and she can lose, but only if you're a controlling prick. You win if you can resolve the issue and make her feel better without making major loss to yourself or the relationship. Usually, this involves her winning, as well.
- pasbesoin 18y ago
  I first read it as "whining" and was intrigued/dismayed to consider such a flowchart dedicated to it.
lallysingh 18y ago
Sounds exactly like how people survived the famous "Jack Attacks" of Commodore fame.
- delano 18y ago
  What's that?
  - russell 18y ago
    I was not at either Commodore or Atari, but I had to deal with Jack Tramiel as a third party ISV. He was a genuine ahole. He would lie, bully, and break promises. He would start off giving you a verbal good deal and then take it back bit by bit. Of course nothing was ever written down. I had a bad feeling about our deal and pulled out before we had spent any real money. I never saw the yelling, verbal abuse thing, but if anyone says it happened, I would believe it.
    - bootload 18y ago
      "... I was not at either Commodore or Atari, but I had to deal with Jack Tramiel as a third party ISV. He was a genuine ahole. He would lie, bully, and break promises. He would start off giving you a verbal good deal and then take it back bit by bit. Of course nothing was ever written down. I had a bad feeling about our deal and pulled out before we had spent any real money. ..." It's reported Tramiel, a Polish Jew had to deal with the Nazi Mengele as a child ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Tramiel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Tramiel I guess everyone else is a pushover.
joechung 18y ago
Yeah, like I really want advice about fighting and arguing in a relationship from a guy who got divorced four times.
- adamsmith 18y ago
  Yup -- while I appreciated the article I thought the tone was too adversarial.
- tptacek 18y ago
  Funny, possibly true, but note that this essay dates from his "happiest" (or at least longest-lived, most productive) marriage.
- apstuff 18y ago
  Born: 10-23-1942. Died: 11-04-2008 Let him rest in peace.
- fizx 18y ago
  Don't worry, he was just trying to get his 10,000 hours in.
zupatol 18y ago
It's weird how he talks about 'winning' a fight. The point of a fight is to resolve a disagreement, and when it's resolved both have won. If one feels disadvantaged at the end, both have lost, since the same fight will probably have to be fought again. One advice he could have given is that competitiveness is completely out of place. A strategy he does not mention is refusing the fight by not listening, or going for a walk, and later pretend that nothing happened. A friend did this to me recently. It may even be justified, because I was mad at him for things that no longer matter. Still, I think the problem could have been solved faster and with less grudges by a discussion on the spot. I prefer to call it a discussion. If you avoid broken furniture, insulting generalizations, off the topic accusations, threats, and all the mistakes Crichton points to, you can hardly call it a fight.
- Create 18y ago
  It may even be justified, because I was mad at him for things that no longer matter. If it was just a friend, it may no longer matter, being similar enough to you. Anything more involved (the $SUBJ of the article) implies that everything else is secondary, and nothing else matters: it could very well be, that causing pain and grudges is the last thing the "friend" would have wanted -- in any shape or form: be it fight or discussion (or rather dispute). Actually, the article mentions this, when putting off the fight/discussion for a time, when "on the spot" discussions would be too heated. This will bring you right back to "If one feels disadvantaged at the end, both have lost, since the same fight will probably have to be fought again." Or discussed, as you prefer.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  "The point of a fight is to resolve a disagreement" I disagree. If all that's involved is a disagreement, that's almost always resolved by a discussion, as you allude to later. If someone is spoiling for a fight, the disagreement is merely a pretext, though the person wanting to fight will refuse to acknowledge that. In this case, you can refuse, as your friend did, to have the fight, or win, or lose. In a relationship, though, not having some mix of winning and losing fights, assuming that they happen frequently, will usually have deleterious effects on the relationship, and refusing to participate will eventually be seen as loss.
lionhearted 18y ago
A mix of some excellent advice and some very poor advice. First, let me highly recommend the best book on conflict I've ever read (no affiliate link either): http://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-what-Matters/dp/014028852X http://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-what-M... Author nails some good points about talking about yourself, and looking for solutions. One thing I really disagree with - not walking away. It doesn't really make sense to talk to someone while they're angry or heated up. So you've got a couple options - calm them down, and then talk about it, or let them calm down on their own. Depending on where you're at in life, your mood, etc, the second option can be really good. You don't have to be so formal about it. Something like - "Hey, you seem pissed. Would it be better if I took off for a while?" Lots of times you get "No!" Then you say, "Okay baby, no sweat. Let's get something to eat and we'll figure it out." Then make some tea, or fix a couple sandwiches (may seem strange to do this calmly while she's coming down from the adrenalin/anger, but very doable in practice). Then she'll come around and be back to being your very cool girl, with more of a post-adrenalin sad/regret mode instead of the fired up angry mode. I think it's a lot easier to communicate with someone you care about when they're calmed down, maybe even a little sad, than when fired up with righteous indignation. So then you say, "Okay, babe, what's up?" And she usually tells you without attacking you. Then you've got a couple options. If you feel like you're in the wrong to some extent you can say, "You know - you're totally right. I'm going to work on that." But if she's got an issue with something that's you, that's not bad, that's part of who you are that you wouldn't want to change, then you can say, "You know, God that's awful you feel that way. That sounds yucky... but y'know, I think that might be just how I am. I'm like a machine, I go crazy when I don't work 16 hours a day during my inspired times, and it's who I am. I'm not sure you'd even like me if I repressed that drive of mine... I hear what you're saying babe, and I'll think about it more, but I think that's part of me." People do respect this - the worst thing you can do is promise to do something that you can't do. And yeah, if you're driven, maybe you can't not work when inspired without going crazy. I can't. I go nuts if I have something I should be creating with my hands and I'm not doing it. So the girl in my life has to put up with the "mad scientist in the basement inventing and doing nothing else but eating and sleeping" treatment from time to time. And when you say that upfront, it gives her a chance to make a real decision without being led on that you'll change in an area you can't. If you're a really good guy, she won't mind the eccentricities and can accept them instead of being strung out that you'll try to change your fundamental nature and core values. A final thought - you might think about trying to be kind but a bit distant after confliuct. Like very nice, calm, but absolutely not turned on or more affectionate than normal. Great makeup sex is absolutely a disaster - it practically guarantees more fights. If you're a much better guy from her point of view after she raises hell, she's going to do it. So let her calm down, almost be sterile and nice for a little bit after you fight or she attacks you. If you want to change, do it gradually after like a week has passed. If you're better to your girl after she's been bad to you, you're going to get more of that badness in the future. Even if it's a wake up call that you need to treat her better, maybe wait a bit of time so she doesn't make the association of "feel bad -> start conflict -> better life". I guess that might seem obvious in text, but it seems like most guys get it wrong just because they never thought about it.
InVerse 18y ago
I couldn't tell whether he was intentionally hiding wisdom behind a front of "winning" and "competitiveness", or whether I am able to take the positive out of any statement and ignore the negative. He offered some good advice. A discussion is a process of understanding multiple perspectives and finding a resolution that satisfies all parties.
tdavis 18y ago
Near the beginning of my last "real" relationship, I responded jokingly to something she said with "don't ever piss me off." Apparently, though, there was something "in my eyes" when I said it that scared the crap out of her. In the year we were together I think we only had one fight and as soon as I raised my voice (which I rarely do in general) it was over. To this day I don't know how I managed that "look", but something tells me if I could perfect it I could win fights indefinitely. And possibly frighten bears.
- pmjordan 18y ago
  Basing a relationship on fear doesn't seem like the way to go to me.
  - tdavis 18y ago
    Haha, I completely agree. It wasn't based on fear; we just avoided the yelling and throwing shit stage. There was, of course, the occasional disagreement and discussion regarding it.
pageman 18y ago
from: http://chikolara.multiply.com/journal/item/56 http://chikolara.multiply.com/journal/item/56 THE RULES: 1. The female always makes the rules. 2. The rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification. 3. No male can possibly know all the rules. 4. If the female suspects the male knows all the rules, she must immediately change some of the rules. 5. The female is never wrong. 6. If the female is wrong, it is because of a flagrant misunderstanding which was a direct result of something the male did or said. 7. If rule 6 applies, the male must immediately apologize for the misunderstanding. 8. The female can change her mind at any given point of time. 9. The male must never change his mind without written consent from the female. 10. The female has every right to be upset or angry at any time. 11. The male must remain calm at all time, unless the female wants him to be angry or upset. 12. The female must under no circumstances let the male know whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset. 13. Any attempt to document these rules could result in bodily harm. 14. If the female has PMS, all rules are null and void.
- gamache 18y ago
  This post is only slightly more retarded than the much-longer-winded article (and neither one has as much substance as, say, the average 37signals blog).
maurycy 18y ago
Personally I think the best way to fight fair in a relationship is to maintain less close emotional commitment, so there's no big fear of lose, and to try to point out an unfair tricks (eg, "You're just trying to make me feel shame without any specific reason. Why? What's wrong?"). Other, ask questions; stay classy.
mattmcknight 18y ago
I'm a lover not a fighter. It's win-win. Seriously though, I have been trying to fight less. I see patterns that tend to lead to arguments, but it's mostly a challenge of finding a way to keep on an even keel in the face of unfair criticism so that I can deploy my strategies.

84 points by bootload 18y ago

good article. I'm sure if you can master these techniques at home, you are set for just about any disagreement with others.

brandnewlow 18y ago

That's as rigorous and detailed a flowchart for winning a domestic dispute that I've ever seen.

gruseom 18y ago
winning a domestic dispute That sounds like an oxymoron to me. The other person's "loss" will invariably feed back into the system.
- Maktab 18y ago
  I disagree with some of the suggestions in the essay, but I think your assumption here is a little unfair. You're right that serious domestic disputes never actually have a 'winner', in that their very existence is an indication of a breakdown in the relationship somewhere to the extent that emotions boiled up to the point of a verbal fight. Even if you win one of those arguments in the traditional sense, both sides still lose because of the breakdown in trust and the hurt experienced by the losing side. But Crichton seemed to understand that. His essay contains advice not on how to triumphantly win each and every fight as though you were in a high school debate, but rather on how to resolve domestic disputes without them turning into fights, how to limit the emotional damage fights can cause and, importantly, how to do all of that without being weak and merely acquiescing to the demands of your partner no matter what. As such, it's really better described as a guide to domestic dispute resolution.
  - gruseom 18y ago
    I was reacting to the vocabulary of "fighting", "winning" and "losing". What you're saying sounds more reasonable. Crichton seems to be trying to have it both ways.
    - Maktab 18y ago
      I agree, he is. The tone of the article is unsuited to its message, probably because he judged that a more sensationalist piece would attract more readers than a more insipid essay on the peaceful resolution of domestic disputes. So I'm not defending the way he wrote it. Just pointing out that beyond the tone and poorly-used words, the message is pretty solid and worth reading.
      - gruseom 18y ago
        On a completely unrelated note, I was browsing through your HN comment history, which is quite interesting, and am wondering: what sort of work do you do, and where?
        Maktab 18y ago
        My day job is as a Java developer at a retail chain-focused software firm in Johannesburg, South Africa. I'm 23, this is my first programming job. Before that I was a political analyst for a time, but quit that profession after I realised it wasn't really my passion. Not much to tell, really.
        gruseom 18y ago
        Well, that's interesting. It was harder than average to guess your background. In fact, I didn't guess it. Africa, politics, and programming is an unusual combination.
- time_management 18y ago
  It's not zero sum. You can both win, or both lose. Or she can win and you can lose, but only if she's not a very nice person (e.g. a controlling bitch). Or you can win and she can lose, but only if you're a controlling prick. You win if you can resolve the issue and make her feel better without making major loss to yourself or the relationship. Usually, this involves her winning, as well.
pasbesoin 18y ago
I first read it as "whining" and was intrigued/dismayed to consider such a flowchart dedicated to it.

lallysingh 18y ago

Sounds exactly like how people survived the famous "Jack Attacks" of Commodore fame.

delano 18y ago
What's that?
- russell 18y ago
  I was not at either Commodore or Atari, but I had to deal with Jack Tramiel as a third party ISV. He was a genuine ahole. He would lie, bully, and break promises. He would start off giving you a verbal good deal and then take it back bit by bit. Of course nothing was ever written down. I had a bad feeling about our deal and pulled out before we had spent any real money. I never saw the yelling, verbal abuse thing, but if anyone says it happened, I would believe it.
  - bootload 18y ago
    "... I was not at either Commodore or Atari, but I had to deal with Jack Tramiel as a third party ISV. He was a genuine ahole. He would lie, bully, and break promises. He would start off giving you a verbal good deal and then take it back bit by bit. Of course nothing was ever written down. I had a bad feeling about our deal and pulled out before we had spent any real money. ..." It's reported Tramiel, a Polish Jew had to deal with the Nazi Mengele as a child ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Tramiel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Tramiel I guess everyone else is a pushover.

joechung 18y ago

Yeah, like I really want advice about fighting and arguing in a relationship from a guy who got divorced four times.

adamsmith 18y ago
Yup -- while I appreciated the article I thought the tone was too adversarial.
tptacek 18y ago
Funny, possibly true, but note that this essay dates from his "happiest" (or at least longest-lived, most productive) marriage.
apstuff 18y ago
Born: 10-23-1942. Died: 11-04-2008 Let him rest in peace.
fizx 18y ago
Don't worry, he was just trying to get his 10,000 hours in.

zupatol 18y ago

It's weird how he talks about 'winning' a fight. The point of a fight is to resolve a disagreement, and when it's resolved both have won. If one feels disadvantaged at the end, both have lost, since the same fight will probably have to be fought again. One advice he could have given is that competitiveness is completely out of place. A strategy he does not mention is refusing the fight by not listening, or going for a walk, and later pretend that nothing happened. A friend did this to me recently. It may even be justified, because I was mad at him for things that no longer matter. Still, I think the problem could have been solved faster and with less grudges by a discussion on the spot. I prefer to call it a discussion. If you avoid broken furniture, insulting generalizations, off the topic accusations, threats, and all the mistakes Crichton points to, you can hardly call it a fight.

Create 18y ago
It may even be justified, because I was mad at him for things that no longer matter. If it was just a friend, it may no longer matter, being similar enough to you. Anything more involved (the $SUBJ of the article) implies that everything else is secondary, and nothing else matters: it could very well be, that causing pain and grudges is the last thing the "friend" would have wanted -- in any shape or form: be it fight or discussion (or rather dispute). Actually, the article mentions this, when putting off the fight/discussion for a time, when "on the spot" discussions would be too heated. This will bring you right back to "If one feels disadvantaged at the end, both have lost, since the same fight will probably have to be fought again." Or discussed, as you prefer.
randallsquared 18y ago
"The point of a fight is to resolve a disagreement" I disagree. If all that's involved is a disagreement, that's almost always resolved by a discussion, as you allude to later. If someone is spoiling for a fight, the disagreement is merely a pretext, though the person wanting to fight will refuse to acknowledge that. In this case, you can refuse, as your friend did, to have the fight, or win, or lose. In a relationship, though, not having some mix of winning and losing fights, assuming that they happen frequently, will usually have deleterious effects on the relationship, and refusing to participate will eventually be seen as loss.

lionhearted 18y ago

A mix of some excellent advice and some very poor advice. First, let me highly recommend the best book on conflict I've ever read (no affiliate link either): http://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-what-Matters/dp/014028852X http://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-what-M... Author nails some good points about talking about yourself, and looking for solutions. One thing I really disagree with - not walking away. It doesn't really make sense to talk to someone while they're angry or heated up. So you've got a couple options - calm them down, and then talk about it, or let them calm down on their own. Depending on where you're at in life, your mood, etc, the second option can be really good. You don't have to be so formal about it. Something like - "Hey, you seem pissed. Would it be better if I took off for a while?" Lots of times you get "No!" Then you say, "Okay baby, no sweat. Let's get something to eat and we'll figure it out." Then make some tea, or fix a couple sandwiches (may seem strange to do this calmly while she's coming down from the adrenalin/anger, but very doable in practice). Then she'll come around and be back to being your very cool girl, with more of a post-adrenalin sad/regret mode instead of the fired up angry mode. I think it's a lot easier to communicate with someone you care about when they're calmed down, maybe even a little sad, than when fired up with righteous indignation. So then you say, "Okay, babe, what's up?" And she usually tells you without attacking you. Then you've got a couple options. If you feel like you're in the wrong to some extent you can say, "You know - you're totally right. I'm going to work on that." But if she's got an issue with something that's you, that's not bad, that's part of who you are that you wouldn't want to change, then you can say, "You know, God that's awful you feel that way. That sounds yucky... but y'know, I think that might be just how I am. I'm like a machine, I go crazy when I don't work 16 hours a day during my inspired times, and it's who I am. I'm not sure you'd even like me if I repressed that drive of mine... I hear what you're saying babe, and I'll think about it more, but I think that's part of me." People do respect this - the worst thing you can do is promise to do something that you can't do. And yeah, if you're driven, maybe you can't not work when inspired without going crazy. I can't. I go nuts if I have something I should be creating with my hands and I'm not doing it. So the girl in my life has to put up with the "mad scientist in the basement inventing and doing nothing else but eating and sleeping" treatment from time to time. And when you say that upfront, it gives her a chance to make a real decision without being led on that you'll change in an area you can't. If you're a really good guy, she won't mind the eccentricities and can accept them instead of being strung out that you'll try to change your fundamental nature and core values. A final thought - you might think about trying to be kind but a bit distant after confliuct. Like very nice, calm, but absolutely not turned on or more affectionate than normal. Great makeup sex is absolutely a disaster - it practically guarantees more fights. If you're a much better guy from her point of view after she raises hell, she's going to do it. So let her calm down, almost be sterile and nice for a little bit after you fight or she attacks you. If you want to change, do it gradually after like a week has passed. If you're better to your girl after she's been bad to you, you're going to get more of that badness in the future. Even if it's a wake up call that you need to treat her better, maybe wait a bit of time so she doesn't make the association of "feel bad -> start conflict -> better life". I guess that might seem obvious in text, but it seems like most guys get it wrong just because they never thought about it.

InVerse 18y ago

I couldn't tell whether he was intentionally hiding wisdom behind a front of "winning" and "competitiveness", or whether I am able to take the positive out of any statement and ignore the negative. He offered some good advice. A discussion is a process of understanding multiple perspectives and finding a resolution that satisfies all parties.

tdavis 18y ago

Near the beginning of my last "real" relationship, I responded jokingly to something she said with "don't ever piss me off." Apparently, though, there was something "in my eyes" when I said it that scared the crap out of her. In the year we were together I think we only had one fight and as soon as I raised my voice (which I rarely do in general) it was over. To this day I don't know how I managed that "look", but something tells me if I could perfect it I could win fights indefinitely. And possibly frighten bears.

pmjordan 18y ago
Basing a relationship on fear doesn't seem like the way to go to me.
- tdavis 18y ago
  Haha, I completely agree. It wasn't based on fear; we just avoided the yelling and throwing shit stage. There was, of course, the occasional disagreement and discussion regarding it.

pageman 18y ago

from: http://chikolara.multiply.com/journal/item/56 http://chikolara.multiply.com/journal/item/56 THE RULES: 1. The female always makes the rules. 2. The rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification. 3. No male can possibly know all the rules. 4. If the female suspects the male knows all the rules, she must immediately change some of the rules. 5. The female is never wrong. 6. If the female is wrong, it is because of a flagrant misunderstanding which was a direct result of something the male did or said. 7. If rule 6 applies, the male must immediately apologize for the misunderstanding. 8. The female can change her mind at any given point of time. 9. The male must never change his mind without written consent from the female. 10. The female has every right to be upset or angry at any time. 11. The male must remain calm at all time, unless the female wants him to be angry or upset. 12. The female must under no circumstances let the male know whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset. 13. Any attempt to document these rules could result in bodily harm. 14. If the female has PMS, all rules are null and void.

gamache 18y ago
This post is only slightly more retarded than the much-longer-winded article (and neither one has as much substance as, say, the average 37signals blog).

maurycy 18y ago

Personally I think the best way to fight fair in a relationship is to maintain less close emotional commitment, so there's no big fear of lose, and to try to point out an unfair tricks (eg, "You're just trying to make me feel shame without any specific reason. Why? What's wrong?"). Other, ask questions; stay classy.

mattmcknight 18y ago

I'm a lover not a fighter. It's win-win. Seriously though, I have been trying to fight less. I see patterns that tend to lead to arguments, but it's mostly a challenge of finding a way to keep on an even keel in the face of unfair criticism so that I can deploy my strategies.