In a month of posting, day 7
Dec. 26th, 2014 10:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexEvery relationship has its first argument; some don't survive it.
The Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch is famously a parody of consumerist culture - the notion that one can go and buy anything. It's also a satire on the idea that you can have rules for having an argument. It's sometimes used as an example of brute contradiction, rather than an actual argument. Here I'd like to talk about my rules for having an actual argument with me. This post is full of strong opinions.
My rules have been heavily influenced by my life experiences and by a most excellent trio of books: Getting to Yes, Difficult Conversations, and Getting Past No. If you have not read these books, get them. They are the most concise, readable, and evidence-based set of writings I've ever encountered around these topics. The first book sets out a strategy for achieving an end result that leaves everyone at least satisfied. The second talks about why we avoid certain conversations and topics we ought to discuss. The third has ideas for how to behave when the other people in the conversation/argument aren't willing to play by the rules or don't seem to have good cooperative intentions.
1. No arguing after midnight. This is in opposition to those who say "never go to bed mad." That rule ends up being contorted into staying in the argument past when a timeout is needed. It makes more sense to go to bed mad, get some form of rest (even if one of us has to sleep on the couch) and then continue to try to resolve things when better rested. People who stay in the argument because they don't want to go to bed mad end up generating pressure and agreeing to things just to get out of the situation rather than because they're making an agreement they actually want to keep. Then you end up feeling resentful because you've been forced, resentful at the agreements you made, and the argument cycles around or up again. Or you do something that sabotages the agreement.
Midnight is an arbitrary time. Some arguments start after midnight; sometimes you go to bed before midnight. But it's a time that symbolizes the idea that it's more valuable to bring your best self than it is to reach resolution right away.
2. All emotions are valid. This is in opposition to saying "Don't be mad at me" or similar attempts to regulate the feelings of the people you're arguing with. Arguing is often about anger - you can and will fight when you're white hot with fury as well as when you are in calm and rational states. It may be that you get better outcomes from a calmer state, but nobody has the right to tell you that you have to be there. Anger, hurt, defensiveness, jealousy, bitterness, guilt - they're not pleasant emotions but they're valid. So are generosity, compassion, and other more likable emotions. It may be that you don't want the other person to have a particular response to what you say in the argument but you can't control that. The others' responses are valid and need to be respected.
Related to this, I reject the notion of "thoughtcrime." What I think is my own business and however reprehensible my thoughts may be so long as they stay in my head that's it. "I know what you were thinking when you looked at her," may well be true but so what. Either I did or said something (including leering/staring - acts of looking can be problematic, but are still acts) or I did not. And if I didn't please don't argue with me about what's in my head.
3. Try to speak in "I" sentences. The difference between "You are cheating on me" and "It looks to me like you're cheating on me" is vast, and important. Some "I" sentences are terrible and hard to hear, but they beat the alternatives. "I" sentences help avoid passive-aggressiveness and they require ownership. "I" sentences are hard in arguments because we want to talk about the things that have upset us, that have contributed to the argument, and those are often naturally formed in terms of things the other person has done or said. You did this, you said that. True statements though they may be, it's not the statements that matter - it's their effect. "I'm angry because you were an ass to my sister." If I did not like my sister, or thought she deserved it, the effect might be different. "I'm embarrassed that you brought up politics at the company dinner." Often a person cannot undo what has been done or said. What they can do is understand its effects and try to make amends. Speaking in "I" sentences helps focus the argument on the important effects. If I'm arguing with you, then you're important to me. If you were not, I'd not take the time to argue.
4. Don't drag in third parties. If you're arguing with me, arguments of the form "my friends say that..." aren't kosher. If your friends want to argue with me, let them. This is particularly tricky in poly situations where you may well be arguing about a third person who isn't present. Here I try to divide the problem. I may say, "I feel like OTHERPERSON is enticing you to break our agreements" - that's my problem with you. Separately, I may have to argue with OTHERPERSON about their behavior that I think is pushing boundaries. But your listening to or acting on OTHERPERSON's enticements is a problem I have with you. If we find we're arguing with people who aren't in the room then the argument is unlikely to resolve.
5. Expecting me to be a mind-reader is a short road to misery on both our parts. Staring at me in fuming silence expecting me to intuit why you're angry is pointless. I might guess, or I might not - either way it's a terrible way to argue with me. If I've done something to upset you then I am likely oblivious to why. If I've figured it out then we're probably past the arguing stage and into the "apologizing and trying to make amends" stage. I'm not much better at mind-reading there, but this is a post about arguing with me and arguing with me when I'm trying to understand what you're on about is likely a lot less useful. This is not the same thing as silence. Sometimes people aren't ready to talk or argue or need their space or are just fuming. Those are all valid (see point 2) and if I can't cope with that, well that's my own look-out. Just don't expect me to read your mind.
6. Be able to go meta. "Why are we having this argument?" is possibly the most important question of any argument. One of the things Getting to Yes talks about is the shared understandings necessary for agreements to be real. If you and I think we're arguing for different reasons, or about different things, then we may end up spiraling back into argument when we thought it was settled because what got settled was not what the argument was actually about. This can seem strange at first, but after a while you realize that people argue over things that aren't the real argument. We fight over whose turn it is to do the dishes when in fact the problem is that you feel I'm sticking you with the majority of the chores. We fight over whether I'm putting enough energy into the relationship when in fact the problem is you don't like my new girlfriend.
Being unable to articulate why doesn't invalidate feelings of anger or upset that may have led to this argument (see again point 2). People argue for all kinds of crazy and irrational reasons. Or argue when they're not sure why they're having this argument but know they're upset enough to argue. It happens, I deal. But if you and I can figure out why we're having this argument then I can build some confidence we're addressing the same things and we can have a different argument next time.
(This post was surprisingly difficult to write. I usually get around these problems by couching my language in "I think" and similar contextual phrasing. That's not something I wanted to do here - instead I wanted to convey some of my strongly held beliefs and yet be as clear and non-confrontational as I could be. I suppose if there's any value in the Day N series it will be in how it challenges me.)
The Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch is famously a parody of consumerist culture - the notion that one can go and buy anything. It's also a satire on the idea that you can have rules for having an argument. It's sometimes used as an example of brute contradiction, rather than an actual argument. Here I'd like to talk about my rules for having an actual argument with me. This post is full of strong opinions.
My rules have been heavily influenced by my life experiences and by a most excellent trio of books: Getting to Yes, Difficult Conversations, and Getting Past No. If you have not read these books, get them. They are the most concise, readable, and evidence-based set of writings I've ever encountered around these topics. The first book sets out a strategy for achieving an end result that leaves everyone at least satisfied. The second talks about why we avoid certain conversations and topics we ought to discuss. The third has ideas for how to behave when the other people in the conversation/argument aren't willing to play by the rules or don't seem to have good cooperative intentions.
1. No arguing after midnight. This is in opposition to those who say "never go to bed mad." That rule ends up being contorted into staying in the argument past when a timeout is needed. It makes more sense to go to bed mad, get some form of rest (even if one of us has to sleep on the couch) and then continue to try to resolve things when better rested. People who stay in the argument because they don't want to go to bed mad end up generating pressure and agreeing to things just to get out of the situation rather than because they're making an agreement they actually want to keep. Then you end up feeling resentful because you've been forced, resentful at the agreements you made, and the argument cycles around or up again. Or you do something that sabotages the agreement.
Midnight is an arbitrary time. Some arguments start after midnight; sometimes you go to bed before midnight. But it's a time that symbolizes the idea that it's more valuable to bring your best self than it is to reach resolution right away.
2. All emotions are valid. This is in opposition to saying "Don't be mad at me" or similar attempts to regulate the feelings of the people you're arguing with. Arguing is often about anger - you can and will fight when you're white hot with fury as well as when you are in calm and rational states. It may be that you get better outcomes from a calmer state, but nobody has the right to tell you that you have to be there. Anger, hurt, defensiveness, jealousy, bitterness, guilt - they're not pleasant emotions but they're valid. So are generosity, compassion, and other more likable emotions. It may be that you don't want the other person to have a particular response to what you say in the argument but you can't control that. The others' responses are valid and need to be respected.
Related to this, I reject the notion of "thoughtcrime." What I think is my own business and however reprehensible my thoughts may be so long as they stay in my head that's it. "I know what you were thinking when you looked at her," may well be true but so what. Either I did or said something (including leering/staring - acts of looking can be problematic, but are still acts) or I did not. And if I didn't please don't argue with me about what's in my head.
3. Try to speak in "I" sentences. The difference between "You are cheating on me" and "It looks to me like you're cheating on me" is vast, and important. Some "I" sentences are terrible and hard to hear, but they beat the alternatives. "I" sentences help avoid passive-aggressiveness and they require ownership. "I" sentences are hard in arguments because we want to talk about the things that have upset us, that have contributed to the argument, and those are often naturally formed in terms of things the other person has done or said. You did this, you said that. True statements though they may be, it's not the statements that matter - it's their effect. "I'm angry because you were an ass to my sister." If I did not like my sister, or thought she deserved it, the effect might be different. "I'm embarrassed that you brought up politics at the company dinner." Often a person cannot undo what has been done or said. What they can do is understand its effects and try to make amends. Speaking in "I" sentences helps focus the argument on the important effects. If I'm arguing with you, then you're important to me. If you were not, I'd not take the time to argue.
4. Don't drag in third parties. If you're arguing with me, arguments of the form "my friends say that..." aren't kosher. If your friends want to argue with me, let them. This is particularly tricky in poly situations where you may well be arguing about a third person who isn't present. Here I try to divide the problem. I may say, "I feel like OTHERPERSON is enticing you to break our agreements" - that's my problem with you. Separately, I may have to argue with OTHERPERSON about their behavior that I think is pushing boundaries. But your listening to or acting on OTHERPERSON's enticements is a problem I have with you. If we find we're arguing with people who aren't in the room then the argument is unlikely to resolve.
5. Expecting me to be a mind-reader is a short road to misery on both our parts. Staring at me in fuming silence expecting me to intuit why you're angry is pointless. I might guess, or I might not - either way it's a terrible way to argue with me. If I've done something to upset you then I am likely oblivious to why. If I've figured it out then we're probably past the arguing stage and into the "apologizing and trying to make amends" stage. I'm not much better at mind-reading there, but this is a post about arguing with me and arguing with me when I'm trying to understand what you're on about is likely a lot less useful. This is not the same thing as silence. Sometimes people aren't ready to talk or argue or need their space or are just fuming. Those are all valid (see point 2) and if I can't cope with that, well that's my own look-out. Just don't expect me to read your mind.
6. Be able to go meta. "Why are we having this argument?" is possibly the most important question of any argument. One of the things Getting to Yes talks about is the shared understandings necessary for agreements to be real. If you and I think we're arguing for different reasons, or about different things, then we may end up spiraling back into argument when we thought it was settled because what got settled was not what the argument was actually about. This can seem strange at first, but after a while you realize that people argue over things that aren't the real argument. We fight over whose turn it is to do the dishes when in fact the problem is that you feel I'm sticking you with the majority of the chores. We fight over whether I'm putting enough energy into the relationship when in fact the problem is you don't like my new girlfriend.
Being unable to articulate why doesn't invalidate feelings of anger or upset that may have led to this argument (see again point 2). People argue for all kinds of crazy and irrational reasons. Or argue when they're not sure why they're having this argument but know they're upset enough to argue. It happens, I deal. But if you and I can figure out why we're having this argument then I can build some confidence we're addressing the same things and we can have a different argument next time.
(This post was surprisingly difficult to write. I usually get around these problems by couching my language in "I think" and similar contextual phrasing. That's not something I wanted to do here - instead I wanted to convey some of my strongly held beliefs and yet be as clear and non-confrontational as I could be. I suppose if there's any value in the Day N series it will be in how it challenges me.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 05:55 am (UTC)Despite my initial urge to say "No it isn't".
no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 10:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 01:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 07:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 06:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 10:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 07:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 12:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 01:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 06:06 pm (UTC)Anger, hurt, defensiveness, jealousy, bitterness, guilt - they're not pleasant emotions but they're valid.
They are all valid, yes. And they are all extremely valuable as data. One thing that I am starting to grok, likely from reviewing 'Difficult Conversations' yet again (my goal is to listen to the audiobook so many times that I've committed some passages to memory) is that strong emotions, negative or otherwise, can be seen as a pointer or key to what's important to a person and what's going on inside their heads, even if that info hasn't come out verbally. If I can learn to recognize this skillfully, it could give me more insight into what might really be going on. It might also help me not to react defensively if I feel attacked. Rather, I might be able to step back mentally and say, 'huh. Those words sound very angry. Why might that be?' It might even be appropriate to ask the question out loud in some cases, or it might not.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 10:38 pm (UTC)I agree that D.C. contains a number of good guidelines for understanding what's important in what's going on during a difficult conversation/argument. I don't think I've committed any of it to memory, though.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 09:29 pm (UTC)Especially this.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 10:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-27 11:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 08:00 am (UTC)The problem with this is that if someone is unable to sleep or rest with the argument lingering, they are going to build up resentment and anger because it wasn't resolved. And while I'd suggest that the solution be to find a way for that person to get some sleep, it is a problem if one of the parties just can't sleep.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 04:45 pm (UTC)And mostly agreed. That is, most of these things are relevant to arguing with me, as well; I take you as definitive about what's true of arguing with you.
A couple of harmonics and quibbles follow, which might reflect differences between us, or might be elaborations.
* "All emotions are valid."
Importantly, this cuts lots of different ways for me.
For example, if I'm white-hot livid mad then that's how I feel, and we have to move forward based on that reality. And if I'm terrified by someone else's white-hot livid rage then that's how I feel, and we have to move forward based on that reality.
And sometimes that means a discussion simply can't happen right now, because the combination of anger and fear is just too volatile and we don't know how to move forward in a way that respects both sides of it.
I frequently find that this sort of dynamic becomes a kind of emotional power struggle. "I'm angry, and you don't get to tell me to shut up." vs "You're scaring me, and you don't get to tell me to stay here and take it."
* "I'm angry because you were an ass to my sister."
I would use, and prefer, "I'm angry at the way you treated my sister."
There's another general principle embedded here, which is that I try to keep thoughts distinct, especially controversial ones. "I'm angry" is one thought. "You were an ass to my sister" is another. "I'm angry because you were an ass to my sister" is a compound thought that asserts them both at once, and that creates a dilemma for the responder. Which thought do I address? "I acknowledge that you're angry" implicitly agrees that I was an ass to your sister. "I don't agree that I was an ass to your sister" ignores your anger.
* Relatedly and more generally, I try to avoid creating differential reward structures, where the structure of the sentence makes agreement (whether sincere or not) easier than disagreement.
Faced with "I'm angry because you were an ass to my sister," for example, "I'm sorry I was an ass to your sister" potentially addresses both parts of the statement... but I can only do that by agreeing both that I was an ass to your sister, and that this merits apology.
If I don't happen to agree with both of those, I'm in a bind. I try to avoid putting people in binds, though I'm not good at it.
"You should be able to see that X" is another common example, where if I disagree about X I'm implicitly accepting a judgment about my inadequate perception. "I don't agree that X" and "I don't agree that X is something I should be able to see" are both possible responses, and they are independent.
* Related to that is I try to avoid "always" and "never" statements, and more generally I try to separate claims about specific actions from claims about patterns.
Maybe I'm concerned about your behavior at this party, and maybe I'm concerned about a pattern of behavior, and maybe I'm both, but those are two separate claims. "You're always an ass to my sister!" conflates them.
* Tangentially, another thing I like about "I-statements" is that they help me stay grounded in and mindful of my own experience.
* "Why are we having this argument?"
Yes, yes, yes.
I find there's a cluster of related meta-questions that often help. "What do you want me to do now?" "How do you want me to feel?" "What do you wish I'd done instead?" "How do you want to feel?" "What would make you feel that way?" And on and on.
That said, they are most often questions I ask myself silently, either of myself or about the other person, because asking them directly of the other person is often fraught.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 05:17 pm (UTC)I would use, and prefer, "I'm angry at the way you treated my sister."
That's a less-hard statement. I chose my formulation in part to illustrate how some "I" sentences can be hard to hear and the difference I see between "You were an ass..." and "I am angry because you were an ass..." I think the difference is crucial.
The thought one addresses in this compound is the other person's anger, which is why I don't see the compound as a problem. Remember we're talking about an argument here, not a general behavioral guide. If I say, "You were an ass to my sister and please don't do that again" that's not an argument. The argument is over the effect that my behavior has on people I care about.
"I acknowledge that you're angry" implicitly agrees that I was an ass to your sister. "I don't agree that I was an ass to your sister" ignores your anger.
I agree with the second, but disagree with the first. I can deal with another's response or current state regardless of my agreement on how or why they got into that state.
I try to avoid creating differential reward structures, where the structure of the sentence makes agreement (whether sincere or not) easier than disagreement.
This is where the book trio (and I) disagree with you. There's a long discussion about "building bridges" in those books and talks about how finding ways to create agreement can lead to more complete and lasting resolutions of disputes. If I begin by framing a structure where agreement is easier than disagreement then I think everyone wins.
If I don't happen to agree with both of those, I'm in a bind.
Not precisely. You're in a situation where immediate agreement isn't possible, but that doesn't mean you can't work toward agreement (Getting to Yes). I think you're setting up a false dichotomy of immediate full agreement vs ultimate failure.
"You're always an ass to my sister!" conflates them.
Another thing in GtY is a discussion of exactly this - patterns, generalizations and over-generalizations. Related, piling on ("And another thing...") All of these happen and there are strategies for dealing with them. They just didn't make my top N rules for arguing with Wex.
they are most often questions I ask myself silently, either of myself or about the other person, because asking them directly of the other person is often fraught.
Oh yeah. Going meta is serious conversational judo and it can upset people a lot if they're not used to it. Sometimes it makes people angrier.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 05:48 pm (UTC)Fair enough.
I find that's a great way to negotiate with me (and I'll probably respond by attempting to replace your framing with one that encourages you to agree with me, instead; that way everyone still wins, but I probably win more).
But when someone tries it in the middle of an argument with me, I usually respond by moving into an entirely one-sided receptive mode, where they say stuff and I listen and neither express agreement or disagreement. (Well, if I notice. If I don't notice, all kinds of things happen.)
I think you're setting up a false dichotomy of immediate full agreement vs ultimate failure.
Maybe.
It seems to me that I'm acknowledging a real difference between what I'm trying to do in an argument and what I'm trying to do in a negotiation.
I mostly try to respond to arguments by developing a shared model of what we want to change (not shared in the sense of wanting the same things, but shared in the sense of both knowing what we both want).
So, yes, I suppose it's fair to say that my goal in an argument is immediate (in the sense that the argument really isn't over until this is achieved; it might take months or years to get there) full (within the limited domain of knowing what we want and where we stand) agreement.
Once that's in place, negotiation tends to be much much easier, but it's entirely distinct from negotiation.
(For example, it's quite possible for the resolution to an argument to be "So you want X, and I want Y, and the tension between those desires is upsetting us. Yup, that makes sense. OK, now we know." without that leading to "So, how can we get what we want?" I don't particularly endorse this, but it's there.)
Of course, that approach means giving up all of the negotiation tactics that depend on keeping our actual wants hidden.
If we're not prepared to do that, then I mostly don't expect arguments to resolve.
Which is often OK. Not all relationships require or even benefit from that kind of mutual disclosure. But in the sorts of relationships where our actual wants are hidden, I try to avoid arguing... there's no real point to it. We can simply move directly to the negotiations.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 08:28 pm (UTC)GtY talks about this a great deal. One question is "If I've gotten what I wanted, do I actually care that the other side got 'more'?" Do I even view what you got as 'more'? One of the strategies in GtY is to remember that any disagreement may come in the middle of an ongoing relationship (housemate, employee/employer, partners, etc) and there may be strategic considerations that outweigh taking a tactical loss. Presumably we're having this argument (in part) because we want to keep our relationship going. Therefore, the incentive you have to gain advantage over me is mitigated.
I usually respond by moving into an entirely one-sided receptive mode, where they say stuff and I listen and neither express agreement or disagreement
That's actually OK, too. There's a reason most negotiations start with each side simply stating its position or demands.
I'm acknowledging a real difference between what I'm trying to do in an argument and what I'm trying to do in a negotiation.
Perhaps. I don't think there's that much difference for the kinds of arguments I made this post about. I'm not talking about academic or online debating. I'm talking about the arguments with other people that matter.
that approach means giving up all of the negotiation tactics that depend on keeping our actual wants hidden
This goes to the point about (not) being a mind-reader. If you know what you want (which may or may not happen and may or may not change as the argument evolves) then keeping those wants hidden is a bad way to get me to agree to meet them.
I have a hard time positing a relationship argument in which keep my wants hidden leads to a better outcome. I may not dump them all out at once ("Right now, I want you to stop yelling at me. You raising your voice like that pushes buttons and makes it hard for me." Once that's accomplished I might talk about other things I want.) But in the end if I'm working off keeping my actual wants hidden then I've got a piss-poor chance of getting the other person to meet them.
Not all relationships require or even benefit from that kind of mutual disclosure. But in the sorts of relationships where our actual wants are hidden, I try to avoid arguing... there's no real point to it. We can simply move directly to the negotiations.
You seem to have something in mind that I'm not fathoming. Care to elaborate?
no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 09:07 pm (UTC)Nothing too unusual, just the ordinary class of negotiations that aren't with trusted life-partners.
If you and I are negotiating over the sale and purchase of a used car, for example, we might not want the other to know how low/high a bid we're willing to accept. If I'm making vacation plans with my mom, for example, I might not want her to know that I can really only tolerate her company for a few days. Etc. The usual thing.
I prefer the sorts of relationships where we can each tell the other everything we want, and then engage in a mutually transparent negotiation with the goal of maximally satisfying our collective preferences. And in those relationships arguments are important, because they're part of the process of us coming to a shared understanding of what our preferences actually are, and how much we value them.
But I acknowledge that not all relationships are like this. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of relationships are not like this... not even really important relationships.
And that's OK, but as I said, arguments aren't necessary in the more opaque relationships. I don't argue with my mom about my vacation plans... why would I? Nor would I expect us to argue about the price of a used car. We don't have to understand each other; we don't need a shared model.
We can simply negotiate.
(This puzzles me immensely about a lot of people. My brother, for example, argues with my mom a lot. It doesn't seem to accomplish anything, and it leads to a lot of unresolved bitterness between them.)
I have a hard time positing a relationship argument in which keep my wants hidden leads to a better outcome.
Sure, I agree. As I've been saying, in relationships where I prefer to keep my wants hidden, there's no reason to argue at all, we can just negotiate. Conversely, if I'm going to have a worthwhile argument in the first place, I have to give up the negotiation tactics that keep my wants hidden.
(I get the feeling that you're treating "argument" and "negotiation" as interchangeable here, since (as you say) you don't see much difference in the context you're operating in. Which is fine, but I'm not treating them as interchangeable, so swapping one with the other when interpreting what I say may lead to avoidable confusions. Also, you may be treating "relationship" here in a way that describes what I have with Paulo and you have with M, but not what you and I have or what I have with my mom.)
no subject
Date: 2014-12-28 10:44 pm (UTC)OK sure. But now you've drifted WELL away from the point of "arguments in a relationship". Yes, of course there are negotiations in which revealing too much knowledge produces a disadvantage, particularly in one-off bargains of this sort.
If I'm making vacation plans with my mom, for example, I might not want her to know that I can really only tolerate her company for a few days.
So that's closer to what I'm talking about. It's a calculus whether you'd rather keep having arguments over the length of vacations or one argument over your tolerance levels. Also, if your goal is "vacation of a shorter length" and you're able to obtain that without causing a second argument that seems better.
We don't have to understand each other; we don't need a shared model. We can simply negotiate.
I would assert that lacking a shared model and appropriate understandings, negotiation is much more likely to fail. If it succeeds it's more likely to be short-lived and unsatisfying. Again, I think GtY provides a lot more here than I can in an LJ comment.
My brother, for example, argues with my mom a lot. It doesn't seem to accomplish anything, and it leads to a lot of unresolved bitterness between them.
I wonder if there's any shared understanding of what they're actually arguing about.
I get the feeling that you're treating "argument" and "negotiation" as interchangeable here
No, generally one precedes the other, or you can skip the arguing and go straight to negotiating a resolution. The argument is a different beast, however.
you may be treating "relationship" here in a way that describes what I have with Paulo and you have with M, but not what you and I have or what I have with my mom.
Well, yes. The first line (prompt for this post) was: "Every relationship has its first argument; some don't survive it."
no subject
Date: 2014-12-29 04:43 pm (UTC)I wonder if there's any shared understanding of what they're actually arguing about.
Yeah, I wonder that too.
My mom is almost always coming out of anxieties surrounding being able to rely on our support. I think she knows that, but it's hard to be sure what my mom knows, since she mostly doesn't say it out loud.
My brother... I don't really understand my brother; I never know what's my stuff and what's actually there with him. If I had to guess, I'd say that he's almost always coming out of resentment for times when he wanted her support and didn't receive it. He'll sometimes say it out loud, if he's angry enough, but by then there's not enough slack left in their interaction to process it, and in any case it's hard to change the past.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-29 04:45 pm (UTC)Maybe give your brother a copy of Difficult Conversations for birthday or something? It might help.