

How to fight & argue in a relationship, how to fight fair - bootload
http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-playboy-howtofight.html

======
zupatol
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.

~~~
randallsquared
"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.

~~~
zupatol
Maybe I'm too optimistic.

If someone close is spoiling for a fight using a pretext, I believe there must
be some reason that person wants to fight, other than pure spontaneous hate.
The fight is an opportunity to find out what this reason is, and if something
can be done about it.

Disagreement is not exactly the right word for what I meant. It's too specific
and makes it sound like a matter of opinion. Often it's not clear why
animosity sparks up, it might be some feeling that you only discover by
expressing it in a fight. Let's use the word 'problem' instead.

The fight I started with that friend could have been a discussion, but became
a fight because I found it too hard to keep my self-control. As a result we
made some of the mistakes Crichton describes. Still, it was an attempt at
solving a problem. It was not a disagreement about facts or opinions, the
problem was that I felt insulted by some of his behavior. What I wanted was
either that he showed some kind of regret, or that he explained why I was
wrong to feel insulted. I would have considered both of these outcomes a win.
I'm not sure what you mean by losing a fight.

~~~
randallsquared
Most people are not you. :) In fact, it might be that you aren't really like
this except while dispassionately considering things after the fact: I know
that I, personally, like nothing more when I'm angry or depressed than to
continue to be angry or depressed, and there's an emotional bonus if I can
feel justified in my anger or depression. Someone (Sandra Tayler, I believe)
once said that you can't argue someone out of being upset; the best you can
accomplish by arguing is to make them also feel stupid for feeling upset.

For most people, "explained why I was wrong to feel insulted" could go either
way. If the friend explained that he hadn't meant to offend, then it might be
that the upset would go away. This is a win for the relationship, but as the
argument just evaporates, there's no win or loss for either party (unless you
can manage to feel like a winner anyway, I guess). If he pointed out that
you'd totally blown this out of proportion, and if you'd only paid attention /
thought about it / cared enough, then you'd not have felt insulted, then this
could easily seem like a loss for you, and a win for him.

In my (sadly, ended) marriage, it seemed rare that an argument we had was
really about what the words were about, though I often didn't know until later
what the argument had really been started by. Arguments seemed pretty rare,
though, and only at the end did I find out that she thought we'd argued all
the time, and that I never budged or was willing to lose an argument. Had I
known we were having these arguments (which seemed like discussions to me), I
could have easily arranged to lose enough of them to keep the balance -- it
wasn't that I wanted to win; I just didn't understand she was losing. Hence my
statement about either winning or losing arguments too much putting strain on
a relationship. All this stuff seems clearer from a distance, to me. :/

~~~
zupatol
It's true you can't argue someone out of being upset, because his emotions are
distinct from his understanding of the situation. But if his anger is fueled
by his view of the situation, changing his view will help him get his anger
under control.

You are right there is an emotional bonus when the anger feels justified, and
you are right to be skeptical when I say that in a fight one of the things I'm
going for is to feel stupid for being upset. I'm probably harder to convince
I'm wrong when I'm angry, but still I know it's then that I need it most. The
best outcome is when the problem simply disappears because I realize it was
only in my head. I'm not saying I'm capable of pulling this off everytime I
should. In the fight I mentioned, my friend was actually pointing out that I
blew the thing out of proportion, and didn't bother convincing me about the
details.

I understand now that what you mean by losing a fight is admitting you were
wrong. This is indeed embarassing, but it's also your victory over yourself.

Your idea of arranging to lose a fight sounds dangerous. I once did that with
a coworker. I admitted I was wrong just to end an argument. When the coworker
later found out I didn't really believe I had been wrong, there was no longer
enough trust to solve the problem in a discussion.

~~~
randallsquared
Sometimes "losing a fight" can just be agreeing to do something their way, if
the fight is superficially about some course of action, etc.

I don't think arranging to lose a fight is dangerous for all types of
relationships. I think a personal relationship is less likely to be damaged by
that than a working relationship, since in a personal relationship,
deliberately losing a fight is (or can be seen as) a sacrifice you're making
for your friend or SO.

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

~~~
tptacek
Funny, possibly true, but note that this essay dates from his "happiest" (or
at least longest-lived, most productive) marriage.

------
InVerse
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.

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

~~~
gruseom
_winning a domestic dispute_

That sounds like an oxymoron to me. The other person's "loss" will invariably
feed back into the system.

~~~
Maktab
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
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
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
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
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
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.

------
tdavis
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
Basing a relationship on fear doesn't seem like the way to go to me.

~~~
tdavis
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.

------
lionhearted
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-M...](http://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-what-
Matters/dp/014028852X)

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.

~~~
Chocobean
+1 on peace offerings of tea/sandwiches. They totally let me know that 1) my
spouse is committed to talk about it, not just run away or say "yea yea yea",
and that 2) he isn't being defensive because he is still trying to take care
of my needs.

Little peace talk actions also has a second positive side affect: My spouse is
the type to "talk his feelings out" before really processing and organizing
the thought in his head.If he's eating/drinking it slows him down a bit.

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

------
maurycy
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
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.

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

~~~
delano
What's that?

~~~
russell
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 a __hole. 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
_"... 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> I guess everyone else is a
pushover.

------
pageman
from: <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
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).

