
How Happy Couples Argue: Study (2019) - InInteraction
https://news.utk.edu/2019/09/16/new-research-sheds-light-on-how-happy-couples-argue/
======
essayist
I'll recommend Imago training [1] to any and all couples. It's reflective
listening on steroids and was transformational for us.

The basic process starts w/reflective listening, then goes deeper to get at
the underlying wound ("when you do that, it brings up all the times my
parents..."), then to what might happen in a perfect world ("the toothpaste
cap would magically fly back on the tube after 30 seconds of inactivity"),
then to some concrete make-ups.

The other things we do that helps is to stick with the current argument (which
I find difficult, sometimes) and to not go "meta" ("see, honey, there's a
pattern here where you ...").

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imago_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imago_therapy)

~~~
cagenut
Sorry but my naive first-pass read of this registers it as contradictory. Your
first example was clearly meta about the partners behavior pattern.

~~~
jhardy54
> Your first example was clearly meta about the partners behavior pattern.

Bringing up history is not meta. Meta would be starting an argument about the
way your partner argues, or similar.

~~~
Scarblac
Ah, that is insightful, thanks.

So next time she does that, I will tell her that that's not a good way to
argue because I read that on HN, right. :-)

------
yason
Most "arguments" in a relationship aren't about the actionable issue at hand.
Those issues usually aren't that big they couldn't be calmly discussed if only
they didn't reflect on and resonate with larger things, either personal to
either party or long-brewing friction in the relationship due to earlier
issues not having, in turn, been discussed at the time.

A good way to force perspective into arguments is to just listen, not take it
personally and not make a confrontation as soon as you observe that your
significant other is angry. S/he just needs to lash out first after which you
can get to the root of the problem which probably wasn't that mundane little
thing that started "it all".

In other words, don't argue at the same time, don't be angry at the same time!
While those arguments _are_ coming right at you it's rarely personal in the
real sense. It makes it hard to have an argument if you don't argue back. You
only start discussing when you've let the anger come out first.

~~~
trabant00
If you found some strategy that works for you, great. But be wary of offering
this a general solution.

Specifically for your post I know several persons who start to argue with
their partner with the intention of getting an emotional response. And when
the other person tries not to argue they just escalate to heavier stuff.

Also, sometimes arguments ARE personal. The reason for the argument is just
pretext and you partner really can't stand you any more. In which case IMHO
you should get out, not look for strategies to have healthy arguments.

To keep it short there are a lot of particular situations and no general
solutions to couple problems.

~~~
Balgair
Every marriage is a universe, mundane interactions creating supernovae,
spectacular histories eroded into dust, a state of existence with billions of
nodes.

-Leo Tolstoy

------
egypturnash
Personally I find one of the biggest things that keeps my relationship going
is that we have ways to express discontent with each other that unambiguously
frames it as not necessarily a big thing.

Mostly this way is pretending to be a goofy cartoon version of George and
Martha from “Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Wolfe”. Or, rather, of what we imagine
would be their online role-play avatars - how a rotting lich and a hyena lady
ended up together in a stable orbit of mutual loathing is an open question,
but it gives us a _great_ way to express exaggerated versions of the things
causing friction between us, and amuse each other with trying to turn them
into comedy. It makes checking in on the actual issue afterwards a lot easier,
as we’ve already burnt off a lot of whatever anger may have wanted to make us
snap at each other in these exaggerated personas in the first place.

------
kstenerud
This isn't just how happy couples argue; it's how happy PEOPLE argue.

You'll find just as much conflict in the workplace as you'll find with your
family, and how that conflict is handled will determine how healthy your
workplace environment is.

You can't agree on everything (and that's a good thing, because it keeps ideas
fresh), but you MUST agree on how to talk about and resolve differences, how
to communicate, and how to cooperate.

~~~
logicchains
A great piece of advice I heard is "don't treat your partner worse than a
stranger". Most people wouldn't dream of being abusive to a stranger they just
met, yet they're fine with being abusive to the person they're supposed to
care most about.

~~~
kstenerud
I understand the sentiment, but the way you avoid potential conflicts with
strangers is to impose distance, which is not what you want in close
relationships.

You'll offend your partner far more often than you would a stranger because
you are intimate and vulnerable to each other, which makes it far more likely
that you'll hurt each other unintentionally, but also far more likely that
you'll have a full and meaningful relationship, provided you practice good
relationship hygiene.

A good resource is Dr. Gottman:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXX8wzvT7c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXX8wzvT7c)

------
dr_dshiv
My wife has a masters degree in marriage and family therapy. We have been to
so many marriage therapists. It's expensive but cheaper than the alternative.
Just be deliberate about what you want from each session so it doesn't turn
into expensive fighting.

I recently went vegan (for her) but with exceptions for when she would get
angry at me. It was amazing. Instead of my blood starting to boil when her
voice would raise, my mouth would start to water. Now, I've never eaten so
many steaks. (And she is much more aware of her anger)

~~~
mlang23
Sorry, but this sounds like unhealthy to me. The day I need an external person
to deal with the arguments in our relationship is the day I end that
relationship. There are many females on this planet. No need to bend over
backwards to make one particular relationship work.

~~~
colordrops
Your kids would be happy to see you bend your back a little.

~~~
mlang23
Have you ever had to watch your parents fight over nonsense? Nope, sorry, I
disagree. Why should kids be any happier if their parents stay together and
fight all the time?

~~~
slim
Because children make life enjoyable with your partner half the time, so
you're in a dilemma : stay for the good half or quit for the bad half. Then
you stay because maybe you can fix the bad half, and why not try getting help
from someone. It's worth it. Even getting from good 50%/50% bad to 55%/45% is
worth it.

------
kiliantics
A book I'd recommend for anyone who wants to improve the communication in
their relationships -- romantic or otherwise -- to help resolve any kind of
conflict, is "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg. The ideas are
very simple, almost obvious, but his exposition is brilliant and really
reaches deep into the human experience. He makes a convincing argument for how
our learned behaviours have led to widespread inability to effectively resolve
conflict, and he gives a straightforward model for overcoming this.

~~~
jld89
Yes totally recommend it. I am convinced that communication is the root cause
for strife in all relationships, love or otherwise.

------
austincheney
I completely agree with that article. I have been separated from my wife off
and on for about 6 years over the 17 years we have been married due to
military. We don't argue as much now, because at this point there is little
reason as we basically read each other's minds. Most of the time there is
conflict to be found its not between each other and talking about feels more
like reviewing a git pull request.

When we do argue its usually minor and due to differences of opinions search
for conflict resolution. The last argument we had was whether we should kick
the daughter out of the house. We spent less energy on that argument than I
probably spent choosing what to eat for lunch, which is strange considering
the severity of the subject.

The last serious argument we had was about 22 months ago when she got another
dog without asking. Somehow I guessed the subject exactly when she started the
conversation with: "Don't be mad..." I was livid. I told her if she wanted to
keep the dog she had to name him "Gay Fish" (South Park reference). That never
happened. What can you do when you haven't seen your spouse in a year and are
on the other side of the planet? In hind-sight things are pretty healthy if
that's the most serious of arguments.

The thing we disagree about the most is that I cannot arbitrarily quit my high
paying corporate job where I literally do nothing. Although I hate being bored
and so many of my coworkers (not just at the current job) are incredibly
insecure and exceedingly sensitive my spouse is adamant I need a good reason
to enter a different line of work.

After all that its funny, in a very sickly schadenfreude kind of way, to see
the curiously trivial absurdities or bizarre self-serving behaviors other
couples destroy their marriage over.

~~~
3pt14159
If you have enough savings for retirement, and no dependants, I do not think
your wife gets to have a veto over what you choose to do with your life. An
opinion to take into consideration, sure, but not a veto.

But maybe this is why I've never gotten married despite wanting to. I don't
like it when other people try to pressure me into doing things I know I
shouldn't have to do on premises that I don't agree with. Shrug.

~~~
asdff
I think that is definitely something that you have to be willing to balk from
in a relationship. There will always be things that your partner insist you
do, and things that you insist your partner.

When I would put up a fuss over my mother making me do something as a kid, she
would eventually exclaim "Would you just humor me and do it?" Being an adult
now I get that reaction. A lot of the times it's hard to describe your
position to someone else, like my mother attempting to make me do something as
a kid that I don't understand the ramifications of since I'm a kid, like going
to the doctor's office. Obviously going to the doctor's office is necessary
maintenance for a human, but as a kid you only see it as getting in the way of
your playtime.

Being an adult is knowing that you will sometimes be the kid or the parent in
this sort of scenario plenty of times, and that it's usually a lot easier to
swallow your pride and humor your partner, rather than die on your hill like a
child throwing a tantrum over not wanting to go to the doctor's office.

~~~
sebmellen
This is a very healthy perspective on relationships and I fear the nuance of
this view is often lost in discussions about relationships. I'm sure that if
you posted this on a Reddit relationship forum, you'd get responses telling
you that this is oppression or abuse, and you shouldn't put up with it.

Relationships are all based on compromise, and the art of compromise is really
what makes a relationship. I love the story you tell of your mother saying
"Would you just humor me and do it?". My father did the same.

~~~
markc
>Relationships are all based on compromise

Yes, and I assume this is implied, but compromise must strike an acceptable
_balance_. When things get too one-sided it's generally a recipe for trouble.

A good rule of thumb is for _both_ partners to estimate their contributions or
compromises to be 60+% of the total, and then there's some chance that it'll
be fair (i.e. most people over-estimate their contribution/sacrifice)

I think a lot of relationship issues result from a struggle over
balance/fairness because they aren't sufficiently dedicated to the others'
interests and well-being.

------
zubspace
One of the best things I learned from my wife: Never go to bed angry. If we
have an issue, we talk it through until we find an agreement. It's actually
harder than it sounds.

The worst thing you can do is not talking about something or avoiding the
topic. I think mutual understanding is one of the cornerstones of a healthy
relationship.

~~~
floatingatoll
Never go to bed without negotiating a ceasefire.

Agreeing that the anger should not disrupt human contact and safety is
absolutely essential, and does not require resolving the anger itself. It is
certainly easier to _successfully_ resolve anger and conclude the topic than
to being asked to set aside anger for the evening. However, resolving anger
when tired, stressed out, after a long day for one or both of you, and maybe
hungry — at significant personal cost to one or both of you — is not a
success. It does not create a space of safety for future arguments, and it
implies that anger is a higher priority than the human being(s) feeling it.

The ceasefire specifically does _not_ include any form of warfare between when
the agreement is made and the next day. No passive-aggressiveness, no sniping,
no laying verbal traps. No silent punishment. No withholding platonic touch
because "they don't deserve a hug". If they attempt to start something, let it
slide. If you attempt to start something, stop the instant you realize it and
apologize for breaking the ceasefire.

You don't have to hide the signs of your anger. You don't have to make them
feel better. You don't have to do everything they ask out of guilt. But you
_must_ continue to be their partner, and sustain the foundation of your
relationship, by offering them safety overnight.

Note: This applies _exclusively_ to non-abusive anger. If you feel like you're
being verbally, emotionally, or physically abused, whether anger is involved
or not, please seek immediate support from a hotline, a friend, a
professional, anyone. If you can get out, do so. Possessions can always be
replaced.

(Standard disclaimer, I am not your medical professional.)

~~~
ashildr
__ceasefire __Thank you for finding a better word for “not angry” and for
writing down the idea behind it. It’s the conscious, mutual decision to solve
the problem later, knowing that sleeping safely together as a couple is more
important.

------
blaufast
The Science of Trust by John Gottmann is a great read if you are interested in
this. Unlike most behavioral health, they use actual science and math to
describe and dissect behaviors and outcomes

------
rconti
I've not sure I've ever really argued with my wife, even though we've had
difference of opinion on things. I haven't really seen my parents argue, or
her parents argue.

I don't really get why people seek out conflict and blame. It just seems
unhealthy all around. Some people thrive on conflict, though. They like to
argue. They like to blame, to engage. Or at least, they NEED to, even if they
don't like it. Or maybe one partner seeks out conflict, and the other one
hates it.

But, ultimately, I think arguing is a choice.

One could argue that partnering young leads to more issues because it doesn't
allow you to form an individual identity. On the other hand, it could
strengthen your bond because your identities were built together. Partnering
late in life, when you don't "need" each other leads to less dependency; but
it could also lead to the partners finding it just as easy to get rid of each
other.

~~~
eloff
I find most of the time when couples say they don't argue, the real reason is
one is a doormat that let's the other get their way all the time. There's not
much to argue about in that case. I don't want to say that's the case with
you, as I know nothing of your marriage. It's just an observation.

~~~
cecilpl2
That's what my first marriage was like. I told myself it was a great
relationship because we never argued, but really I just deferred to her on
every decision and went out of my way to avoid any conflict.

~~~
eloff
I'm glad to hear the qualifier "first" used in that case. Hope things are
better for you now.

------
thom
This appears to be a study of common patterns of argument in two samples of
self-reportedly happy couples. The kind of happy couples that volunteer for
these sorts of studies, presumably. It’s all very nice but I’m not sure it
tells us much, not least because every unhappy couple I know behaves in these
ways too.

------
yters
i have found most things i have gotten very angry at my wife over and we've
had big arguments over, i cannot remember a week or two later. was it worth a
big relationship damaging outburst, vs waiting a bit to cool off, talk it over
later? i am not sure. maybe felt good at the time to get it out, but peaceful
discussion with cooler heads and empathy is the only thing that results in
lasting change

~~~
gonzo41
Yeah i find the best way to ramp down is to eat some food. Usually I'm only
angry because I'm actually hungry. It's the same for my wife.

~~~
CarbyAu
We call it Hangry.

Assuredly the word came from somewhere else, we lay no claim to it.

------
loopz
For unhappy couples, there might be more differences and stronger opinions
remaining unresolved. So could be different from individual to individual, and
for different couples and environments. Some couples are a good fit, and
others might never reconcile their differences. Most long-lasting couples go
through a phase of rejection and reconciliation.

------
negina
Non-jealous, compromising people tend to have longer and happier marriages?
Sounds about right.

------
justinpw
I suppose in order to learn how to love, it would be begging the question to
scatter that word throughout the article. I wish it would have been mentioned
at least once, though.

------
paul7986
My partner of 11

------
viburnum
Couples are happy when they’re attracted to each other. Arguments turn bad is
when the attraction is gone. Nobody wants to say “I’m not attracted to you
anymore” so they fight dirty instead.

~~~
neonate
That view seems limited. Many relationships, especially longer ones, allow for
both attraction and arguments.

~~~
viburnum
No, what’s limited is assuming argument style is the input and relationship
happiness is the output.

~~~
mcphage
I think you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The article
isn't claiming that this argument style leads to happiness (ie, that it is
_sufficient_ ), merely that other argument styles lead to unhappiness (ie,
that it is _necessary_ ). But plenty of other things can go wrong along the
way; just because you argue correctly doesn't mean you will have a happy
relationship.

(Of course, whether or not it is actually necessary is open for debate.)

------
tunesmith
I wonder if this is a language confusion. An argument is using reasoning to
move from premises to conclusion. People regularly have to argue together to
work together, because things change over time and we have to adjust to the
changes. But the other sense of argument is that one person has one
conclusion, and the other person has a different conclusion, and they are
battling about it and are upset about it. That's the sort of thing that can be
entirely avoided if people start with shared premises and argue "together". I
think there are a lot of happy couples that actually never argue in the
battling/upset sense.

~~~
jerf
"An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to conclusion."

Dictionary definition discussions are weak at the best of times, but they're
_super_ weak when the definition you're choosing for the word isn't even the
most common one, whereas the article clearly is using the most common one, and
is perfectly correct in that usage. We all know that's not the definition in
question.

~~~
tunesmith
I'm sort of surprised by both the replies to my comment so far, because I
think it's the article itself that conflates the two definitions. When the
quote is, "Happy couples tend to take a solution-oriented approach to
conflict, and this is clear even in the topics that they choose to discuss"
that's clearly pointing to the more academic definition of "argument" and not
the "upset about opposing points of view" definition. If two people are taking
a solution-oriented approach regarding a conflict they are choosing to
discuss, would you normally describe them as "arguing" in the emotional sense?

I'd also disagree that one is significantly more common than the other, when
the phrase "making an argument" is so commonly understood.

~~~
arcticfox
I'd be shocked to find more than 1 in 1000 English speakers to interpret an
couple arguing as anything other than

> 1) an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry
> one.

As opposed to a definition common in other contexts, eg academic, legal,
political, like

> 2) a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that
> an action or idea is right or wrong.

~~~
tunesmith
Would 999 out of 1000 people describe "taking a solution-oriented approach to
conflict" as a heated exchange of diverging or opposite views?

It's probably just a sloppy article - the paper's abstract doesn't describe
that behavior as "arguing". In fact, the string "arg" doesn't show up on the
study's page at all:

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335327845_What_are_...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335327845_What_are_the_Marital_Problems_of_Happy_Couples_A_Multimethod_Two-
Sample_Investigation)

