resolving conflict in long-term relationship where each person is 100% sure they're right

[QueechoFeecho]

So in the middle (somewhere between 70 minutes and 82 minutes through) of Podcast 1751, there is a part where the caller and Stefan are discussing the considerations one might use when choosing a romantic partner. Stef articulates that there would be different considerations for a short-term partner vs a long-term partner. Some examples below (some directly from the podcast, some are from my own thinking)...

 

Short-term:

a) physical attractiveness

b) spontaneity

c) is there a "spark" or "chemistry"? - sorry that is nebulous but most will generally know what that means

d) sense of humor and wit

 

long-term:

1) how will they be when your back goes out and you have to lay down for a week while there is a toddler around?

2) how will they be when your best friend is sick and you want to spend time with the best friend?

3) how will they be when their own mother is sick?

4) how will they handle the stress if one or both of you lose your job(s)?

5) how will they act when they are woken up by your child for the fourth time in the middle of the night?

6) How will they act when they are wrong about something and they know it? Will they counterattack, dig in deeper, increase denial, etc?

 

 

Hopefully those two lists illustrate the differences sufficiently.

 

Now for my questions for discussion:

 

Q1-- In a long-term relationship, how do you best handle a conflict where there is disagreement, and both people are 100% sure they are right?

 

Q2-- How do you interpret the various general types of responses from the other person?

[shirgall]

If there is no chance of changing your mind, or your counterpart's mind, then you are not having an argument, you are just making speeches.

 

When negotiating or arguing, are you both looking for the interests and values that underlay positions or are you simply shoring up your defenses and discounting the other's statements?

 

Are you both looking for areas of mutual gain? Is it clear that no resolution is possible?

 

That "100% sure" is troubling in light of these principles.

[QueechoFeecho]

The 100% certainty could be derived from one or both of the people simply mis-remembering something.  So it could be a mistake on part of one or both of them.  (heck, it could be generalized to N people if we wanted, haha

 

So here is hypothetical:

Person A asks "Why didn't you do the dishes?"

Person B says with complete honesty: "Because I thought you said earlier you were going to wash the dishes."

Person A responds, again with complete honesty:  "No, I had asked you to do the dishes, and I thought you said you would."

 

So both people 100% believe their memory is what is correct, and further that their memory of the events is contradictory to the other person's memory of the events.

[shirgall]

Sure, that's why I was merely troubled and not adamant. Again, are people trying to unearth the truth or are they making speeches and not listening?

[QueechoFeecho]

I have seen it go both ways (trying to unearth the truth vs not listening), and I have also seen a third way, which I think is practical.  So I'll use a numbered list again to clearly delineate the different paths.

 

The conversation above happens, and it can one of the three following general paths:

a) not listening - This goes nowhere and tends to lead to increased frustration.  Both people feel ignored, and they both feel that the other person has more interest in being right (and proving the other wrong) than they do in any sort of resolution.

b) trying to unearth the truth - This is a good one where both try to replay the events as detailed as possible, hopefully leading to one of the person's memory getting jogged, where they say "Oh yeah I remember now, I DID say I would do the dishes.  I'm sorry I misremembered and aggravated you."

c) [the third way] deprioritize figuring out who was right and who was wrong, because it simply isn't important - In this situation, both people would say "I think my version of the story was right, however, since it must be true that at least one of us is wrong, and we are unlikely to be able ot figure that out, AND I value us having positive interactions far more than battling over who is right and who is wrong, let's just revisit the issue about the dishes and figure out who is going to do it.  Playing 'he said - she said' simply isn't productive."

[QueechoFeecho]

Any other thoughts?

[MMX2010]

This is too abstract to answer. 

 

If you were discussing a specific man, a specific woman, and a specific argument, that'd help a ton. 

[QueechoFeecho]

Could you use the example situation from post #3?

[MMX2010]

The 100% certainty could be derived from one or both of the people simply mis-remembering something.  So it could be a mistake on part of one or both of them.  (heck, it could be generalized to N people if we wanted, haha

 

So here is hypothetical:

Person A asks "Why didn't you do the dishes?"

Person B says with complete honesty: "Because I thought you said earlier you were going to wash the dishes."

Person A responds, again with complete honesty:  "No, I had asked you to do the dishes, and I thought you said you would."

 

So both people 100% believe their memory is what is correct, and further that their memory of the events is contradictory to the other person's memory of the events.

 

I could use this example, but it's boring.

 

One person has to take the lead and say, "Okay, we misunderstood each other.  Let's create a white-board to write down who needs to do which chores, on which days." 

[SamtheSinger]

Have you ever heard the expression "What you resist persists"? It's possible that by pushing back against the other person, you're ensuring that you get more conflict.

 

If you're in a stand off with someone, it possible that you're resisting receiving their communication. This can happen when we collapse being able to understand a persons position, with submitting to it. If you try to understand what is going on over there with the other person, you might be able to make some headway though. Try putting yourself in their shoes, so if you hear them say that they thought you were going to do the dishes, and you're standing there with a pile of unwashed dishes saying you won't wash them, they might be frustrated, or feeling lied to, or any number of things.

 

If you told them something like "Wow, I can see how that might be frustrating, what's that like for you?" It feels a little mechanical at first, but it provides some framework for you to start discussing your emotions on the matter, which are far more likely to be what you're arguing about in the first place. Once you get a dialogue started, it's important to remember that you don't have to disappear, or hide your emotions to understand the other person. It's also important to remember that regardless of how certain you are about being right, their experience is as real for them as yours is for you.

 

Sometimes, if you just let someone know that you hear them, and you understand how they feel, it will give them access to something new. Maybe you offer to split the work, or do the dishes together, who knows, but if you start opening up avenues for each person to have their emotions and their experience heard and validated the animosity and opposition usually dissipates.

 

Does that help?

[LovePrevails]

You would need to stop looking at the positions and shift focus to the interests of each people involved

 

what does each want to get out of "being right"

and is there another way that those needs can be met in the relationship cooperatively

 

if focus is moved from the other person to the problem that is between them then they can put their heads together to solve the problem and find new fortitude

 

it may be that each needs some understanding from the other on past hurts between them before they can move forwards

this can be done - simply in theory when you know how to do it, but usually more difficult in practice as each needs to put their short term comfort aside in pursuit of really understanding the other

[QueechoFeecho]

Lots of good stuff here, much thanks.

 

I agree that both people would ideally want to understand what the other wants.  And first, they need to know what they actually want!  That part isn't as easy as it seems.