Thank you for showing what you found to be beneath the surface of our relationship interactions.
And I always want to hear your view so I will ask a question!
I'd like to connect this to the topic of my last post (about taking triggers as our opportunity to connect with our true selves). You commented: "When someone says to me that they are completely disconnected from their true self, I ask them if they have ever been triggered. When you are triggered, it is your true self asking for protection. Instead of giving all of your energy to the protection, give it to connection with your true self instead."
Because this disconnection with our true self (the version of ourselves who know and stand in our value, in integrity, feeling capable and powerful to create their life vs. being stuck in fear and reactivity) shows in our interactions in romantic relationships - we trigger each other's vulnerable spots from the past where things haven't been resolved (I don't like using the word "wounds", do you have alternative ways to speak about it?), often probably not realising that it's happening and what to do with it to improve the quality of our relationship by growing ourselves.
I'm curious how you would link these five under-the-surface experiences in a relationship with what the person who is being triggered needs to work on and HOW you'd recommend doing that? Not just to fight well, but also to not create co-dependent relationships.
I know some tools but would love to hear how you approach it, given that it's your expertise!
Klara, I love this question so much, it is essentially the topic of the book I'm working on. I'll answer it in parts. I often find myself using the phrase "pain points" instead of wounds. Is that more palatable? It feels more helpful to me because you don't manage a wound, you heal it. But most of what we are doing in these moments of conflict in relationships is managing the pain points we brought into the relationship.
Here's a concept building on that concept: "When we manage our pain, we multiply our pain; when we feel our pain we become free from our pain." In this sense, a trigger is an opportunity to move in the direction of increasing freedom, but we respond by managing it and thus add new layers of suffering in ourselves and in the relationship.
These five questions core needs are very closely connected to our pain points. What we're saying is, if you can help me have this experience (feeling loved, prioritized, respected, empowered, or freed), I won't be in so much pain. The problem is that we rarely acknowledge these pain points or pain management projects. Vulnerability is starting to discuss them aloud.
Regarding the codependence piece, it's helpful to think of three modes of relationship: codependent, independent, and interdependent. In our closest relationships we want to aim for interdependent. In this mode, we might say something like, "I didn't cause your baggage, but I can help you carry it." Not carry it for you, but help.
Would you mind expanding on the difference between "managing pain" and "feeling pain"? What do we do in each of these cases? How do we multiply pain (by managing) and how do we free ourselves (by feeling)?
Sorry for the lack of clarity on that! It's live but not in person. I'll be back here in a few hours answering questions live so we can interact in the comments if you're available!
I’m curious if each person has a certain underlying need or needs trying to be met, similar to how we have “love languages”? I’ve been divorced/separated for 7 years and looking back I can see where the bulk of our arguments for me, despite the topic or words definitely would fall into two of your categories. I was trying to figure out what may have been beneath the surface for my ex. In really examining this list I would say I left because I never felt I was his top priority or that he respected or appreciated me. I still feel loved by him to this day and power and freedom were never issues for me.
Linda, by tapping into your own experience, you intuited something I believe to be true. It's been a long time since I dug into the data, but if memory serves, most participants had one clear top "need," and then a secondary need. Very few people had more than that. I love your awareness that he generally met one of your needs, but there were two others that were more important to you that were unsatisfied. I think it can be an important expansion of awareness to simply notice what is the one or two needs we're generally seeking to have met in our most intimate relationships. Where did these needs come from? How can we be vulnerable about these? Of course, then we get into the complexities of whose job it is, exactly, to meet those needs! 😊
I have more of a statement but I would like to ask what your professional thoughts might be as to whether my statement withstands professional rigor enough to be considered true.
I think freedom is misunderstood the most. I would say that true "autonomy" is not some wild frontier of limitless exploration of ones self but more of a connection to something grounded and stable that elevates ones finest characteristics and demonstrates the most self control. In Marriage I would equate autonomy to a measure of trust between people enough that the character and behavior of either individual is demonstrative of high value traits. Essentially autonomy should be for self enrichment rather than some form of self adulation and selfish interest which might lead to salacious or lascivious behavior.
Great conversation point, JC. The interesting thing about writing a dissertation is that you don't get to decide what autonomy is. You review all the literature about it in relationships, and you let the existing literature define it for you. I just dusted off my bound dissertation for the first time in years to see how we defined it based on the existing literature. Here's a quote:
"The autonomy theme represents the extent to which partners differ in the amount of desired distance in the relationship. This theme appears to commonly occur on two relationship dimensions: emotional and behavioral (Jacobson, 1989; Epstein et al., 1997). On the behavioral dimension, the autonomy theme is demonstrated by a desire for more time alone and fewer activities that nurture the couple's joint identity. On the emotional dimension, the autonomy theme is manifested as one spouse's desire for more emotional distance and fewer intimate interactions."
I think your reflections have to do more with how people USE their autonomy/space once they have it. Is it used for personal growth or in ways that ultimately don't serve the individual or the relationship. I just got back from a Front Row Dads retreat. That's autonomy. I used that time to become a better dad and husband. If my wife sees that happen, she will probably trust my judgment around my autonomy more. Theoretically. 😊
The "Do you love me?" question is an interesting one to play with. Until very recently, I would have been tempted to skip past that one. On the surface, it's just so obvious that a marriage requires love. But today, I can't help but be drawn into a more nuanced exploration.
Here's some of the questions that emerge out of that exploration for me.
How much do you love me?Just enough for you to feel OK inside?
And Do you at least love me to the full extent allowed by your own self love?
And wherever that puts us today, do you desire deeper love enough to explore where Love and Co-dependency might be tangled up?
That word LOVE is so overused we gloss over it and so loaded we barely know what to do with it, isn't it? In the coding manual, we operationalized it this way:
"The target spouse expresses their view about the level of love and/or intimacy in the relationship including the amount of warmth, affection, caring, responsiveness, openness, interest, or attraction. Implicitly, the theme may be reflected in complaints about the partner's lack of togetherness-seeking behavior and general concerns about the level of couple identity. More explicitly, this theme may include direct requests for physical closeness, physical affection, sexual contact, emotional openness, affirmation, and togetherness, or complaints about a deficiency in one or more of these areas. Spouses who are experiencing dissatisfaction in these areas may appear to feel rejected, unloved, unwanted, neglected, and disconnected from the partners."
The manual goes on to note that the most difficult themes to differentiate were Love and Commitment, and provides guidelines for doing so, saying Love themes show up as bids for quality of time whereas Commitment is bids for quantity of time. Another difference: do you like me versus are you planning to stay with me.
I'll see your questions and raise you a few questions. 😊
If you love me just enough for you to feel okay inside, is that love, or is it pleasure? And if love is about more than feeling okay in here, what is it about? Is it about making me feel okay in here? Probably not, because no one can do that for me. So, what does it mean to love well?
I think that love vs. codependency question is a really important one. Just riffing here: maybe love is seeing someone as clearly as you can, understanding them as deeply as you're able, and supporting them to become whoever they long to be. That feels relatively non-codependent. Thoughts?
This: "That word LOVE is so overused we gloss over it and so loaded we barely know what to do with it, isn't it?" + your last paragraph, Kelly. Your riffing as you call it.
Your definition from the last paragraph overlaps with how I feel about love in a relationship.
And I believe the thing with the word is that people use it to name a state of feeling toward another person from a place they're currently in, which may be with pain points. So they'll consider love and call love feelings and experiences that are a cocktail of emotions they experience as they experience the other through the pain points.
I hope I'm making myself clear with this attempt to find words!
I appreciate these questions, Kelly. What does it mean to love well? If two wounded people are together clamoring to get their needs met, does anyone feel truly loved? I think accepting ourselves more fully allows us to accept our partner more fully, which leads to more connectedness.
But I am also wondering if these two wounded people can move past deep ideological differences and truly connect in a way that is satisfying to each of them? In other words, they know and accept themselves and each other, but operate with a different set of values. Can a relationship ever thrive under such circumstances? Does every relationship need to thrive?
Your comment about pleasure lands. I think loving someone just enough to feel ok Inside might be better called pleasure in some circumstances. And it might, in other circumstances, be called survival.
And I also Love your comment that "maybe love is seeing someone as clearly as you can, understanding them as deeply as you're able, and supporting them to become whoever they long to become"....and Id add that it could also include accepting them as they are today..... I found this added "criteria" by turning inward to ask "how do I love myself"....and that last piece was had been the one that eluded me the longest!
Kelly, as a perpetual singleton, and a veteran of more than one toxic workplace, I tend to think about how these ideas carry over to that environment. I know that's not how you approached your research, but I'm curious to know what you think about those parallels. I have always found it frustrating in those situations to feel like I don't have the autonomy I need to do my job well, or the permission to stand up for myself the way I need to, for example, and in some cases, it hasn't felt like I matter at all.
It seems like respect for employee/employer, and commitment to each other's well-being, should go without saying, but it's so easy for them not to in that kind of hierarchical environment where everyone is concerned about CYA and what the people above them think.
I'm not really sure how to turn this into a specific quesiton, but if you have general thoughts, I'm all ears! :)
I think the principles probably apply to any important relationship and become more intense in the relationships that are closest to our sense of identity, so to the extent that work checks those boxes, it makes sense to me!
Thank you for showing what you found to be beneath the surface of our relationship interactions.
And I always want to hear your view so I will ask a question!
I'd like to connect this to the topic of my last post (about taking triggers as our opportunity to connect with our true selves). You commented: "When someone says to me that they are completely disconnected from their true self, I ask them if they have ever been triggered. When you are triggered, it is your true self asking for protection. Instead of giving all of your energy to the protection, give it to connection with your true self instead."
Because this disconnection with our true self (the version of ourselves who know and stand in our value, in integrity, feeling capable and powerful to create their life vs. being stuck in fear and reactivity) shows in our interactions in romantic relationships - we trigger each other's vulnerable spots from the past where things haven't been resolved (I don't like using the word "wounds", do you have alternative ways to speak about it?), often probably not realising that it's happening and what to do with it to improve the quality of our relationship by growing ourselves.
I'm curious how you would link these five under-the-surface experiences in a relationship with what the person who is being triggered needs to work on and HOW you'd recommend doing that? Not just to fight well, but also to not create co-dependent relationships.
I know some tools but would love to hear how you approach it, given that it's your expertise!
Klara, I love this question so much, it is essentially the topic of the book I'm working on. I'll answer it in parts. I often find myself using the phrase "pain points" instead of wounds. Is that more palatable? It feels more helpful to me because you don't manage a wound, you heal it. But most of what we are doing in these moments of conflict in relationships is managing the pain points we brought into the relationship.
Here's a concept building on that concept: "When we manage our pain, we multiply our pain; when we feel our pain we become free from our pain." In this sense, a trigger is an opportunity to move in the direction of increasing freedom, but we respond by managing it and thus add new layers of suffering in ourselves and in the relationship.
These five questions core needs are very closely connected to our pain points. What we're saying is, if you can help me have this experience (feeling loved, prioritized, respected, empowered, or freed), I won't be in so much pain. The problem is that we rarely acknowledge these pain points or pain management projects. Vulnerability is starting to discuss them aloud.
Regarding the codependence piece, it's helpful to think of three modes of relationship: codependent, independent, and interdependent. In our closest relationships we want to aim for interdependent. In this mode, we might say something like, "I didn't cause your baggage, but I can help you carry it." Not carry it for you, but help.
Would you mind expanding on the difference between "managing pain" and "feeling pain"? What do we do in each of these cases? How do we multiply pain (by managing) and how do we free ourselves (by feeling)?
THANK YOU!
Then it's a book I really look forward to. And "pain points" is palatable. Thank you.
How can I catch your live hour, please?
Sorry for the lack of clarity on that! It's live but not in person. I'll be back here in a few hours answering questions live so we can interact in the comments if you're available!
I see. Perfect!
I’m curious if each person has a certain underlying need or needs trying to be met, similar to how we have “love languages”? I’ve been divorced/separated for 7 years and looking back I can see where the bulk of our arguments for me, despite the topic or words definitely would fall into two of your categories. I was trying to figure out what may have been beneath the surface for my ex. In really examining this list I would say I left because I never felt I was his top priority or that he respected or appreciated me. I still feel loved by him to this day and power and freedom were never issues for me.
Linda, by tapping into your own experience, you intuited something I believe to be true. It's been a long time since I dug into the data, but if memory serves, most participants had one clear top "need," and then a secondary need. Very few people had more than that. I love your awareness that he generally met one of your needs, but there were two others that were more important to you that were unsatisfied. I think it can be an important expansion of awareness to simply notice what is the one or two needs we're generally seeking to have met in our most intimate relationships. Where did these needs come from? How can we be vulnerable about these? Of course, then we get into the complexities of whose job it is, exactly, to meet those needs! 😊
I have more of a statement but I would like to ask what your professional thoughts might be as to whether my statement withstands professional rigor enough to be considered true.
I think freedom is misunderstood the most. I would say that true "autonomy" is not some wild frontier of limitless exploration of ones self but more of a connection to something grounded and stable that elevates ones finest characteristics and demonstrates the most self control. In Marriage I would equate autonomy to a measure of trust between people enough that the character and behavior of either individual is demonstrative of high value traits. Essentially autonomy should be for self enrichment rather than some form of self adulation and selfish interest which might lead to salacious or lascivious behavior.
Great conversation point, JC. The interesting thing about writing a dissertation is that you don't get to decide what autonomy is. You review all the literature about it in relationships, and you let the existing literature define it for you. I just dusted off my bound dissertation for the first time in years to see how we defined it based on the existing literature. Here's a quote:
"The autonomy theme represents the extent to which partners differ in the amount of desired distance in the relationship. This theme appears to commonly occur on two relationship dimensions: emotional and behavioral (Jacobson, 1989; Epstein et al., 1997). On the behavioral dimension, the autonomy theme is demonstrated by a desire for more time alone and fewer activities that nurture the couple's joint identity. On the emotional dimension, the autonomy theme is manifested as one spouse's desire for more emotional distance and fewer intimate interactions."
I think your reflections have to do more with how people USE their autonomy/space once they have it. Is it used for personal growth or in ways that ultimately don't serve the individual or the relationship. I just got back from a Front Row Dads retreat. That's autonomy. I used that time to become a better dad and husband. If my wife sees that happen, she will probably trust my judgment around my autonomy more. Theoretically. 😊
Time apart doing stuff that does not nurture your "joint identity as a couple" sounds less than optimal to me.
The "Do you love me?" question is an interesting one to play with. Until very recently, I would have been tempted to skip past that one. On the surface, it's just so obvious that a marriage requires love. But today, I can't help but be drawn into a more nuanced exploration.
Here's some of the questions that emerge out of that exploration for me.
How much do you love me?Just enough for you to feel OK inside?
And Do you at least love me to the full extent allowed by your own self love?
And wherever that puts us today, do you desire deeper love enough to explore where Love and Co-dependency might be tangled up?
That word LOVE is so overused we gloss over it and so loaded we barely know what to do with it, isn't it? In the coding manual, we operationalized it this way:
"The target spouse expresses their view about the level of love and/or intimacy in the relationship including the amount of warmth, affection, caring, responsiveness, openness, interest, or attraction. Implicitly, the theme may be reflected in complaints about the partner's lack of togetherness-seeking behavior and general concerns about the level of couple identity. More explicitly, this theme may include direct requests for physical closeness, physical affection, sexual contact, emotional openness, affirmation, and togetherness, or complaints about a deficiency in one or more of these areas. Spouses who are experiencing dissatisfaction in these areas may appear to feel rejected, unloved, unwanted, neglected, and disconnected from the partners."
The manual goes on to note that the most difficult themes to differentiate were Love and Commitment, and provides guidelines for doing so, saying Love themes show up as bids for quality of time whereas Commitment is bids for quantity of time. Another difference: do you like me versus are you planning to stay with me.
What a blast from the past to read through that!
I'll see your questions and raise you a few questions. 😊
If you love me just enough for you to feel okay inside, is that love, or is it pleasure? And if love is about more than feeling okay in here, what is it about? Is it about making me feel okay in here? Probably not, because no one can do that for me. So, what does it mean to love well?
I think that love vs. codependency question is a really important one. Just riffing here: maybe love is seeing someone as clearly as you can, understanding them as deeply as you're able, and supporting them to become whoever they long to be. That feels relatively non-codependent. Thoughts?
This topic is moving thoughts.
This: "That word LOVE is so overused we gloss over it and so loaded we barely know what to do with it, isn't it?" + your last paragraph, Kelly. Your riffing as you call it.
Your definition from the last paragraph overlaps with how I feel about love in a relationship.
And I believe the thing with the word is that people use it to name a state of feeling toward another person from a place they're currently in, which may be with pain points. So they'll consider love and call love feelings and experiences that are a cocktail of emotions they experience as they experience the other through the pain points.
I hope I'm making myself clear with this attempt to find words!
I appreciate these questions, Kelly. What does it mean to love well? If two wounded people are together clamoring to get their needs met, does anyone feel truly loved? I think accepting ourselves more fully allows us to accept our partner more fully, which leads to more connectedness.
But I am also wondering if these two wounded people can move past deep ideological differences and truly connect in a way that is satisfying to each of them? In other words, they know and accept themselves and each other, but operate with a different set of values. Can a relationship ever thrive under such circumstances? Does every relationship need to thrive?
Asking for a friend.
(It’s me. I’m the friend. 🤓)
I love this!!! Thank you!
Your comment about pleasure lands. I think loving someone just enough to feel ok Inside might be better called pleasure in some circumstances. And it might, in other circumstances, be called survival.
And I also Love your comment that "maybe love is seeing someone as clearly as you can, understanding them as deeply as you're able, and supporting them to become whoever they long to become"....and Id add that it could also include accepting them as they are today..... I found this added "criteria" by turning inward to ask "how do I love myself"....and that last piece was had been the one that eluded me the longest!
Kelly, as a perpetual singleton, and a veteran of more than one toxic workplace, I tend to think about how these ideas carry over to that environment. I know that's not how you approached your research, but I'm curious to know what you think about those parallels. I have always found it frustrating in those situations to feel like I don't have the autonomy I need to do my job well, or the permission to stand up for myself the way I need to, for example, and in some cases, it hasn't felt like I matter at all.
It seems like respect for employee/employer, and commitment to each other's well-being, should go without saying, but it's so easy for them not to in that kind of hierarchical environment where everyone is concerned about CYA and what the people above them think.
I'm not really sure how to turn this into a specific quesiton, but if you have general thoughts, I'm all ears! :)
I think the principles probably apply to any important relationship and become more intense in the relationships that are closest to our sense of identity, so to the extent that work checks those boxes, it makes sense to me!
I love this! I hope you do publish it some day!!!
Maybe in a book, but the days of academic journals are behind me!