Good Life Project - How to Stop Fighting And Start Talking (and Healing) | Stan Tatkin

Episode Date: May 29, 2023

We want to hear from YOU! Take our survey.Conflicts are inevitable in long-term relationships. But often we argue in ways that push our partners away instead of resolving issues.Dr. Stan Tatkin, a marriage and family therapist who has spent decades working with couples and training practitioners to improve communication in relationships believes there is a better way for partners to weather conflicts and emerge closer. His new book, In Each Other’s Care: A Guide to the Most Common Relationship Conflicts and How to Work Through Them offers strategies grounded in neurobiology and years of clinical experience.When disagreements arise, primal instincts trigger 'fight or flight', making us defend ourselves instead of understanding each other. But with awareness and new strategies, partners can shift this dynamic. As Stan says, we can learn to "work problems, not each other", regulate emotions, consider interests equally, and prioritize the relationship.We'll discuss Dr. Tatkin's approach for navigating conflicts productively. His insights may save your next argument and reveal how you can grow closer through challenges together.You can find Stan at: Website | InstagramIf you LOVED this episode you’ll also love the conversations we had with Julie and John Gottman about deepening long-term relationships.Check out our offerings & partners: My New Book SparkedMy New Podcast SPARKED. To submit your “moment & question” for consideration to be on the show go to sparketype.com/submit. Visit Our Sponsor Page For Great Resources & Discount Codes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When it comes to a purpose-centered life, it has to be void of whether we feel like it or not. So you and I decide we're going to be loving and affectionate every day, throughout every day. That's what we want. But the question that people stumble on, do we do this even if we're mad at each other? And the answer has to be yes. Do we do it if we hate each other? The answer has to be yes. Do we do it if we hate each other? The answer has to be yes. In all cases, it must be done because it serves a purpose. And I believe that that's a good life. That is what protects good feelings to remain and flourish and keeps negative feelings from growing.

The way we feel about each other has a great deal to do with whether we're doing what we say we're going to do and whether we're co-creating something that is worth this unit, right? What are we getting out of it? It's not just for love. So have you ever found yourself in the middle of a disagreement, an argument with your partner, but felt like you were speaking two different languages. How does a seemingly small disagreement so quickly spiral into hurt feelings, misunderstanding, and defensiveness? Turns out conflict on some level is inevitable in every long-term relationship. But so often we argue in ways that push our partners further away instead of resolving the original issue and coming closer together. So my guest today believes there

is a better way, a way for partners to weather conflict and actually emerge closer and more connected than before. Dr. Stan Tatkin is a marriage and family therapist who has spent decades working with couples and training practitioners around the world to improve communication in relationships. His new book, In Each Other's Care, a guide to the most common relationship conflicts and how to work through them, it offers strategies grounded in neurobiology and years of clinical experience. our own positions rather than understanding each other's perspectives or finding compromise. But with foresight and self-awareness and a new set of interpersonal strategies that he really explores deeply, partners can shift out of this unproductive dynamic. They can learn to calmly work the problem, not each other, as he describes, regulating each other's emotional states, considering each other's interests equally, and prioritizing the well-being of their relationship above all else.

And today we discuss with Stan really an approach for navigating common relationship conflicts productively. His insights just might save your next argument from turning into irreconcilable differences and instead reveal how much closer you can become through facing challenges together in the right way. So excited to share this conversation with you. I'm Jonathan Fields, and this is Good Life Project. The Apple Watch Series 10 is here. It has the biggest display ever. It's also the thinnest Apple Watch ever, making it even more comfortable on your wrist,

whether you're running, swimming, or sleeping. And it's the fastest-charging Apple Watch, getting you 8 hours of charge in just 15 minutes. The Apple Watch Series X. Available for the first time in glossy jet black aluminum. Compared to previous generations, iPhone Xs are later required. Charge time and actual jet black aluminum. Compared to previous generations, iPhone XS or later required. Charge time and actual results will vary.

Mayday, mayday. We've been compromised. The pilot's a hitman. I knew you were going to be fun. On January 24th. Tell me how to fly this thing. Mark Wahlberg. You know what the difference between me and you is? You're going to die.

Don't shoot him, we need him. Y'all need a pilot. Flight risk. Stan Tadkin, last time you and I were hanging out, it was a chunk of years ago. We were in our studio in New York City. The world has changed in so many ways. And I'm fascinated because of the work that you do and have been doing for decades, not just going deep with couples in a therapeutic setting, a clinical setting, in a workshop setting, but also training some of the leading practitioners who go out there with methodology that you're developing. You're on the inside looking at the state of relationships, long-term relationships, couples, partners, and you have been through this last three years of what I can only imagine is relationship dystopia. Before we dive into some of the new topics you've been exploring, I'd love to zoom the lens out and just get your take on the state of coupledom and what the last

three years have been like in that domain. And still is affecting people. During the beginning part of COVID, people sorted out fairly quickly. Those who didn't get along, many of them also didn't get along during COVID and they broke up. Others got together during COVID and are still together. Still others who thought they weren't good, but found out they loved the idea of being together and quarantined. Tracy and I have been a good couple all along, and we loved that period. We didn't love the existential threat. We didn't love what was going on in our government and in our culture, but we loved not traveling. A lot of people, I think, discovered how busy they were and how much they were doing that was maybe unnecessary. And so until we stopped doing something, do we notice what we've been doing? Others still had nightmare situations with young

children where they were stuck at home without being able to be with family and friends and having to homeschool. Still harder is having young children and teenagers, where teenagers are not wanting to abide by masking and all sorts of other stuff. And so that was a challenge for a lot of people. People weren't having sex on the whole. This was pretty much around the world. Nobody having children. Now that the crisis is seemingly over, people are having sex and having children. I think this kind of thing reminds people that danger and existential threat has always been there. But we're pretty much asleep when it comes to,

you know, how cushy our lives are here and how safe we feel most of the time. And I think it was a reminder that life has dangers. And some of them involve people, a lot of them involve nature, like climate change or viruses. And I think this was also unique in that several things were happening, at least here, not just a virus that we didn't know how long it would be around and whether it would kill us all, but also tensions between people, the otherism that is parcel of the human primate. It's part of our DNA to otherize that we do that, have always done that, and we'll always do that. Political parties with gender discrimination, sex, color, religion, even just a neighbor. We otherize our partners. They're not agreeable, or they don't seem like they're enough on the same page with us, right? That seemed to be very out front and center, the tribalism, the hatred, the divisions and family and friends

politically and with regard to vaccinations and masking. I mean, that was also quite scary. And then global warming coming home and really showing us all that it is in fact real. And that's the gift that keeps on giving even today, along with the Ukrainian war and the reemergence of nuclear threat. This is a tough time, an interesting time, good things happening and things that are very frightening. So I think we have a more fearful population since COVID. That's my take on it.

And in my practice, in most people's practice, medicine and psychiatry and psychology, after the crisis seemed to abate, that with their practice and having to limit their practice. A lot of people have retired because of the stress of this couple, it's almost like that would have to be in some extent, the ultimate cauldron. It's sort of like, you know, it's going to test everything. It's going to test every stress point, every bond, and probably, and you can tell me this, but from the outside looking in, it would seem like anything that existed before that was sort of like just under the surface would become amplified and would break through. And that's probably on like really good and really bad. You know, some people on an attachment level in the people that I consider in the distancing group of insecure attachment, distancing group, and then there's the clinging group in the insecure

attachment. People in the clinging group, if they were with other people who liked that and or were secure, I think did well. People in the distancing group, not so much. Many of them were fine until I think they realized that they were able to manage by having their workspace to go to, or some people were traveling a lot for business. And when that was taken away, that created a big, big problem, which they figured was their partner, not the fact that they have an issue in general with engulfment and a lack of freedom to move and to get away. So there was that.

But I think there's something about crises from the outside that tend to, like I said, focus people on what's important, right? What's really important or it doesn't, right? What's really important or it doesn't, right? It's either going to do that and people learn and they do better and they consolidate their relationship. And so all the things that are going on around them is made easier because they're comfort for each other, right? They can commiserate. They're sort of in their bubble right for other people it certainly made people decide what they wanted and what they didn't want and again i think because it focuses on what's important to somebody yeah you use this phrase and i know this is sort of a central part of your work um secure functioning and i think a lot of people have heard about

attachment or secure attachment in the past but before before we dive in, because I know this is such a core part of your modality, talk to me about what we're actually talking about when you use the phrase secure functioning. Secure functioning is not the same as secure attachment, which is a biology or a psychobiology, an orientation that's based around one's perception or felt sense of safety and security with another upon whom they depend. So it's very specific. Secure functioning is more along the lines of social contract theory, is about how do unions in a free society based on elective union formation or alliances come together and last a long time without infighting, without accruing a lot of resentment and bad feelings with people fleeing or doing worse. And so the same thing would go for a couple system or a family that goes with other unions that are elective. And that is you and I come together, not based on love or emotion, but based

on attraction to a mission or a purpose that we share and a vision that we share. I want to join and get on board with this because I want what you want or you've sold me. And that flattens us out in terms of our differences. Our differences are no longer an issue because we're the same. We agree in what we want and what we don't want and where we're, and our purpose. And then we come up with how we're going to govern so that we protect ourselves from each other, because we're human primates, meaning we're basically unreliable and given to do selfish, self-centered things. We're given to being aggressive. If we're threatened, we're given to be fickle and moody and opportunistic and easily changeable and influenceable by groups. And we're xenophobic,

racist. And so what could possibly go wrong, right? So we'd have to civilize this union and make it something that is felt to be fair, just, and sensitive. Otherwise, we'll fight, we'll steal, we'll do things because we feel entitled to because we're treated unfairly. So in a couple, secure functioning means a two-person psychological system of we and us that operates as a team, still definitely autonomous, two different people, but interdependent in the sense that if it was you and I, we have the same things to gain and the same things to lose, which make us accountable for the things that we share. If I do something that screws you, I'm going to be screwed back.

I'm just screwing myself, right? There's no way I can do that without hurting myself in return. What I do to you affects you and is going to affect me back. Therefore, the rules are different and the thinking is different, I have to consider you at all times at the same time as I consider myself or I start a fight. I will threaten you with that and you will be compelled to do the same thing and then we'll square off and we'll be adversarial and rinse and repeat. And that starts to get very bad. I mean, it's interesting, right? Because as you're describing secure functioning,

one part I'm nodding along. Two questions pop into my head as you're walking me through it. One, it sounds like the fundamental idea, the concept itself is based on a set of assumptions. One of those assumptions being that people are fundamentally selfish, not selfless, and that you were kind of like tipped more towards bad nature than good nature. Even I think just the first one, a lot of people would probably be like, but no, that's not the nature of humanity. But I think your argument, well, if you actually look at the history and the biology, like history tells a different story, even if you want to believe the opposite. And today, we look at ourselves today, all you have to do is look around. Or just consider your young child, your two-year-old.

Your two-year-old is the off-the-factory line human primate. We're animals. We are also angels. It's not just devils, but to civilization, religion, systems of groupings where people are forced together or have to protect each other against the outside forces. Understand that we plan for our devils, not our angels, because that's what ruins relationships. That's what ruins unions is not bad actors, but just the human condition. The human condition is such that you and I are interdependent and we want the same things, but we're totally different people.

And we have a different perception and different history and a different family culture. You are a nice guy, but I start to get irritated with you. I start to take your facial expression at certain times as judgy or critical because of my memory. You look like you remind me and I remember and therefore it is. So I start to find you threatening. Now you don't believe you're threatening. And if you're the average human being, you're not going to apologize for something you don't think you did. And yet you not doing that increases my threat. And so now I'm going to start to anticipate this because our survival system is indiscriminate. It's based on pattern recognition and it's lightning fast. I am going to make accommodations in my adaptation to your lack of apology and repair.

And I'm going to protect myself, which is going to appear threatening to you. We're not doing it purposely, but we're doing it automatically because we're human beings without any greater idea of how to deal with each other as two separate human beings who are bound to irritate, annoy, and threaten each other inadvertently. If we're not prepared for that, we're going to do what all human beings have done. And we'll go to war and we'll sue each other. We'll break up, we'll do something because the way we're operating is just too unfair

and too insensitive to last. And yet there's no fault there because we're just acting automatically by memory and responding and reacting as anybody would if they didn't know better. Yeah. I mean, these are scripts that are running in the background, like they're governing our behavior and, but we have, we don't have a conscious awareness of the fact that we're doing it, nor that, that there's any sense of like, I might actually, it might make sense for me to question what I'm feeling

before I actually translate that into a decision or an action. Mark Wahlberg. You know what the difference between me and you is? You're going to die. Don't shoot him. We need him. Y'all need a pilot. Flight Risk. The Apple Watch Series 10 is here. It has the biggest display ever. It's also the thinnest Apple Watch ever, making it even more comfortable on your wrist, whether you're running, swimming, or sleeping. And it's the fastest-charging Apple Watch,

getting you 8 hours of charge in just 15 minutes. The Apple Watch, getting you eight hours of charge in just 15 minutes. The Apple Watch Series X, available for the first time in glossy jet black aluminum. Compared to previous generations, iPhone XS or later required, charge time and actual results will vary. The other thing that popped into my head as you're describing secure functioning is, you know, there's a sort of like a spiritual approach to humanity, which says, I am you, you and me, like we are all one fabric. We are all one humanity. We are. So because of that, you know, we're, we're a giant super organism, however you want to describe it. You know, I cannot cause pain to you without simultaneously causing to me if I assume oneness as the foundation. And what you're describing in secure functioning sounds both similar, but also different because

what it sounds like you're saying is, no, I'm actually acknowledging that you are a very different person, but together we form our own like two person or three person super organism. And that dynamic then basically makes it so that there's literally nothing either one of us can do that will not affect the other. I'm in total agreement with the bigger idea. However, unfortunately, that part of our brain that comes up with the bigger idea isn't online when our heart rates and blood pressure goes up into thought of as a hypothalamic state of fight or flight. Once that happens, there's a significant state change and brain change, and I'm no longer available to that idea. I am fully automatic, like I said, using pattern recognition,

which is lightning fast, and my survival instinct kicks in. And I am literally unable to error correct because those error correcting parts of the brain and inhibiting parts of the brain require a lot of oxygen to run. And as soon as my heart rate goes up, my blood and glucose are going to striated muscles, other areas of the body in preparation to run or fight. So this is the human condition. How do you keep me safe enough for us to talk under stress or in distress without confusing each other as the enemy, which is very easy to do because we're dealing not with a higher level of thinking that's not available anymore. We're dealing with automation. We're

dealing with an instinct, with an impulse that no longer cares about the relationship, no longer cares about whether I hurt you. I care only about my self-interest. I mean, we know when there's just even a little bit of glucocorticoids floating around in the brain, which is a stress neurotransmitter, but a stress hormone when it gets into the blood, we lose compassion. We lose interest in the other person's interest. We don't think about crossing the aisle. You can't influence me. I become more congealed. And that's a function of my brain and the autonomic nervous system.

What I can do is if we consider that we have principles by which we must abide, we're not going to be able to guarantee we control our impulses, but we can fix it, repair it as soon as possible. Even almost to me, I'm sorry, I yelled at you, that was wrong. Thereby disconnecting the threat system for you, returning you to safety, which is a skill that I must have. And then I can influence you again, but I cannot, and you cannot influence me if we're the least threatened. That's the problem that we have to face and we have to learn. And the other thing is because of our othering tendencies, it's low hanging fruit for us to look, especially in a love relationship, where we are different and where we disagree. I can't tell you how much I hear that complaint and I just want to go like, yes, and the sky is blue.

So what? Yes, you're different. The idea here that's a higher notion is that if we're a two-person system, a team, and we both are sharing a vision and purpose and so on, the higher moral reasoning then is for us to find where we are the same and where we agree. That's what consensus makers have known, right? I look to, okay, you want oranges, I want apples, and we fight over that. But do we both want fruit? Yes. Good. So I move up a level, we move up a level to something bigger where we do agree, and then we move it down. It can be arranged where you have apples and I have oranges or whatever it is. No problem, as you wish, but we both are the same and agree that we want. That takes a higher level of not only patience, but also a higher social, emotional, and cognitive level of moral reasoning. You and I have to find where we agree and where we're the same, or we cannot get anything done. We cannot raise our children properly. We can't be healthy

and happy. We can't solve problems and we can't create anything new. It's a must. And people have figured this out since the beginning of human civilization. They had to. So when somebody says to you, love conquers all bullshit, people do a lot of terrible things in the name of love murder. And so emotions have to be supervised by coming up ahead of time with a structure, an architecture that you and I agree upon. You and I are responsible for the build of this shared mythology called a relationship. There is no such thing. It's an abstraction. It's in our heads. Therefore, we better be on the same page with our image or

fantasy about what our relationship is. And we have to build the house. We have to build the structure so that we know what our culture is. We're co-creating a culture from scratch, which is our relationship ethics, right? Which is how we're going to do business, the rules of engagement. That's a two-person process project. We have to do that or we will get into trouble, right? If we don't know where the boundaries are of our limits as two free humans, we can only be as free as we don't harm the other person, right? Because we live together. So the structure is very important. It's co-created and that is what protects feelings. That is what enables good feelings to emerge. Earned love, which is different than the kind of love that we mostly talk about, which kind

of comes and goes, like weather. Earned love is something we're doing daily because we're adhering to our agreements. We're cooperating with each other. We're collaborating with each other, we're collaborating with each other, we're earning a value because we're doing oftentimes the right thing when it's the hardest to do, right? We're doing the best thing that we decided is the best thing, even if we didn't feel like it. So when it comes to a purpose-centered life, it has to be void of whether we feel like it or not. Otherwise, we're back to the Wild West and chaos. So you and I decide we're going to be loving and affectionate

every day, throughout every day, right? That's what we want. The way you want your affection is different than the way I want. Fine, that can be arranged. But the question that people stumble on, do we do this even if we're mad at each other? And the answer has to be yes. Do we do it if we hate each other? The answer has to be yes. In all cases, it must be done because it serves a purpose. And I believe that that's a good life. That is what protects good feelings to remain and flourish and keeps negative feelings from growing, which happens if the opposite is true.

So that's where I put feelings, that we have to be smart and understand that our state of mind and the way we feel about each other has a great deal to do with whether we're doing what we say we're going to do and whether we're co-creating something that is worth this unit, right? What are we getting out of it? It's not just for love. Yeah. I mean, that makes sense to me. When you think about sort of like stepping into a relationship with this structure and this set of agreements and commitments, because as you described, we're human and we have these scripts and patterns being identified that are subconscious and just literally cause psychological and physiological changes without us controlling or intending it. You know, the threat is a big thing that can rise very easily. Conflict happens.

Even with the best intentions, even with us in agreement about what we want and how we choose to behave and how we want to show up, things happen in relationships. It's interesting because this is really, you know, this is a focus of your latest book. These are the things that are, you know, what do people complain about, but also like what's underneath that? Like what's the conflict that leads them to complain? And in the context of relationships, like what do we do about it? And I'd love to walk through some of those because some of these are going to be patterns that are stunningly, you know, like recent and present in the lives of a lot of our listeners, even who consider themselves to have good relationships, to be like good, loving people, to be committed

and in it together, things come up. So let's walk through the bigger ones, explore what they are, why they come up and maybe some ideas about like how to handle these moments. And of all of the different ones that you have sort of like a laundry list of yes i do yes it's like the best hits in your latest book the one that occurs to me it's it's got to be one of if not the biggest one is is money and it's also like the thing that you know one of the things that people often never really have conversations about even before they're choosing to be in a in a committed relationship. What comes up around money? What's the big complaint that you tend to see and what's underneath that? Well, first, if I might explain what I have come to as the two major things, reasons that we don't

get along over the long run, right? Because I'm interested in longevity and happiness, not just one or the other. The first one is what I already said, the lack of co-creating a structure and a new culture that is based on our wants, that it's not based on our family, it's not based on our religion, it's not based on our country. It's based on you and I. What do we want? What is right and what is good? What is right and what is good? Those are very important decisions to make. And then we have to agree on it.

That's number one. If people don't have it and most couples don't, they're going to have big trouble. If they're naturals, like a lot of people are, they get along for a long time until there's significant load that is beyond what they've had to deal with. They can only go so far as naturals without having a structure to rely on when they are too stressed, too overwhelmed. That is when the wheels come off. So structure is really important. The second one, and it's just as big, is the manner in which you and I interact when one or both of us is under stress. That is the ghost in the machine. It never is the topic. So money, time, messiness, kids, and sex, five that I find are the threat system, is the manner in which we engage every time when one or both of us is under stress. That is the real killer. Because if we're not

thinking as a two-person psychological system, we will revert to one person thinking of me, my, I, and you, you, you. And that's war. You just have to understand that. As soon as we do that, that's the very definition of how we go to war. So this has to be learned. We don't do it naturally because stress, again, has a physiology to it that changes our state. So I just wanted to put that out there. Money. So before we dive into money, I think what you just talked about, I want to actually

deconstruct it a little bit more because it sounds like what you're really talking about here is certainly the rules of engagement. Like this is, okay, so when something is not right, what do we do? Where do we go? How do we step into this moment? And this is part of what you write about. And some of the ideas in each other's Care, I think I actually had a list of 10 different things. There were a couple of these rules of engagement that really popped out at me also that really resonate. One of them being work the problem, not each other.

Yes. Yes. As I'm reading this, I'm thinking to myself, hmm, I'm like scrolling the past. I'm like, huh, this is a simple word, simple idea. I'm nodding along, hmm, you know, I'm like scrolling the past. I'm like, huh, this is a simple word, simple idea. I'm nodding a lot. It makes complete sense. And how much do we default to the opposite of that? It's human. Everything in the book, everything I'm describing is human. It is across the board, all of us. It is not specific gender, sex, any differences that we see.

It is strictly human. And that is what we're all dealing with. That should level the field and keep us from beating ourselves up and each other because, you know, we're smart and, you know, we're brilliant in some areas or we're very stupid, but we think we're smart. And one of those is memory. And the other one is our ability to communicate. We think we're great, but we think we're smart. And one of those is memory. And the other one is our ability to communicate. We think we're great, but we're not. And perception, all of those are not what they seem. And yet we'll fight over those three. Stupid, actually, where there's no proof that

anybody is right. So that's another leveling of the field, right? The hubris of human beings to think that they're right and the other person's wrong. And so we have to build something in to take care of that, which has been there for a long time. It's called making amends or falling on one's sword for the relationship, not for the self. The self is buoyed and cared for by the relationship. So money, just going back to your thing, if it's okay. Yeah, let's do. If we break down the money problem, the first one is a lack of prior agreement and permission. So how are we going to set this thing up?

How are we going to set up shop? Do we pool our money together? Are we going to both be responsible for the winnings and the losses in this one pool? That's our money. Therefore, we're both minders and responsible for it. Or is it going to be separate? I have many people who claim that they have all the power because they make all the money. That's a good gig if you can get it, right? It's good to be king or queen, but that's inherently unfair and it's going to blow back. So people have to be very mindful to what they agree to ahead of time. Are we going to share all information freely so there are no secrets and there's nothing I could discover that I should have known? Yes or no? These are all

things that the part of our brain that no other mammal has, and that is to project into the future, to predict things, plan and prepare for them. And yet we don't use it. We rarely use it because we're lazy. We're inherently energy conserved. That's a biology issue. That's energy conservation. I do the least amount necessary, especially if I've automated you already. So this is an organizational issue. That's why people will fight over money because they've set up or they didn't clarify how they were going to use money to keep it fair and just or to keep the field level or not. But human beings cannot govern unless there's prior agreement and permission to do so. And we just don't think about that. In a dictatorship, you don't need

permission and agreement. In slavery, you don't need permission and agreement. But in a free union, absolutely everything has to be previously agreed upon with permission to enforce or fuck off. That's how we are, right? Who died and made you my boss or my father or my mother? So organizationally, how are people structuring this kind of stuff? And how much are they compromising because of the attachment system, which says, I can't quit you. That's another problem. It's a biological mandate. And it keeps us from doing the right thing many times because we're fearful of loss. And we confuse that with love. It isn't. It's an existential issue of survival. So there are a lot of forces that are against us in love relationships, not in business relationships that make us do foolish things and to kick the can down the road or just say yes when we mean no. Chickens come home to

roost downstream because these agreements or non-agreements are inherently unfair and unjust. So that's the first part with money. The second part is the manner in which you and I interact whenever there's a money issue. And if we're hostile and non-collaborative and non-cooperative and we're thinking as a one-person system, we're going to fight. Is the resolution to every complaint the same functionally? Or maybe from a process standpoint? Yes. It's humility. It's caring more about the relationship than the self, because the self is wrapped up in the goods that the relationship will provide and the self-esteem, its character, the ability to put off relief or pleasure for something better. But again,

we tend to under stress or more pleasure seeking and pain avoiding in a system that's relational. That may be good for me, but it's going to be bad for you. So the problem here is switching from pro-self to pro-relationship because we depend on each other for the goods and to keep bad things from happening. And so we have to work together, plan, predict each other, plan, make corrections based on the mistakes that we make without going back and litigating those issues. We simply put something in place for the next time, for the future, to stop bad things from happening and to make good things happen by agreement and permission to enforce. That is the only way we're going to do it. It's a much more mature, higher level of moral reasoning.

The Apple Watch Series 10 is here. It has the biggest display ever. It's also the thinnest Apple Watch ever, making it even more comfortable on your wrist, whether you're running, swimming, or sleeping. And it's the fastest-charging Apple Watch, getting you eight hours of charge in just 15 minutes. The Apple Watch Series 10.

Available for the first time in glossy jet black aluminum. Compared to previous generations, iPhone Xs are later required. Charge time and actual results will vary. So I want to bring this from the level of theory and principle to like, let's get granular. Like, let's just, let's use money as sort of like our case study here. Like somebody shows a couple shows up with you

and they're at odds and they're like, they're in it over like a money issue. And you, you've had the conversation about the container and the rules of engagement and, and you know, the fundamental principles you just shared and they're nodding along. Like they, we get, yes, that all makes sense to us. We get it. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. And still we go live. Right. Exactly. Like get granular here. Like, like talk to me about how this actually unfolds like in a way where you can lead to some kind of genuine resolution where both sides feel like, yeah,

I'm okay with this. So Tracy and I will talk about, cause we do have a shared pool and everything's transparent. We know everything about everything with each other, left and right hand know the same thing. That's a good safety issue. We have agreements about what we want to spend on, including what we want to do with our money going forward that we both want, like finally improve this house. We haven't touched it since we bought it, or travel. One of us gets concerned about too many packages coming to the house, too many Amazon packages or too many expenditures. We'll say something to each other. And because Tracy and I understand

this idea of collaboration and cooperation, and we do put it into action, it's a momentary discussion. It's not an argument or a fight because we both decided we're going to cooperate with each other. It doesn't matter whether she's not afraid about the finances. If I am afraid, she knows that she has to deal with it. If she's afraid, I know I have to deal with it. It's not like, well, that's you and that's me, but go to therapy, deal with it. It's your problem. No, her problem is my problem. If we look at this

correctly, my problem is her problem. And so we take the problem, make it into a third thing, like a puzzle, and we work the puzzle. Don't work each other. We don't point fingers and accuse each other of bad acting. We simply talk about it in a policy. In other words, we put our policymaker's hat on, shared interest hats on. Is it perfect all the time? No. Sometimes I get really upset. I go, you know, wait a second. I'm now looking and I'm finding all these subscriptions that are, you know, lots of money. You know, that's not fair. We're working really hard, the two of us, and it's going for this.

Why is this so important? And we'll have the talk about it. And she will either convince me that it is important. I go, okay. Or I convince her that something is important. She goes, okay. So again, you know, we've been doing this for a while. We understand that we have to work this way.

Otherwise, everything stops and we won't get along and we'll ruin our night and all that stuff. So we kind of got it, even though there are lots of blips and everything. The problem is that when people start off memory and injustice that it's very hard for either of them to move forward without remembering. And the memory causes them to go backwards and litigate things over and over again. And then they get into a fight that they can't get out of because memory is terrible, first of all. memory is horrible after about 10, 15 minutes, even then. So that's a tar pit that people don't get out of, but they want their justice. Even though getting my justice at this moment causes an injustice for you. And so now we're

in a loop that we can't get out of. The system is reacting to itself, but neither of us are able to lead each other out of this toward the future. What do we do next? I know what we've done, but now what do we do? And it's very hard for people to move forward when they feel that there's so much memory and resentment and fairness in the past that they want reconciled. It's a very hard thing. It's still doable. People have done it forever, but they're usually in a position where they have to, like warring factions. Our kids are dying. Let's not do this anymore. Let's stop. Let's stop. And not only let's stop, let's make each other safe and let's share technology and we'll prosper together. That happens too. So there are plenty of examples

where people can get out of this, but those are the people that realize they have no choice. They have to do it. And there's something about knowing that this is not a luxury, that we have to work together or our survival is at stake. It really is. And in couples, everything is at stake. The main thing is health because secure functioning is what will ensure a very low level of interpersonal stress and no threat, which means very low allostatic load. Basically, that's a term for the cost of chronic stress, wear and tear on our brain and our body,

which can't be replenished. We want home to be a safe place, a place where people relax, be themselves, and they're not under tremendous chronic interpersonal stress because that's a killer. And for the kids too. So this is the main purpose of secure function for couples and families is to lower to a hum interpersonal stress because everything else is so stressful, everything else in the world. Right. Before we leave that couple behind who shows up, you know, with years or even decades of patterning and then they're in this moment, I totally understand there's, it's complicated and probably hard to just give generic advice at that moment in time.

That said, it sounds like what you're describing is there needs to be some form of pattern interrupt. And what you described is often it's a moment of literally something that brings you to your knees and basically just says, awakens you to the fact that this actually cannot keep going the way that it's going. Does that moment have to happen for people to be able to actually flip the switch and say like, okay, we need to step into this differently? Or is there a gentler way that you've seen people be able to actually shift gears? Interesting question. There's a lot of ifs, thens. In terms of change, in terms of secure function doesn't mean I change as a person or you change

as a person. It simply is about how we do business. That's it. So I have to accommodate to you. You have to accommodate to me. It matters to me if how I talk is threatening or bothers you. It has to matter to me. I can't argue with that. I can, but I won't win. So I have to know the animal I'm with. I have to be good at you. I have to know how to influence you, seduce you, convince you, persuade you to get you on board without using a stick or a whip, right? That takes a certain amount of capacity to be able to hold my impulses, to tolerate frustration, to be able to, for us to co-regulate each other's nervous systems and to be able to do this while keeping each other safe in real time. That's kind of like you and I on a tightrope. And we have to look at each other because if I start

to see you wobble, that could kill me. So I have to counterbalance with you, right? We just do that because we depend on each other being okay in order to finish this routine and be alive. The same with a discussion or an argument or a fight. And so there are do's and don'ts. So first is I have to be very good at you. I could blame you for your reactions to me, but that's stupid because there's nothing you can do about that. I'm responsible for your reactions. If we think psychobiologically that we're in each other's care, it's easier for me to regulate you than myself. So I know how to calm you down. I know what I do to move you out of safety and I can apologize and admit it and I can then bring you back. I can do something that's unequivocally friendly to get you, your state back into a range of safety and security so you can think because you're of no use to me if you fall outside

of that window. I'm not going to get anything. We're not going to get anything and we're going to feel very badly about each other because we're going to go to war. So it's incumbent upon us to be masters at each other. John Gottman talked about a long time ago. That's a responsibility as it is with a child. I have to find the baby in you. I have to know how to work you, how to handle you without using fear, threat, or guilt. That means I have to care about that. And most people couldn't give a damn. I don't think I should have to do that. I'd like you to do that. I don't think I should.

You know, we're very, again, very selfish creatures, very self-centered and very entitled in love relationships. Very entitled. We bring all of our feelings from our family of origin, and we don't know the difference between the wrongdoing of our parents and the wrongdoing of an equal adult, right? We become very childlike in these relationships at times. So we're going to have to figure out how to shift each other's states when there's an emergency. I have to know how to put a fire out properly in you. I have to know how to do it quickly by learning you and predicting you and thinking next time, what could I do single-handedly that would change the outcome of what happened? Not what you should do. That's the mistake. What could I do? What

would the approach be that wouldn't trigger a threat in you? That's possible. I just have to think, right? I have to care. Otherwise, we're stuck in that loop we can't get out of. We're just reactive. That's the proper way to think. And so if you and I go off the cliff every time we get into a discussion about money or anything, it's on both of us because either of us could have grabbed the wheel and steered it away from the cliff and we didn't. Only one of us needs to do something different during those periods when we're in that fight state of mind and we're automatic and we can't think. Only one of us has to do something to change that entire trajectory. That's what's beautiful about two people instead of one. I've got to find that in dealing with you when I see you starting to top out. You know what? I can

tell what I said. I did that thing again and I started putting pressure on you. I'm sorry. Do you want to take a break? Let's talk about something completely different and let's refresh. I'm taking leadership because if you're not okay, it's not going to work. So here's the, you want to know that Jonathan, the formula here. Yeah. There's one formula. I have to take care of myself and you at the same time, or you'll confuse me as unfriendly. I have to take care of you. I have to think of your interests as I think of my interests, or you will only consider your interests as well and will congeal and will talk as one person systems. That's it. Simple and really hard to do. Really hard to do.

It also calls on us. If we start to zoom the lens out a little bit, you know, it calls on us to be aware. It calls on a level of self-awareness and social awareness and interpersonal awareness that is not always available to us. Even if you've done the work, you're a longtime meditator, like mindfulness is your thing and you're dialed in. In the moment, that level of awareness and spaciousness and safety can go out the window. And for you to do any of the things that you're talking about here, for me to do that, for anyone listening to do this in the context of a relationship, a conflict, or a moment where you feel the tensions dialing up, we've got to be able to zoom the lens out for a heartbeat and kind of look down in the situation and kind of notice what's really happening here and what would be the healthy,

constructive, co-creative response? That's not an easy thing. That can only be done in the rest period because we don't have faculty for it. We have to plan for those times when we're going to shoot first and ask questions later. And that has to be pre-planned. That has to be thought of in advance. If then, if then, if this happens, we do that. And then we practice it. Just like ice skaters who want to win a competition, they have to practice for when

they go live because when they go live, their state changes. And all these factors internally are going to interrupt their body movements and they have to plan for that. So practice, practice, practice. Right. So it just becomes your default state. Yes. Basically. Okay. Got it. And secure functioning is a practice with a lot of failure. And the failure is, oops, I'm sorry. That was stupid. And it's kind of like better luck next time because you always get an opportunity to practice this, but people don't practice and they don't predict each other and they don't plan for

what they're predicting. And then they just get into the same old, same old, right? If you've ever worked for somebody who's difficult and you depend on that job, you know what I'm talking about. You're going to work that person. You're not going to complain to them and wish they would be different, right? You have to handle them. That makes it good for you and them. Otherwise you're going to be miserable. So you would go home and you probably think the next time I'm going to do this, I'm going to try this. I want to endear myself to them. I want to make sure that I don't, I've seen what triggers them. I don't want to trigger that, right? One would probably do that.

Why wouldn't we do that with each other in relationship? I have no doubt, like as you're saying, using words like work the other person, or you're describing it in the context of like a business setting. And there's a lot of contractual language in here because in part that's sort of like the domain it comes from, that the question that comes to mind is where is the line between running scripts that are healthy and constructive because we want this thing to work and I genuinely love and care about this other person and I care about us as a unit together and manipulation. Manipulation is not a bad word because we do it all the time. It's only bad when it is used to get something at the other person's cost. That's the manipulation we don't like, right? We got screwed. The person is trying to get something from us and they're not thinking about our interests, right? Kids are doing it. Can I have the car, dad? Well, you crashed it last week. Yeah, but you know what dad doesn't do that. I'm going to do everything I can to get what I want.

I don't have the developmental capacity to also consider you. You got to worry as dad when I can do this, because I'm going to say, yeah, you're right, dad. You know what? You have no reason to trust me. Here's what I offer. If I can take the car and come back an hour earlier than you want me to, and I will text you, I will call you.

I don't want you to worry about me. And I want to prove to you that I can be responsible. I mean, if I start doing that, I'm good enough to get you to say yes, because I'm thinking of you and taking care of myself at the same time. That's a skill. That is a two-person thing. That is a higher level of cognitive orientation. That is, now I know how to do this. I know how I have to make it good for you and me. Otherwise, nothing's going to happen. Yeah. And the approach that you're talking about is kind of cool also because, I mean,

this whole conversation has been in the context of couples, long-term couples, and that's been your body of work. But we're also talking about basically, these are contexts, they're principles, they're guiding principles that are just really relevant to any long-term relationship that you want to be healthy and functional and sustain in a meaningful way. The dynamics are going to be different depending on the context, but they're just great principles for building healthy, functional, long-term relationships, especially when conflict is going to arise along the way. As the older I get, the more I deeply, deeply care about my relationships. If I feel like I've broken something, it breaks my heart and I'll perseverate until I can fix it. And I came from a family that was like that and a little bit overboard with the Jewish guilt, but we cared about the relationships enough to apologize and to want to come and fix things because we couldn't, my family, we couldn't bear these breaches that came out of fights. But even more so, I want to protect

all the relationships that I care about, my students, friends, neighbors, and so on. So this is important, I think, as an orientation. You were saying, how do we know to do these things? And remember, it's an orientation. It's a culture of relationship first. Reorienting culture that my relationships are the most important thing. That informs, culture always informs us of what we should or shouldn't do. And what I'm suggesting is that people start to consider changing their culture, relational culture that is between adult-adult to one that's relationship-centered. And that should inform everything, right? It's kind of putting the relationship first, really, because that doesn't work out. Does anything else work well? Parenting, health, creativity, concentration.

So it is a relationship-first emphasis. If you feel I yelled at you, then I did, right? It doesn't matter what I think because I hurt you is more important than what I think I did, right? And so I rise above my need to be right and my need for my own justice at the same time. And I yield and I fall on my sword for the relationship fully because I would like you to do that. And that's the culture I want. Yeah. I mean, it's a powerful way to step into relationship.

Yeah. Mindfulness doesn't really do it because I meditate a long time vipassana. And I got to tell you, it doesn't prepare you to go live with a person. Right. I got a dozen years of daily mindfulness behind me and I get it. It feels like a good place for us to come full circle in this conversation as well. I've asked you this question a chunk of years ago in a very different season of life in the world. But in this container of good life project, if I offer up the phrase to live a good life, what comes up? To live a good life is to love actively, be loving, to put the relationship first. And I

can think of so many examples where I've fought my devils and my impulses to be angry and hold grudges and so on. And it never ceases to amaze me how doing the right thing when it's the hardest pays out dividends. My self-esteem, the relationship, rising above my primitive instincts has always served me, even though it's a constant struggle. A good life is being connected and having loving, good reciprocal relationship. Thank you. Hey, before you leave, if you love this episode, say that you'll also love the conversation

we had with Julie and John Gottman about deepening long-term relationships. You'll find a link to their episode in the show notes. And of course, if you haven't already done so, please go ahead and follow Good Life Project in your favorite listening app. And if you found this conversation interesting or inspiring or valuable,

and chances are you did since you're still listening here, would you do me a personal favor, a seven second favor and share it? Maybe on social or by text or by email, even just with one person, still listening here, would you do me a personal favor, a seven second favor and share it maybe on social or by text or by email, even just with one person, just copy the link from the app you're using and tell those, you know, those you love, those you want to help navigate this thing called life a little better. So we can all do it better together with more ease and more joy. Tell them to listen, then even invite them to talk about what you've both discovered. Because

when podcasts become conversations and conversations become action, that's how we all come alive together. Until next time, I'm Jonathan Fields, signing off for Good Life Project. The Apple Watch Series 10 is here. It has the biggest display ever. It's also the thinnest Apple Watch ever, making it even more comfortable on your wrist, whether you're running, swimming, or sleeping. And it's the fastest-charging Apple Watch, getting you 8 hours of charge in just 15 minutes.

The Apple Watch Series 10, available for the first time in glossy jet black aluminum. Compared to previous generations, iPhone XS or later required, charge time and actual results will vary. Mayday, mayday, we've been compromised. The pilot's a hitman. I knew you were gonna be fun.

On January 24th. Tell me how to fly this thing. Mark Wahlberg. You know what the difference between me and you is? You're gonna die. Don't shoot him, we need him! Y'all need a pilot? Flight Risk.