Is home a place of reason, or a place of affection?

At our signing meeting last week, a reader asked Teacher Lu this question: "You mentioned that when you quarrel, Teacher Xin can often jump out of the opposing roles of A and B and calmly analyze you from a God perspective. However, originally when we quarreled, there was a very aggrieved mood, the other party still 'looked down' on you like this, will you have a feeling of resignation that cannot be said? ”

Teacher Lu replied at that time: "Why can only he open god's perspective, I can also, come, look down together!" ”

Later, in the middle of the night, Teacher Lu did not sleep, pushed me awake and said, "I was wrong, I failed to understand the meaning of this reader." Because I didn't have such a problem, I was suddenly confused, and I didn't answer this question well. ”

I said, "Look, you're starting to 'regurgitate' again, aren't you?" It's all over, so you don't have to always think about it. ”

Teacher Lu said, "No, you get up, I'm going to write it down, and you'll help me study it together." ”

Well, then study!

You see, why does this reader feel that when I open the calm analysis from the perspective of God, I must be looking down, and Teacher Lu must be depressed- but Teacher Lu himself does not actually have this trouble?

Because this reader friend may have inadvertently presuppose the premise that the purpose of our quarrels is always to persuade each other.

1. What is the purpose of quarrels between relatives?

If the purpose of the quarrel is to persuade the other party and defeat the other party, then it is indeed very beneficial for us to objectively and calmly see the situation, logically and clearly grasp the flaws, and poke each other's sore feet. Because as long as I'm not angry, it must be the other party who is angry (in fact, I do often deal with the trolls, otherwise how can I be the little prince of Kowloon Tong scolding the street! It's just that now my status as a teacher limits my play).

But as two parties in an intimate relationship, the purpose of quarreling is to communicate, to exchange mutual emotions, to clarify the needs of both parties - so the motivation should be completely different - not to "win the other side", but to "seek common ground while reserving differences". We jump out of the argument between two people and open a third perspective to find what we have learned all our lives, not to prove that "you are wrong and I am right", but to understand why the other person has such emotions and why they think that way.

We use psychology to analyze a certain person in an intimate relationship, a certain scene, in order to empathize with each other, understand each other, understand each other, and tell her that "it is completely reasonable for you to think so, it is completely reasonable for you to be angry, and if I were you, I would react the same as you." Of course, generally after I say this, usually Teacher Lu will also come to a theoretical analysis, indicating that the emotions of both of us are reasonable, no one is right or wrong, but the first reaction is to consider from their own standpoint, and our goal is to seek common ground and save small differences. We will then negotiate a solution that maximizes the interests of both parties to reach further consensus.

Intimate relationships, not only husband and wife, couples, but also the relationship with parents, the relationship with children, the relationship with close friends, etc., the ideal of getting along, is also such a model.

For example, a friend of mine, a relative of her family died, and her mother felt very scared every day, and at night when she saw the shadows of the trees outside the window, she was too scared to go to the toilet, saying that there was a ghost. She was an atheist who felt that her mother was ignorant and ignorant, and often quarreled with her mother, saying that there were no ghosts in the world. Her mother said she was not filial and did not care about people.

I said: "Superstitious activities often stem from a lack of control over the fear of the unknown, so it is necessary to use the myth of the gods to alleviate anxiety." In addition, these fears and worries of hers, in addition to being related to her values, also have a possible psychology, which is the desire of her children and relatives to pay attention to her emotions. Heart disease also needs heart medicine, instead of arguing with her that there is no god, you should take her to the Lama Temple to burn incense. ”

This friend later arranged for the whole family to go to the temple, which was a trip for the children and an exorcism for the elderly, and the whole family was very happy. She said: "When I understood the psychological reasons behind this, I suddenly felt that I didn't really need to confront her, I didn't need to 'break' her. Every time she said this again, I no longer felt "speechless" and "ignorant", but more to understand her, to comfort her, and our communication became more and more peaceful. ”

In understanding her mother, we can also say that we open up the "God perspective", but the purpose of this is not to suppress her mother, but to understand and tolerate.

2. The pitfalls of debate

Sometimes too many of our quarrels fall into a trap of debate, what is the purpose of the debate? We all know that there is only one – just to "win". In order to prove that "I am more correct than you", "I am better than you", "I am wrong", and the scriptures are quoted and hoarse, such a scene may be necessary in the debate, but in the intimate relationship, it becomes a different kind of ineffective communication.

The best strategy for our mode of getting along is to play a positive sum game and win a situation, and the bottom strategy is to become a zero-sum game - that is, there can only be one winner in this relationship, either you die or I live.

Zero-sum games are justified in some adversarial relationships, such as boxing, confrontation, debate, etc., because the victory of one side must only be based on the defeat of the other.

But in a cooperative relationship, a zero-sum game is not only harmful, but can even lead to a lose-lose game. This is true not only in all kinds of external partnerships, but also in intimacy internally.

John Gottman, the godfather of love, once expressed the view in his "Game of Love": from the perspective of game theory, if it is a relationship of mutual distrust, you both want to keep your greatest gains, so you need each other to give up interests, then the relationship between you will become a zero-sum game. For example, neither partner wants to do housework and wants the other to do housework; for example, you both want the other person to be able to pay more in household expenses and you can pay less. But if you have trust and love for each other, then you will no longer only consider the maximization of your own interests, but jump out of this game framework and hope to maximize common benefits.

Generally speaking, we believe that to break the zero-sum game, it is necessary to break the closed interest distribution system and introduce external energy. For example, if neither of them is willing to do housework, then they can buy modern appliances such as sweepers and dishwashers, or ask hourly workers to solve this problem; for example, instead of competing with their own families, instead of spending energy on the family every day, it is better to expand the territory, obtain more resources, and make the cake bigger together.

But sometimes it's easy to overlook a big premise: breaking the foundation of the zero-sum game is trust and integrity (and emotion and love in intimate relationships). If one or both sides always think that "the east wind overwhelms the west wind", lest they suffer losses, always think of making some clever and small means to take advantage of each other, and do not respect the rules of cooperation, then the zero-sum game or even the negative sum game is the inevitable end. It takes two people to create a win-win situation, but it is enough to destroy the situation.

At this point, I was reminded of another reader's question: "What do you think of the phrase 'home is a place of affection, not a place of reason'?" ”

First of all, I think that in this case, when it is used for self-demanding, it is a perfect quote; and when it is used by one person to blackmail the other party in an intimate relationship, it becomes a.

Then, Teacher Lu's answer I think can well summarize so many theories I said: "The family can be reasonable, but the reasoning is to seek common ground while reserving differences, not that you lose and I win; the family can talk about feelings, but talking about feelings is to provide emotional value to each other sincerely, not to use one party to kidnap the other party emotionally." ”