Is it possible that there is a fourth option that springs up in conflict? In your sample scenario, one of the kids would not be in the argument, leaving two people arguing over dissimilar aspects of the disagreement: the mother just wants it to stop and the one child wants to have their side heard.

I have found that these types of conflict cause me the most stress. In order to resolve them, it seems as though I need to get back to square one before I can even make a point about what I see as important. There is also the option of not engaging in the conflict to begin with, but when my psyche has determined it is winnable and worth winning, it is hard to give in with such a small hurdle.

Hi John,
I want to make sure I'm clear on your alternative here. Is it something like this?

Mom: You two stop fighting.
Tim: I'm not fighting. I'm just minding my own business.
Mom: Then Sue you should leave him alone.
Sue: But he is being heckof annoying and won't listen.

With the parents and grandparents I tried to illustrate how these debates can become nested but even within one level they become multifarious quickly. Is not fighting, fighting? Is it always passive agressive to withdraw from engagement? When is "Fine, I'll give you space" an authentic surrender and when is it leaving in snit?

Tell me more please about the specific kind of conflict that causes you the most stress. I bet there's an article in there which I'd be happy to write.

And thanks for writing.

Jeremy

PS This charming old Monty Python skit is an exquisite illustration of argument dynamics. Take a listen.
www.mindreadersdictionary.com/argument.mp3

The conflicts that annoy me the most are a different kind too. Whenever there is a possibility for argument to arise among my boyfriend and I, he will simply walk out, leaving me to battle the demons on my own. This frustrates me a lot because it seems like I am the only one who has to bear any of the relationship stress, therefore the conflicts are never actually resolved by the two of us communicating, they are ruminated over for a while (I guess) and then dropped only to creep up on us again later in some kind of sarcastic, George and Martha type remark. It's kind of funny and I have to admit that it does cut down on the frequency of argument, but sometimes it really weighs on my soul. Any suggestions?

Just kidding. With me there's always a lot of comment and on the "no comment" way in disputes--I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

One variation on "about" is "I'm above this fight." Imagine if a hassle started between you and your boyfriend in the presence of some friend. As it starts your friend rolls his or her eyes as if to say, there you go again. That's an "about" move. It's like saying "within this debate I have no opinion. About it I think the overall debate is foolish." Now imagine if your boyfriend looked at the friend and rolled his eyes too. See how "about" moves like the mothers can become the equivalent of silence. No comment--is actually an about comment with respect to the debate?

From an individual's standpoint within a relationship there are really only three general options for dealing with something that doesn't meet expectations: Take it, leave it, or try to change it. You can let the other person call the shots (take it). You can exit the relationship (leave it) you can try to be the one to call the shots (try to change it.) These map to the two within and one about moves. I'll post an article that explains how. Youmeus point from a few weeks ago does also.

Suppose your boyfriend, sighs or says "whatever" or is simply silent. Which of these three does it mean? Does it mean "I'm above the fray (leave it)." Does it mean "I'll accept whatever you're imposing? (take it) Does it mean "I'm imposing a ban on this topic that I'm forcing you to accept. (try to change it)" Hard to tell. It can actually mean combinations once you start thinking about subtexts. You can say "don't impose silence" and he could say "honey don't be so defensive, I'm only accommodating you."

The real issue worth addressing is figuring out which are the real issues worth addressing. In your email you assume the particular issues you want to talk about with him are the kind that will fester if you don't address them, the kind that if aired will heal. The opposite is often possible. Sometimes what doesn't get addressed decomposes. Sometimes what's aired only gets bigger. People can have different predictions about an issue. Sometimes those predictions are biased by preferences. I might say "let sleeping dogs lie" not because I think that waking them will be bad for us but uncomfortable for me.

For the past few months, in the interest of becoming less blunt, giving my partner more room I've been trying silence more. I generally am much more prone to talk about anything that bugs me. By nature I lean into the overt instead of the covert strategy. But in the past few weeks I've recognized that the problems seem to be festering, so I'm back to talking about them. The main issue I want to broach with my partner is similar to the one you report. There are issues I think must be addressed and I feel stonewalled on them. There's nothing morally wrong with silence. As you say, it can dampen or reduce the amount of fighting. I'm just declaring in the last few weeks that my feeling stonewalled is likely to fester if we don't address it. And in the past few weeks we seem to be making some progress.

If my partner came at me with the assumption that she was the reigning authority on what was and wasn't worth dealing with, I would probably try silence too. The ambigamist seeks partners with which the compatibilities are high but more importantly the compatibilities in negotiating the incompatibilities. The ability to go meta, step back and say "do we have different predictions about whether this issue will fester or decompose?" is an important compatibility for me. "Something like that.

Nice to hear from you again Cindy.

Jeremy

The articles in coming weeks are all about this topic. Let's talk more as they unfold.

Jeremy