Ambigamy

Insights for the Deeply Romantic and Deeply Skeptical

Jeremy Sherman is an evolutionary epistemologist studying the natural history and practical realities of decision making. See full bio

March 8, 2009, Relationships

Half-truisms: Why this month's PT cover story, "You're driving me crazy" is driving me crazy

Half-truisms: Why I agree with PT's cover story whole-halfedly

I opened this month’s issue of Psychology Today eagerly because the cover story, “10 relationship headaches and how to fix them” is personally and professionally important to me.

The article, while well and cleverly written, offered a familiar and frustratingly over-simplistic core idea. There were some useful suggestions in it, but you could feel the author trying to proclaim an absolute law of human nature: With relationship troubles, the problem is always you. A lot of psychological prescription tries to suggest a one-size fits all solution and it has driven me crazy for years.

The guidance we counselor-types offer is of three kinds:

1.    Always do X
2.    There’s a time to do X and a time to do Y
3.    There’s no absolute rule for when to do X and when to do Y. Still under condition A, X is the better bet.

I’m all about types two and three, which you can’t even get to if you’ve already subscribed to guidance of the first type. I have devoted the last 15 years to promoting awareness of the slider controls we work in our lives—the guesswork involved in knowing where and when to position the slider control anywhere between X and Y. For example, on the continuum between being assertive and being accommodating, what’s the best position to take in this particular situation? You can’t even begin to think about that question if you’ve bought into some “always do X” rule that makes you certain you should, for example, always be accommodating.

But there are these people who want to say just that: There’s no slider control, just always do X. The most popular psychological guidance is of the first kind, typically as some revolutionary breakthrough: “We’ve just discovered that you should always do X!”

I can understand why.   This first kind of guidance is the most appealing. It’s the easiest to follow. The sad fact is that there really aren’t that many realistic “always do X” rules and the ones there are, we all know already.

The second kind of guidance is more realistic than the first. It forces awareness of the slider you control. But it doesn’t give you guidance about when to do which, and that’s a problem.

The third is the most sophisticated and complex. Once you start dealing with conditions, there’s practically no end. And given that you can’t think of all conditions, you could decide to do X and it still could come out wrong. That’s where recognizing that you’re betting on where the slider belongs—and bets can come out wrong--is the most responsible approach.

The Psychology Today article deals with one of the most prevalent challenges around: In a conflict—with a partner but for that matter with anyone, whose responsibility is it to accommodate whom? I call the moments when this challenge arises “Youmeus points,” points at which the question arises, is it you, me or us? Should you accommodate me, should I accommodate you, or is it a fundamental incompatibility between us?

Can you think of a time when you accommodated and you were glad you did? How about when you regret accommodating? How about a time when you made your partner accommodate and you’re glad you did? When you regret having made your partner accommodate? Do you remember a time when you stayed in a relationship you should have. When you stayed in a relationship you shouldn’t have?

It seems obvious to me that there’s no absolute rule like, always assume it’s you or always assume it’s me. It’s a tough judgment call. To me, the Youmeus point is a point where you want to reflect and then place a bet on who should accommodate, recognizing your bet could turn out right or wrong. The bet is based on the wisdom to know the difference between what you can and can’t change, either about your standards or about your partner.

The article says in so many words, forget all that. Assume it’s always you, not your partner. It repeats a perennial half-truth dressed up as a whole truth: You can’t change anyone; all you can do is change your attitude.

If you can’t change anyone why is the article trying to convince us to change? And who says you can’t? Sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t. You’re not omnipotent; you’re some-nipotent. Sometimes you need the courage to change the things you can change about someone else and sometimes you need the serenity to accept.

But this article wants to convince you that you should just cultivate serenity to accept that you can’t change your partner. It says, when something bugs you in your relationship, “in all likelihood, it’s you.” All likelihood? That’s not exactly the same as saying “always,” but it wants to be. It says “No matter how frustrating a partner’s behavior, your interpretation is the greater part of it.” Always the greater part of it? Even if your partner is physically abusing you?

We psychologist types are a dangerous bunch to give so much authority to. We’ll take it, of course. Who wouldn’t? But you have to remember, if we’re scientists at all, we’re dealing with the second most complex thing in the world, which is human motivation and behavior, and the first most complex thing as well, which is human interaction. Our tools and methods of research are never as precise as the tools in, say physics. And we take it personally. We’re people too. We have axes to grind. To a lumberjack with an axe everything is a tree to be cut down. To a psychologist who, in some vivid personal interaction learned too late that you have to make accommodations to others sometimes, every situation calls for accommodation.

This article, like many in psychology is full of pronouncements from psychologists with almost no evidence of what research they base it on. So when Rabbi and marriage educator Edwin Friedman says in affirmation of the article’s argument that it’s the interpreter’s problem, “It’s the reaction of the host, not the strength of the pathogen,” we get no warrants for this belief of his. Is it based on his personal experience, his personal experience as a therapist, teaching from the ancient biblical sources? His claimi s mighty bold. “Not the strength of the pathogen.” Not, as in not ever? Well that would be simple, but wrong. Sometimes it’s the strength of the pathogen. Sometimes it isn’t.

Through the combination of qualifying words and self-contradiction, the prescription backpedals a little as the article progresses. “The real problem may not be your partner’s behavior but the way you label it.” May not. In other words it could be that or it could be your partner’s behavior. But the possibility that it’s your partner’s behavior is only alluded to gingerly, because the article really wants to make the case that in conflict, it’s your interpretation that’s the problem. When there’s a conflict don’t concentrate on changing your partner ever, concentrate on reinterpreting his or her behavior.

The advice is softened also by self-contradiction. We’re told to state what we want and also to get over what we want. “It’s up to each of us to communicate what it takes to make us feel appreciated…You can’t assume your partner knows what to do.” “says Diane Sollee, a therapist. So if you’re having a problem, say it.

Or don’t. Later we’re told, “ If your partner can’t seem to change sloppy ways, reframe the issue in your own mind.”

And what’s with “Can’t seem”? In all negotiations we must speculate about what’s changeable and what isn’t. Is “can’t seem” a clear enough condition for counseling accommodation? Or is it basically saying, give up on trying to change those behaviors that tomorrow will have proven unchangeable. If it is, that’s groovy but it’s not saying much because tomorrow isn’t available for comment today. That kind of advice is as content-free as advising investors to “ buy low; sell high.”

And if your partner is flirting too much, should you say something or change your attitude? Tony Robins tells us “A partner who flirts is invariably searching for playfulness, attention and fulfillment.” Again, it’s you dear reader. Invariably. According to Robbins, if your partner is on the verge of fooling around, “you should ask yourself “What am I doing to provoke this? What does my partner need?”