Recently, some things have come to light that I find disappointing. A person has behaved in a self-centred way, and it puts me in an awkward situation.
I always try to be kind, open, honest, respectful, and cooperative if given a choice. However, sometimes some people don’t play by these same rules, and the more direct you are, the more they can use this information against you.
These experiences have led to me doubting myself. Some friends tell me that I am too trusting. Other friends tell me that the only way to respond is by playing the game and putting my own needs first.
What should we do if someone is being unkind and only considering their needs irrespective of the consequences these actions have on us?
Game Theory
Game theory looks for the best rational approach in a strategic interaction between two people or groups of people. There are many different games, including cooperative games, where an official can enforce the rules and consequences, and zero-sum games, where one person’s gain is another person’s loss.
One of the most famous examples of a game is the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’:
Imagine that you are a criminal gang member and arrested alongside one of your gang associates. You are in separate rooms at the police station, and you have no way of communicating with your associate. Finally, after some time, the Police tell you that they have insufficient evidence to get either of you on a hefty charge, but enough to get both of you on a minor offence. So the Police give you and the other prisoner one of two options:
You can betray your associate by testifying that they were the one who committed the crime, or
You can cooperate with your associate by remaining silent and refusing to testify.
The possible outcomes are:
A. If you both remain silent and cooperate with each other against the Police, you both only get one year in prison.
B. If you both try to betray each other by agreeing to testify, you both get two years in prison.
C. If they betray you, but you’ve tried to cooperate, they get to walk free, and you get three years in prison.
D. If they try to cooperate by remaining silent, but you betray them and agree to testify, you get to walk free while they have to go to prison for three years.
The best rational approach is not to cooperate with your associate, because at worst, you will get two years in prison (B), and at best, you will serve no time (D). Compare this to the worst outcome of three years in jail (C) if you remain silent, and the best result is one year in prison (A). Therefore, not betraying your associate and cooperating will only lead to a worse outcome, even if you know that your associate will cooperate with 100% certainty.
Consequently, it is not always rational to try to cooperate with someone who could potentially take advantage of you. Furthermore, it is not sound to try to cooperate with someone trying to take advantage of you.
What About Long-term Strategies?
Suppose two people play multiple games of Prisoner’s Dilemma and remember what the other player did previously. Does it make it more desirable to cooperate rather than betray the other person? Similar to how most relationships are in real life, crossing your associates may not be wise if you have to keep dealing with them or the rest of the gang.
We may win more in one situation, but at what cost? This iterated version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is sometimes known as the ‘Peace-War game’.
In 1984, Robert Axelrod organised a tournament where participants chose their strategies in an extended version of the Peace-War game, with 2000 trials. He found that greedy approaches to the game didn’t fare too well and resulted in more years spent in prison by the end of the game.
One of the most straightforward strategies was also the most effective — tit-for-tat. The tit-for-tat strategy aims to always cooperate in the first trial and then do what your opponent did on the previous trial for your next move. This way, you punish a betrayal with a quick betrayal back and reward cooperation with ongoing cooperation. Sometimes (in 1–5% of the trials), it is good to cooperate once even after your opponent betrays you, but generally, the most effective method is still tit-for-tat, which is interesting to know.
After the tournament ended, Axelrod studied the data and identified four main conditions for a successful strategy when negotiating with other people:
We must be nice. We should never defect or cheat before the other person does, even if we only want the best for ourselves.
We must retaliate quickly and at least 95% of the time if people try to defect against or cheat us. It’s not good to be a blind optimist or always cooperate no matter what the other person does. It only leads to us being taken advantage of by greedy people.
We must be forgiving and get back to trying to cooperate once we see that the other person is trying to cooperate again.
We must not be envious and try to beat our opponent or score more than them. Creating a win-win scenario is ideal if possible, even if it means giving up some points by cooperating when you could defect.
What Relevance Does This Have For Real Life?
It may be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that screwing others over is the best way to get ahead in life. Or to not put ourselves out there so that others don’t take advantage of us. In reality, this would only be the best approach in a world where every other person tries to take advantage of everyone else every chance they can. It is not the case in any society on our planet, as far as I know. So never trusting people and always assuming the worst from others is not the way to go.
By looking at the table above, the best outcome is to try and trust reliable individuals (and co-operate with them) and not rely on or co-operate with individuals who are not. The worst results are being hurt by putting our trust in those we shouldn’t or not letting in or co-operating with others that we really could have.
Maybe I am a little too trusting. I assume that other people are kind and good people who have good intentions unless I am proven otherwise. It is the position that I will continue to take, even if it means that sometimes I get hurt once I realise that someone is a bit more self-centred or dishonest than I had hoped.
Looking at the four elements of a successful negotiating strategy, I know that I am nice, forgiving and non-envious. However, the lesson that I need to learn is that of swift and appropriate retaliation or enforcing a particular consequence shortly after someone is nasty towards me. It would help deter the other person from trying any more selfish tactics in the future and could put them back on the path towards co-operating and trying to achieve a win-win situation for both of us.
I have previously thought that if I always co-operate, I can be happy with the person I am. However, sometimes being firm and assertive and standing up for myself in the face of unkind and selfish behaviour is the far better and more self-respecting approach to take.
I hope this article has encouraged you to not give up on trying to trust or cooperate with others. I also hope it will enable you to stand up for yourself if someone tries to take advantage of you.
I used to lie a lot growing up. Not quite as bad as Holden Caulfield in ‘The Catcher in the Rye’:
“I’m the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life. It’s awful. If I’m on my way to the store to buy a magazine, even, and somebody asks me where I’m going, I’m liable to say I’m going to the opera. It’s terrible.” ― J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye
I remember lying to my mum about cleaning my room to go outside to play. So instead, I would push all the mess under the bed or throw it in the wardrobe.
I remember lying about doing my homework so that I didn’t have to do it and could play video games. I would then lie about being sick the next day to finish the assignment I needed to do the night before.
I remember lying about how many points I scored in basketball to friends or how many alcoholic drinks I had to my parents whenever they picked me up from a high school party.
I even remember lying to my brother’s friend about my surfing skills (I didn’t have any) and to a classmate about how many languages I spoke (I can say maybe 30 words in Indonesian, Spanish, and Italian, but not much more).
I think back to these moments, and I’m not proud of saying these things, but I can also understand why I did it.
I wish I could have been a less lazy, more confident and self-assured kid who was always honest with his friends and strangers and did the right thing by his parents and teachers. But how realistic is that scenario, and is it even ideal?
“The truth is always an insult or a joke. Lies are generally tastier. We love them. The nature of lies is to please. Truth has no concern for anyone’s comfort.” ― Katherine Dunn, Geek Love
Why Do People Lie?
We lie to:
fit in and pretend we are like others
stand out and pretend we are different to or better than others
seek approval from others
be seen as more loveable/desirable/acceptable
feel better about ourselves
avoid getting into trouble
protect other people’s feelings or avoid hurting them
be polite
avoid feeling hurt, sad, disappointed, guilty or ashamed
keep a secret
maintain confidentiality
be consistent with societal norms
“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
What Happens if We Are 100% Honest?
Jim Carrey plays the main character in the 1997 comedy ‘Liar Liar’. He’s a high flying lawyer who keeps disappointing his son Max by making promises to him that he doesn’t keep by putting work first. Finally, after his dad doesn’t turn up to his birthday celebration, Max wishes for his dad not to be able to tell a lie, and the magic of movies makes this wish come true.
What results is some hilarious situations in which Jim Carrey’s character gets himself into trouble for telling the whole truth when it would be more polite to lie. It includes telling his secretary why he didn’t give her a pay rise, telling his boss that he has had better than her, and confessing to everyone in a crowded elevator that he was the one who did the smelly fart.
The moral of the story was two-fold:
Sometimes it is necessary to lie, or at least not always be brutally honest and say everything that comes to your mind, and
By being tactful and as honest as possible, you may become a better person who upsets people less and has more authentic relationships.
“One lie has the power to tarnish a thousand truths.“ ― Al David
Radical Honesty
In 2007, A.J. Jacobs wrote an article for Esquire magazine about a month-long experiment on a movement called Radical Honesty. It was titled ‘I Think You’re Fat’ and is worth reading. Much more than the 1995 book called ‘Radical Honesty’ by Brad Blanton that initially inspired the article:
Blanton had worked as a psychotherapist for 35 years in Washington D.C. and ran 8-day workshops on Radical Honesty that retailed for $2,800 back in 2007. Blanton says his method works, although he may distort some of the positive benefits for personal and financial gain. He’s been married five times and claims to have slept with more than 500 women and six men, including a “whole bunch of threesomes.” He also admits to lying sometimes.
“She looks honestly upset, but then, I’ve learned that I can’t read her. The problem with a really excellent liar is that you have to just assume they’re always lying.“ ― Holly Black, Black Heart
I Think You’re Fat
In Jacobs article, he wasn’t overly optimistic about Blanton’s version of Radical Honesty either. If we didn’t have a filter between what we say and what we notice in the world, in our body and our thoughts like Blanton advocates, the results would probably be less funny and more consequential than what happened to Jim Carrey in ‘Liar Liar’. He declares:
“Without lies, marriages would crumble, workers would be fired, egos would be shattered, governments would collapse.” — A.J. Jacobs
Jacobs found it impossible not to tell a lie during his month-long experiment but did cut down his lying by at least 40%. But unfortunately, he also scared a five-year-old girl, offended numerous people, and spoke about sex and attraction to the point where he felt creepy.
On the positive, being radically honest did save Jacobs time, resulting in him having to talk less to the people he didn’t want to talk to and do less of the things he didn’t want to do. In addition, it saved him mental energy by not having to choose how much he would lie or massage the truth. It also meant that people were usually more honest with him in return, and he found out that his relationships could withstand more truth-telling than he expected. So, similar to the ‘Liar Liar’ take-away message, Jacobs concluded:
Being radically honest all the time and never having a filter is likely to be inappropriate in many settings and lead to more confrontations with others, and
We could probably benefit by being more authentic, honest and truthful with others, especially in intimate relationships, as secrets tend to weigh us down.
“There is beauty in truth, even if it’s painful. Those who lie, twist life so that it looks tasty to the lazy, brilliant to the ignorant, and powerful to the weak. But lies only strengthen our defects. They don’t teach anything, help anything, fix anything or cure anything. Nor do they develop one’s character, one’s mind, one’s heart or one’s soul.” ― José N. Harris
What is a Lie?
In his interesting small book ‘Lying’, Sam Harris defines a lie as:
“Anything that is done to intentionally mislead others when they expect honest communication.” — Sam Harris
Omission vs Commission
In ‘Lying’, Sam Harris distinguishes between lies of commission, where the person is active in their intent to deceive, and the more passive act of omission, where the person fails to do something or say something they probably should. Both are deceptive and misleading to the audience who is the target of the action or lack of action.
Harris believes that lies of commission are a more serious violation of ethics and likely to be more harmful. It is similar to how pushing someone in front of a train is a more serious ethical violation than not saving someone who was hit by a train when you had a chance to do so.
Harris argues for people to stop all forms of commission and says that we can enhance our world, build trust and improve relationships by always being honest in our communication. While he believes that omission is also lying, he does not think that we can or should eliminate all forms of omission. Instead, he says that “skilful truth-telling” is sometimes required to be both honest and tactful in our words and avoid causing unnecessary harm.
Let’s look at the following three examples to see the difference between radical honesty, lying and skilful truth-telling.
SCENARIO ONE: Your husband asks if he looks fat in an outfit that you honestly believe isn’t flattering for him. You could say:
A) “Yeah. You do look fat. I’d say about 10 pounds overweight. Maybe you should skip dessert for a while.”
B) “Not at all, sweety. You look amazing!”
C) “You look nice, but I think I prefer the black jumper and blue jeans I bought you a few weeks ago. Want to try that one and see which one you feel better in?“
SCENARIO TWO: Your sister and her family are in town for the week and have decided to stay at your place for the whole time because they want to save money. You don’t dislike them, but you’d prefer to be catching up on your work that you are behind on. On night four, she notices you are a little tense and asks if you mind them staying there. You could say:
A) “I do. I wish you weren’t so tight and could have paid for a hotel if you planned to stay more than three nights. A week is pushing it, and I’d prefer you left.”
B) “Mind? Are you kidding? I love it. The more, the merrier, I always say! Stay for as long as you’d like.”
C) “It’s a busy week for me in terms of work, so it wasn’t ideal timing for me. If I seem a bit tense, I’m sorry. I do want to be able to help you guys out because family means a lot to me.“
SCENARIO THREE: You’ve been unemployed for six months and get a job interview to wait tables at a restaurant in town. You’d ideally prefer an acting job. The restaurant boss asks what your career plans are, as they want to hire someone who will stick around. You could say:
A) “Well, acting has always been my passion, so this is just a stop-gap job to pay the bills and put food on the table. I couldn’t care less about the job or your restaurant. I want a regular paycheck so that I can pay my rent and bills until I get a real job.”
B) “I’d love to become a professional waiter. I’ve always thought that providing great service to people is my calling in life, and I plan to stick around for at least five years and show everyone just how amazing your restaurant is. So I’m in it for the long haul.”
C)“I’m not too sure about what will happen with my career, but at this stage, I’d like to be able to work here. I am available seven days a week and will put in 100% effort whenever I am on shift. I am also willing to learn whatever skills are required, and I can promise that I will give you as much notice as possible if my plans ever do change in the future.“
In each scenario, A is the radically honest response, B is the active lying or commission response, and C is the skilful truth-telling response. Some truths are unsaid in the C responses, which is technically a lie of omission.
Many people still believe that omissions are a big no-no:
“When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.” ― Yevgeny Yevtushenko
“A lie that is half-truth is the darkest of all lies.” ― Alfred Tennyson
“At times to be silent is to lie. You will win because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. For to convince you need to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack: Reason and Right.” ― Miguel de Unamuno
“People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked…The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on…There are no white lies, there is only the blackest of destruction, and a white lie is the blackest of all.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Is it Ever Helpful to Lie to Ourselves?
The short answer is yes. It is psychologically healthier to be slightly optimistic rather than entirely realistic. Research indicates that people with depression are often more realistic in their appraisals of situations and other people’s judgments than people without depression. Most “healthy people” believe that they are better drivers, more intelligent, better workers, better parents, and better lovers compared to the average person.
People lie to themselves because they like to feel that they are important and maybe more unique or special than they are. To prove this point, how would you feel if someone told you that you were just “average”? People also like to see themselves as good people who behave in particular ways for sound reasons. Even people that consistently cause harm to themselves or others.
Anyone with an unhealthy addiction becomes an expert at lying to themselves and others. This secrecy and dishonesty only further fuel the sense of depression, shame and guilt that people with addiction feel. As long as they are in touch with the truth of the situation and the consequences of their actions. Most addicts are not, however, thanks to in-built defence mechanisms.
Defence mechanisms are mostly subconscious or unconscious methods that we engage in to protect our ego or positive sense of self. Some of the more famous ones are denial, humour, repression, suppression, rationalisation, intellectualisation, projection, displacement and regression. My personal favourite is reaction formation (click here for a full description of these defence mechanisms and how to identify yours). Most people will deny engaging in defence mechanisms if you ask them directly about it, but they’ll tell you that others do. The reality is we all lie to ourselves at times, and maybe we need to lie to maintain a “healthy” outlook on ourselves, others, the world and our future.
“The visionary lies to himself, the liar only to others.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
“I lie to myself all the time. But I never believe me.” ― S.E. Hinton, The Outsiders
“The best lies about me are the ones I told.” ― Patrick Rothfuss, The Name of the Wind
“Anybody who says they are a good liar obviously is not, because any legitimately savvy liar would always insist they’re honest about everything.” ― Chuck Klosterman
So What Can We Do?
The most accurate recommendations that I could find on lying were also some of the simplest:
“If you don’t want to slip up tomorrow, speak the truth today.”
― Bruce Lee
“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.“
Mark Twain
I agree with Sam Harris that it is a worthwhile aim to never be actively dishonest. Furthermore, this approach is consistent with one of Jordan Peterson’s better rules from his ’12 Rules for Life’ book — Rule #8: “Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie“
The philosopher Robin Devenport wouldn’t agree with either Harris or Peterson. He states:
“it is impossible for anyone to be truly honest about many things, as long as he (or she) carries biased perspectives, hidden resentments, unresolved longings, unacknowledged insecurities, or a skewed view of self, to name just some inner human conditions… if absolute honesty is impossible, then we are all liars by nature, at least to a degree.”
Dan Ariely concludes in his excellent book ‘The Honest Truth about Dishonesty’ that we all tend to lie to everyone, especially ourselves. We lie only as much as we know we can get away with, but not so much that it becomes hard to keep seeing ourselves as good people.
Devenport continues:
“Perhaps the best we can do, then, is only to lie in ways that are intended to promote another’s well-being or spare her unnecessary pain, and so further our integrity. The ‘noble liar’ is someone who tries to live by good intentions, even if that means intentionally lying to another person, if doing so is the lesser of two evils…Before we cast too harsh a judgment on the liar, let’s first understand what his motives are.”
Robin Devenport
We all need to be as honest as we can, especially with those we love and make sure that it is for a good reason when we lie. We also need to realise that it will never be possible to be 100% honest about everything to anyone,including ourselves, and that is okay. Other people won’t be 100% honest with you or themselves either, which doesn’t make them bad people. It’s what we lie about and why that matters.
With the development of the internet, dating websites, social media, smartphones and dating apps, it is now easier than ever for someone to cheat on their partner or spouse.
This same technology can also make it easier to get caught due to the potential digital trail created by these unscrupulous liaisons.
The Ashley Maddison hack and the scandal were examples of technology helping people have extramarital affairs and leading to them getting caught. The hackers tried to blackmail the company and many users and then released all their details in a massive data leak when users did not meet their demands. As a result, families broke up; and the scandal ruined reputations and even lives in the aftermath.
The consequences of infidelity continue to have a devastating impact on individuals, partners, children and society. Yet, it remains a prevalent issue in every country and culture. Maybe even more so today with the advent of technology.
Given the massive changes that we have gone through in the past 30 years, I am interested in finding out the prevalence rates of cheating, if our attitudes towards infidelity have changed, and if there is anything that we can do about it.
What is Cheating?
The definition of cheating depends on who you talk to and their expectations for their relationship. The stereotype is that males tend to perceive cheating as exclusive to physical encounters or actions. In contrast, females also see emotional infidelity as cheating. Emotional cheating is sharing something with someone you wouldn’t say to your partner. Many people also believe that relationships that exist purely over the internet or phone are also cheating, especially if you share explicit words, photos, or sexual acts on these devices.
Weeks, Gambescia and Jenkins (2003) define infidelity as a violation of emotional or sexual exclusivity. The boundaries of exclusivity are different in each couple, and sometimes these boundaries are explicitly stated, but they are usually merely assumed. Because each partner can have different assumed limits, it is difficult for all exclusivity expectations to be met (Barta & Kiene, 2005).
Leeker and Carlozzi (2012) believe that when someone has a subjective feeling that their partner has violated the rules around infidelity, sexual jealousy and rivalry naturally arise. If an act of adultery has occurred, the consequence is often psychological damage, including feelings of betrayal and anger, impaired self-image for the person cheated on, and a loss of personal and sexual confidence (Leeker & Carlozzi, 2012).
Prevalence of Infidelity
Most of the research presented in this post comes from the surprising and entertaining book ‘Modern Romance’ by Aziz Anzari (the actor and comedian) and Eric Klinenberg (a Sociologist).
Unfortunately, people who are suspicious of infidelity sometimes have a reason to be. More than half of all men (60%) and women (53%) confess to having tried to mate-poach before. Mate-poaching means that they attempted to seduce a person out of a committed relationship to be with them instead. I can’t believe that these figures are so high.
I also can’t believe that in “committed relationships”, where the partners are not married to each other, the incidence rate of cheating is as high as 70%.
It gets a little bit better for married couples, with only 2–4% of married individuals admitting to having an extramarital affair over the past year in the USA. However, this increases to 30% of heterosexual men and 25% of heterosexual women who will have at least one extramarital affair at some point during their marriage. It’s scary to think that nearly one-third of all married individuals have affairs. However, it’s good to know that two-thirds of all married people stay faithful to their spouse.
Attitudes Towards Extramarital Affairs
In ‘Modern Romance’, an international study examines people’s views on extramarital affairs across 40 countries.
84% of people strongly agreed that cheating was “morally unacceptable” in the USA. In Australia, 79% view extramarital affairs as morally unacceptable. Canada, the UK, South America and African countries all have similar rates of cheating disapproval as Australia. Areas with the highest disapproval rates are typically Islamic countries, with 93% of those surveyed in Turkey stating that marital infidelity is morally unacceptable, second only to Palestinian territories with 94%.
France is the most tolerant country for extramarital affairs, with only 47% saying that cheating is unacceptable. Unsurprisingly, they also happen to be the country with the most extramarital affairs. The latest data indicates that 55% of men and 32% of French married women admit to having committed infidelity on their spouse at least once. The second most tolerant nation is Germany, with 60% finding extramarital affairs morally unacceptable. Italy and Spain are equal third, with 64% each.
Expectations vs Reality
When you compare the level of disapproval towards infidelity with the data on the actual prevalence of extramarital affairs, the numbers don’t quite add up. Furthermore, many people who cheat themselves still condemn the practice and would not be okay with being cheated on themselves.
A Gallup poll on cheating found that disapproval of infidelity is higher than animal cloning, suicide and even polygamy. Although it is against the law, being married to two people is seen as less offensive than being married to one and breaching the honesty, trust and connection that you share with your partner.
People also differ between their beliefs and practices regarding whether or not to confess infidelity.
A Match.com US survey found that 80% of men and 76% of women would prefer their partner to “confess their mistake… and suffer the consequences” rather than “take their secret to the grave”. However, the excuse given by most people who have cheated and haven’t told their partner is that they didn’t want to hurt their partner. Interestingly, they only worry about their actions’ impact on their partner after the unfaithful act has already occurred and not beforehand.
Unfortunately, most people try to keep their affairs to themselves and make excuses for their behaviour while demanding at the same time that their partners own up to their indiscretions if they stray. If their partner does own up, they are likely to treat them harshly for it, because, after all, cheating is considered morally unacceptable by most.
Why Do People Cheat?
Dr Selterman from the University of Maryland looked into why 562 adults cheated while in a “committed” romantic relationship. He found eight main reasons given for why the infidelity occurred:
Anger: seeking revenge following a perceived betrayal
Lack of love: falling “out of love” with a partner, or not enough passion or interest in the partner anymore
Neglect: not receiving enough attention, respect or love (#1 reason for women)
Esteem: seeking to boost one’s sense of self-worth by being desired by or having sex with multiple partners
Sexual desire: not wanting sex with their partner or wanting to have sex more with others (a common reason for men)
Low commitment: Not clearly defining the relationship as exclusive or not wanting a future with their partner or anything too serious
Variety: Want to have more sexual partners or experiences in their lifetime (a common reason for men)
Situation: Being in an unusual scenario, such as under high stress, under the influence of alcohol or a substance, or on vacation or a working holiday (a common reason for men)
Interestingly, these factors suggest that infidelity doesn’t always reflect how happy or healthy a relationship is. Instead, it says more about the person who commits adultery and their personality rather than anything else.
Ways to Reduce the Likelihood of Infidelity
In ‘Modern Romance’, the authors explain that passionate love inevitably fades within every relationship. A loss of passionate love could lead to infidelity if people don’t realise that this may indicate how long they have been together, not an issue with their relationship.
Companionate love, or that sense of building a life and a legacy with a partner, is different to passionate love. It can continue to grow across a relationship and a lifetime rather than decline with time. Couples in their 60s and 70s often rate their relationship satisfaction as much better than when they were younger and trying to raise children together and work full-time.
One way to reduce the likelihood of committing infidelity is to build companionate love and a shared life and legacy together, rather than equating real love with passion.
In his classic book ‘On Love’, philosopher Alain de Botton said that:
“Perhaps the easiest people to fall in love with are those about whom we know nothing…we fall in love because we long to escape from ourselves with someone as beautiful, intelligent and witty as we are ugly, stupid and dull.”
Alain de Botton
It’s much easier to idealise or become infatuated with someone you don’t know well. Because you can imagine that they are perfect or have none of the flaws that your current partner (or you) possess.
The quickest cure for infatuation is to get to know the person a bit more (without breaching the infidelity norms of your relationship) and realise that they are just as flawed as the rest of us. Once you understand this, leaving one flawed relationship for another and having to start all over again carries much less appeal.
In another of his excellent books, ‘The Course of Love’, de Botton states:
“When we run up against the reasonable limits of our lovers’ capacity for understanding, we musn’t blame them for dereliction. They were not tragically inept. They couldn’t fully fathom who we were — and we could do no better. No one properly gets, or can fully sympathize with anyone else… there cannot be better options out there. Everyone is always impossible.”
Alain de Botton
de Botton is not saying that we shouldn’t leave abusive and neglectful partners. He means that we need to avoid imagining that there is “a lover (out there) who will anticipate (all) our needs, read our hearts, act selflessly and (always) make everything better. (This) is a blueprint for disaster.” No one is perfect. Try to be grateful for what you have with your current relationship. Trying to make your current relationship as good as possible is much healthier than imagining that “the one” could be around the corner.
We still have the issue of love and sexual desire typically being separated in our society. Esther Perel, couples therapist and author, points this out better than anyone in her groundbreaking book ‘Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic’:
“Today, we turn to one person to provide what an entire village once did: a sense of grounding, meaning, and continuity. At the same time, we expect our committed relationships to be romantic as well as emotionally and sexually fulfilling… our need for togetherness exists alongside our need for separateness… (but) it’s hard to feel attracted to someone who has abandoned (their) sense of autonomy… Is it any wonder that so many relationships crumble under the weight of it all?”
Esther Perel
A way to keep the spark of desire alive is to ensure that even though you do many things with your partner, you must also do some things individually.
Perel also agrees that both love and desire can be maintained or grown over time with effort and a specific way of looking at things:
“For [erotically intelligent couples], love is a vessel that contains both security and adventure, and commitment offers one of the great luxuries of life: time. Marriage is not the end of romance, it is the beginning. They know that they have years in which to deepen their connection, to experiment, to regress, and even to fail. They see their relationship as something alive and ongoing, not a fait accompli. It’s a story that they are writing together, one with many chapters, and neither partner knows how it will end. There’s always a place they haven’t gone yet, always something about the other still to be discovered.”
Esther Perel
What About If Infidelity Has Already Occurred?
If cheating has already taken place, many people say that too much pain has occurred, trust has been breached and broken, and leaving is the best thing to do. However, breaking up may not be the most straightforward, practical, or best solution in other cases. For individuals in these cases, I would recommend reading Perel’s more recent book ‘The State of Affairs: Rethinking Infidelity’.
In this book, Perel says that:
“Once divorce carried all the stigma. Now, choosing to stay when you can leave is the new shame.”
Perel warns against only judging the cheating, as this closes all further conversation about what happened and why. It also makes it hard to know where to go from there. Instead, Perel believes that it is much better to see an affair as a symptom of a troubled relationship or a troubled person.
If the person is troubled, and they are remorseful for what they have done and willing to try to make amends and not cheat again, they must get help to address whatever issue led to the infidelity in the first place. But, on the other hand, be wary if they are unwilling to get help and work on themselves but merely say it won’t happen again.
If it is the relationship that was in trouble, relationship counselling may help too. Perel says that:
“Infidelity hurts. But when we grant it a special status in the hierarchy of marital misdemeanors, we risk allowing it to overshadow the egregious behaviors that may have preceded it or even led to it.”
If both people in a relationship can take ownership of the behaviours they engaged in that caused pain and hurt to the other and are willing to start again to build a stronger relationship, they can have a healthy relationship in the future. It’s just never going to be the same as things were before the infidelity took place.
My Personal Opinion
Monogamy is sometimes challenging, but it is a choice. So is continuing to work at having a healthy relationship. We may not always have complete control over what we initially think or feel, but we do have the capacity to consider things properly before acting.
Relationship researcher John Gottman found that couples who turn towards each other when there is an issue in their life are much more likely to stay together. Couples who turn away from each other or turn against each other when fighting are more likely to break up.
One study found that newlyweds who remained married six years later turned towards each other 86% of the time when issues arose. Newlyweds who were divorced six years later only turned towards each other 33% of the time. Turning towards your partner when a problem occurs is the key to a close and connected relationship and is much less likely to result in infidelity or breaking up.
For me, it comes down to personal values. I want to have a close and connected relationship with openness, honesty, and trust. I don’t want to feel like I have to hide anything, and I don’t want to do anything that I am not personally okay with or that I know would hurt those I care about the most.
Anything that we hide from our partners tends to lead to greater distance and a feeling of disconnection. Especially with stuff we feel ashamed of or know is dishonest or disrespectful. Our body language, micro-expressions and tone of voice also tend to reveal how we genuinely feel over time if we hide something, even if we wouldn’t like to admit it.
Existential philosophers believe that our biggest challenge in life is to come face-to-face with the true nature of who we are. Over time, our actions rather than our intentions become our character or who we are. I aim to be the best partner and person that I can be and learn from any mistakes that I make along the way so that I hopefully never repeat them. What about you?
In 2018, the American Psychiatric Association identified what they considered to be the three primary goals of parenting:
“1. Ensuring children’s health and safety
2. Preparing children for life as productive adults, and
3. Transmitting cultural values”
Many environmental and biological factors influence a parent’s and a child’s capacity to reach these ambitious goals. However, there are still a few simple changes in how we try to parent our children and manage emotions in ourselves and those closest to us that can make a significant difference.
Parenting Styles
In 1971, Baumrind identified and developed three main parenting styles. These parenting styles include parents’ attitudes and values about parenting, their beliefs about the nature of children, and the specific strategies they use to help socialise their child.
The parenting styles are known as:
1. Authoritative
Includes being warm and involved in the child’s day-to-day life, helping the child with reasoning and inductive thought processes and reflective practices, democratic participation, letting the child have a say in what goes on, and being good-natured and generally easy-going with the child.
2. Authoritarian
Includes being verbally hostile towards the child, using corporal punishment, not reasoning things through with the child, using punitive control strategies or excessively harsh penalties, and being directive towards the child rather than discussing things with them.
3. Permissive
Includes high levels of warmth, but a relaxed and non-consistent discipline style, with minimal rules, expectations and guidance. It consists of a lack of follow-through on consequences, ignoring misbehaviour and boosting self-confidence rather than disciplining the child.
The graph above highlights a fourth style known as uninvolved (Maccoby & Martin, 1983), including very little control or strictness and very little parental warmth.
Subsequent reviews by Baumrind in 1989 and 1991 found a clear winner for parents who employed an authoritative parenting style over an authoritarian or a permissive parenting style, especially once children reach higher.
An authoritative parenting style leads to the more significant development of child competence, including better maturity, assertiveness, responsible independence, self-control, better co-operation with peers and adults, and academic success (Baumrind, 1989; 1991). In addition, children of authoritative parenting also exhibit higher levels of moral conscience and prosocial behaviours (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996).
Other research has found that non-authoritative parenting styles can lead to a higher risk of depression, anxiety, ADHD and conduct or behavioural problems (Akhter et al., 2011). For example, authoritarian parenting can lead to antisocial aggression, hostility and rebelliousness (Baumrind, 1991), and anxiety (Chorpita & Barlow, 1998).
Indulging children too much and not setting appropriate boundaries can reduce the child’s academic performance and social competence (Chen et al., 2000). Permissive parenting can also lead to low self-control and impulsive, bossy or dependent behaviour in children (Baumrind, 1967).
Uninvolved parenting leads to a greater risk of behavioural problems and depression (Downey & Coyne, 1990).
The chart below clearly highlights the consequences of each style of parenting:
If you want to develop a more authoritative parenting style, be warned that it is the most time-consuming and energy-demanding of all the methods (Greenberger & Goldberg, 1989). However, try to see if any of the following strategies work for you:
“Learn the names of your children’s friends.
Ask about your child’s problems or concerns at school and communicate with their teachers about any issues that they may be having.
Encourage the child to talk about their troubles.
Give praise and acknowledgment when the child does something positive.
Tell your child that you appreciate what they try or accomplish.
Give emotional comfort and understanding when the child is upset.
Respond to the child’s feelings and emotional needs.
Show sympathy or empathy when the child is hurt or frustrated.
Express affection by hugging, kissing or holding your child when it is appropriate to do so.
Explain the consequences of your child’s behaviour.
Give your child the reasons for the rules you have.
Emphasise why they must follow the rules.
Help them understand the impact of their behaviour by encouraging them to talk about the consequences of their actions.
Explain how you feel about your child’s good and bad behaviour.
Take into account your child’s preferences when making family plans.
Allow your child to give input into family rules.
Take your child’s desires into account before asking them to do something.
Joke and play with your child.
Show patience with your child.
Try to be easy-going and relaxed around your child.”
The Relationship Cure
There isn’t an author out there who has conducted more in-depth and scientific research on interpersonal relationships than John Gottman. ‘The Relationship Cure: A Five-Step Guide to Strengthening Your Marriage, Family, and Friendships’ is his 2002 book that offers a 5-step guide to improving the quality of your relationship with your partner or children.
The five steps to improve your relationships are:
1. Look at Your Bids for Connection
We need to analyse how we bid for connections with others and respond to others bids.
A bid is simply any form of expression, whether a verbal question, a visual look, or a physical gesture or touch that says, “I want to connect with you!”
A response to a bid can be either an encouraging sign that shows that you also want to connect by turning towards them or a discouraging sign that indicates that you do not wish to connect through turning away from them or turning against them.
Over time, turning towards responses lead to even more bidding and responding and a stronger, closer relationship. But, conversely, both turning away and turning against reactions leads to less bidding, hurt or suppressed feelings, and the breakdown of the connection you share in the long-term.
2. Discover Your Brain’s Emotional Command Systems
There are seven main areas in which people differ, influencing relationship needs. Once you have discovered if you and your family members are low, moderate or high on each system, it becomes easier to see how it affects the bidding process in the relationship.
The systems are the following:
Commander-in-chief (dominance and control)
Explorer (exploration and discovery)
Sensualist (sensual gratification, pleasure)
Energy Czar (regulates the need for energy, rest, relaxation)
Jester (play, fun)
Sentry (safety, vigilance)
Nest-builder (affiliation, bonding, attachment)
3. Examine Your Emotional Heritage
People typically develop one of four emotional philosophy styles. These styles are learnt during childhood and can affect your method of bidding and your ability to connect with others.
The four emotional styles are:
Emotion-dismissing (“You’ll get over it!“) = less bidding and turning away
Emotion-disapproving (“Don’t feel that way!“) = less bidding and turning against
Laissez-faire (“I understand how you feel.“) = bidding may or may not increase
Emotion-coaching (“I understand. Let’s figure out how we can help you.“) = more bidding, turning toward, with the bonus of guidance being offered for how to cope.
Families that create emotion-coaching environments give their children a higher chance of having more successful and loving relationships with their parents, siblings and friends. They also tend to get along better with their co-workers and romantic partners when they are older.
4. Sharpen Your Emotional Communication Skills
By learning effective communication skills, we are more likely to say what we mean and feel without the other person becoming defensive. As a result, it can increase our chances of positive changes occurring and improve relationship satisfaction.
The four steps of effective communication are as follows:
D — Describe the situation, and stick to facts, not judgments
(e.g., ”When you don’t clean up your room”, not “When you are disrespectful and don’t care about your things!”).
E — Explain how you feel
(Emotions — e.g., “I feel hurt and upset!”. Not opinions — e.g., “I feel like you don’t care about me or the house rules!”)
A — Ask for what you need or would prefer
(Behaviours — e.g., “I would prefer that you follow the rules we have established and clean up your room before going outside to play with friends”. Not feelings — e.g., “I would prefer if you actually cared about this family and your things like you say you do”).
R — Reinforce the potential benefits to them, you and the relationship if they could do what you have asked
(e.g., “Then your things won’t get wrecked, you can play, I can relax, and we can all have fun together later instead of me having to nag you all the time!”).
You might be sceptical, but it really can work, and it does become more comfortable with practice.
5. Find Shared Meaning with Others
This can be done by sharing your dreams or visions, or it can be about developing consistent rituals together that, over time, can lead to more shared experiences and a stronger emotional bond.
With the kids, this may be prioritising having dinner around the table with the whole family and chatting each night without technology. Or it could be:
a regular movie night every Friday,
church every Sunday morning,
games night once a week,
Christmas and Family Day with the extended family,
New Year at the beach every year, or
Anything else that you can repeat regularly
Rituals provide great memories for the children and predictability and help them feel loved and secure. What you do does not matter too much; it is about what is meaningful to you and your family.
So there we have it. Try to develop an authoritative parenting style, turn towards your child’s emotional bids, foster an emotion-coaching philosophy in the home, and try to communicate and find shared meaning with your children. Then, you will be well on your way to raising emotionally healthy children. I wish you all the best with the inevitable challenges along the way.
Sometimes in life, we come across people who defy our natural belief systems about how people “should be”. For example, while we assume that most people follow the golden rule of “treat others the way you would like to be treated”, some individuals are not guided by this principle and regularly break this rule.
These people are “toxic” because their behaviours leave a trail of destruction behind them wherever they go. The damage is usually in the form of other people who are left feeling distressed, confused, isolated, trapped, depressed, angry, afraid, guilty, grieving, and potentially traumatised. And that’s not to mention the financial, social, occupational or legal consequences that can arise from an interaction, encounter or a relationship with a toxic person.
A toxic person has minimal concern for anyone apart from themselves, except for how others could help or hinder them from getting what they want, physically or emotionally. The three main ways that they will try to manipulate others into doing what they would like emotionally are through a sense of fear, obligation, and guilt (FOG).
Be careful if you notice that FOG is being used against you to try and get you to do something you don’t want to do. A loving person will encourage us to be the best that we can be. Instead, a toxic person will help us be what they need us to be, which may differ from what is actually in our best interests.
Worse still, toxic people will typically:
(a) not admit to having done anything wrong, even when presented with the facts,
(b) honestly believe that they haven’t done anything wrong or haven’t intended to do so, and instead blame you or someone else for how they felt or what they did, and
(c) try to convince others of their innocence, even if this involves stretching the truth or outright lying.
Unfortunately, many of the clients that I see have been affected by toxic people, including:
The boss. who dangles the promise of pay raises and promotions over their employees to motivate them to reach a goal, and then once employees meet that goal, the boss takes the deal off the table.
The boss, who forces his workers, often vulnerable immigrants on working visas, to work for less money than the minimum wage or to be on call and work overtime without any extra pay or time in lieu.
The alcoholic father. who verbally and physically beats his wife and children.
The competitive father, who is afraid of his children surpassing him and won’t give them any praise or actively minimise their accomplishments.
The narcissistic father, who views his children as an extension of himself and thus tries to live out his unfulfilled potential through them, often in regards to school, sports, and career.
The narcissistic mother who makes her children lie about their school grades or where they live, who they are or what they do so that she looks better to her friends and family.
The self-centred mother, who is afraid her children no longer need her and therefore does whatever she can to prevent them from becoming independent. It might be doing all of the chores for them, nitpicking and criticising their choices in jobs, partners and anything else that could reduce the amount of influence or power that she has over them.
The abusive mother, who locks her children away in a room by themselves and beats or neglects them further whenever they do not comply with her wishes.
The cheating girlfriend, who compulsively lies about her behaviour and then is jealous of their partner talking to a girl and questions their fidelity and faithfulness.
The hypocritical boyfriend who disappears for days on end on drug binges and then calls and messages his partner every five minutes when he knows she is out having fun with her friends.
The ex-partner, who earns a lot of money and still refuses to pay any child support or see the children so that they can get back at or hurt the other parent for leaving them.
The self-centred friend, who consistently demands assistance with the ongoing crises they have in their life, is nowhere to be seen when their friends need support.
I have seen or heard about these individuals across my life, and there are many more toxic people. Some of them are even more severe. It is disheartening to think that people out there can commit such horrible acts regularly without ever questioning their behaviour or feeling guilt.
Even though I have a better rational understanding of why this behaviour occurs by studying Psychology for the past 11 years, it still doesn’t make sense emotionally. I don’t get how someone can hurt the people they “say that they love” when their behaviours are precisely the opposite.
The reasons why someone might treat others in a harmful way include:
They are psychologically very unwell and need psychological treatment or medication. Consisting of the Axis I disorders, this includes severe Major Depressive Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, Eating Disorders, Substance Abuse Disorders, Bipolar Disorder, or Schizophrenia. Although these individuals can engage in toxic behaviours, if the symptoms of the psychological disorder are successfully managed or treated, the harmful behaviour is likely to improve significantly.
They have a personality disorder and could improve their symptoms with appropriate treatment and management. Consisting of Axis II disorders, including Borderline Personality Disorder (PD), Obsessive-Compulsive PD, Antisocial PD, Avoidant PD, Dependent PD, Histrionic PD and Narcissistic PD. Research suggests that some of the symptoms of personality disorders can be managed through treatment, such as Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) for Borderline PD. However, personality disorders are generally lifelong conditions that impact individuals across several different areas of their functioning, including interpersonal effectiveness skills. Therefore the likelihood of toxic behaviour increases, especially with Narcissistic and Antisocial PDs.
They are a Psychopath or Deviant and are therefore unlikely to change, even with treatment. Sometimes known as ‘The Dark Triad’, Machiavellians, Narcissists and Psychopaths all share the common trait of lacking empathy for their victims or anyone they take advantage of to get what they want. There is little evidence that treatment is ever successful with Psychopaths and people who are Sexual Deviants (e.g. serial offending Pedophiles). Sometimes, the best thing that society can do is lock up these individuals in a maximum-security prison to minimise the harm they can inflict upon others. However, Narcissists and Machiavellians (who believe the ends justify the means) are unlikely to be arrested or incarcerated for their behaviours. Therefore, they are most likely to be the toxic people that inflict the most damage on others without any remorse for what they do.
How to Successfully Manage Toxic People
The following information borrows heavily from the non-PD toolbox at the website Out of the FOG. It is a website that I recommend for client’s when they are living with or having to deal with someone who is consistently acting in a toxic way towards them.
What NOT to do when dealing with toxic people:
Abuse Amnesia — Do not try to forget or suppress previous episodes of abuse or boundary violations that the toxic person has perpetrated.
Amateur Diagnosis — If you believe that the toxic person has a psychiatric diagnosis or personality disorder, do not share this information, hoping that this will improve the situation or the relationship.
Avoidance — Do not withdraw from other relationships to reduce their risk of exposure to the toxic person and the potential criticism and rejection that comes with this. Avoiding other people will only further isolate you from your support and positive relationships, which you will need if you regularly deal with a toxic person.
Circular Conversations — Do not engage in repetitive, cyclical arguments with toxic people who endlessly cover the same issues without resolution. You are unlikely to get a different solution using the same strategy that hasn’t worked in the past.
Denial — Do not try to deny that a toxic person is engaging in certain behaviours or that these behaviours are not having severe adverse consequences if they are. It will still be damaging you even if you are typically resilient. It is essential to accept what is happening and how you feel to be more likely to do something about it.
Enabling — Do not try to absorb the abusive behaviour of the toxic person without challenging it or consistently enforcing personal boundaries. It will only “enable” them to continue the behaviour without any fear of repercussions.
Fix-It Syndrome — Do not try to take responsibility or compensate for the toxic person’s behaviours. Do not try to clean up their messes or fix the problems created by their actions. They need to be responsible for what they do if they are to learn from it.
Fleas — Do not try to imitate or emulate the toxic person’s behaviour or stoop to their level. It is tempting, but it is much better to act consistently with your values than “catch fleas” and act in a toxic way too. You will not have as much practice as them in doing what they do and will often get criticised by the toxic person for being the one with all of the problems if you try.
Lack of Boundaries — Do not allow the toxic person to break the guidelines and limits for acceptable behaviour that you have set. They must be made clear and consistently reinforced, or the toxic person will usually keep pushing and escalating the situation until they get what they want from you without changing their behaviour.
Imposed Isolation — Do not allow yourself to become isolated and cut off from your family, friends, and other supports, even if the toxic person is trying to intimidate you or coerce you into doing this.
JADE — Do not try to justify, argue, defend or explain or it is likely to end in a circular conversation.
Learned Helplessness — Do not believe that you have no control over a situation. A toxic person will sometimes want you to think this. Still, options and supports are always available if you wish to leave a relationship involving a toxic person.
Obedience — Do not blindly follow what you are being told to do by a toxic person because you think it will lead to less confrontation. Decide if what they are asking from you is really in your best long-term interests. Then, delay answering straight away so that you can have the time and space to think about it properly.
Rescuer Syndrome — Do not try to rescue the toxic person or compensate for their behavioural issues. The toxic person will only change when they are ready to, with qualified professionals’ additional assistance.
Self-Doubt — Although it is difficult, try not to let what the toxic person says impact how you see yourself, your mental health or your moral compass. Instead, believe in yourself, seek support, and query other friends or family about any doubts you have.
Although many people have tried these strategies, they are usually less effective than the recommended strategies.
What TO DO when dealing with toxic people:
The 3 “C’s” Rule — Do repeat this mantra when thinking about the toxic person and their behaviours: “I didn’t cause it, I can’t cure it, and I can’t control it.”
The 51% Rule — Do consider your own needs just a little more than the toxic person (at least 51%) if you would like to help them effectively.
The 50% Rule — Do realise that any relationship is about the dynamic between two people. Therefore, focusing on your part in the relationship (the 50% of the relationship you are responsible for) can positively change the overall dynamic. Much more than focusing on what the toxic person does. What they do is the 50% that is out of your control and not your responsibility.
Boundaries — Set clear and consistent guidelines and limits for acceptable behaviour with toxic people. Let them know how you will respond if they cross these boundaries and consistently reinforce these consequences when they do so.
Clean Up Rule — Do allow the toxic person to clean up their messes and deal with the external consequences of their actions. You are only responsible for cleaning up your messes, not theirs.
Emotional Intelligence — Do work on effectively understanding, recognising and regulating your own emotions, and develop empathy and social skills in dealing with the toxic person’s feelings without fixing their problems for them.
Get Support — Do find supportive people who are likely to empathise with you and understand what you are going through. If they understand mental illness, personality disorders and toxic people, it will be more likely that they will give you the support you need.
Journaling — Do write down whatever you are thinking and feeling about the toxic person and your relationship or troubles with them. If you can do this without censoring yourself, taking a break or worrying about what you are writing, then it can be even more therapeutic. If you can keep this in a safe place, do so, otherwise delete it or dispose of it in a way that is unlikely to be seen by the toxic person.
Make Good Choices — Do devote your energy focusing on what is under your control and the steps you can take. It can reduce stress a lot.
Medium Chill — Try to disengage through distraction, relaxation, meditation, and other arousal-reducing strategies if direct contact with the toxic person or their behaviours is unavoidable.
My Stuff/Their Stuff — Do clearly define and remind yourself what is your concern (“my stuff”) and what is the toxic person’s concern (“their stuff”), regardless of what they say to you.
No Contact — Do think about going “No Contact” and cutting off all forms of correspondence and contact with a toxic person if they are consistently not respecting your boundaries and consequences. No one deserves abuse, and this cannot take place if there is no contact or communication.
Personal Safety — Do keep a list of actions that you can follow to prevent situations from escalating into verbal, emotional or physical abuse. It will help if you put this in place as soon as any form of violence happens. First, try to stop the conversation, secondly, try to leave the room or the area, and thirdly call the police.
Put Children First — Do make decisions based on what is in the best interests of the children. Their needs and especially their safety and protection from abuse must come first.
Therapy — Do seek help if you are struggling to protect yourself or emotionally detach from the toxic people in your life. Therapy can also help if you want to learn more about yourself or build up other skills and capacities in your life (assertiveness, self-esteem, compassion etc.).
Work on Yourself — Do allocate time, energy and focus for yourself so that you can restore a good sense of balance with work, leisure, personal growth and socialising regardless of what the toxic person does.
If you are interested in reading more about this, I recommend checking out the Out of the FOG website. The book ‘Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation and Guilt to Manipulate You’ by Susan Forward and Donna Frazier is also helpful.
One of the saddest things I see time and time again in my work as a Clinical Psychologist is partners who both love each other and try their best to show this to each other, yet neither of them feels loved and appreciated.
The same thing also happens frequently within families, either between parents and their children or between siblings.
In the excellent book, ‘Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well’ by Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen, they highlight nicely why this often occurs:
Firstly, we are aware of our thoughts, feelings and intentions behind whatever actions we do. The other person is not. All they can see is what we say, how we say it, and our behaviour or body language. Our body language influences approximately 55% of how others interpret what we say to them, with 38% being how we say it and only 7% what we say (Mehrabian,1971). Worse still, these non-verbal cues are generally out of our awareness, meaning we don’t see what they see either.
Secondly, no matter how precisely we choose our words or actions, we cannot fully control how our message will be taken in and interpreted by the other person. Someone understands what we say based on their past experiences, core beliefs about others or our role (partner, sibling, parent or child), and their expectations and assumptions of what we are like or how we should be. Therefore, it creates biases before we have even opened our mouths and affects how they are impacted by what we do and say.
Lastly, suppose we make a mistake or an error or upset someone. In that case, we will usually attribute it to the context or situational factors rather than seeing it as something to do with our character (e.g. “I didn’t wash the dishes because I was running late for work”). Conversely, When others make a mistake or upset us, we often attribute it to a personality characteristic or an unchangeable flaw (e.g. “you didn’t wash the dishes because you are lazy and disrespectful”). What happens next is that we usually criticise their character, which they rightly become defensive over, and they try to explain the context, which we tell them is just an excuse. When the other person criticises our character, the opposite happens, and we wonder how they can be so cruel and unforgiving (making other judgments about their character and personality). It’s no wonder that relationships are so tricky!
What can we do?
1. Develop Active Listening Skills
Rather than assume the intent of others based on how they made us feel, it is much better to try and understand their perspective first and show this understanding through the skills of active listening, including:
clarifying: asking for more information on what they were talking about
“what did you mean by…?”,
“Can you elaborate further on …?”
paraphrasing: repeating back what was said to you in another way
them: “it’s like 100 degrees outside!”
you: “it’s so hot!”
reflecting: showing that you understand how they felt
them: “I had nothing to do all weekend!”
you: “you must have been bored!”
summarising: especially if someone has been speaking for a few minutes on a topic
them: multiple stories about the various things that have gone wrong for them recently
you: “sounds like you’ve had a rough week!”
Some people will get annoyed if you don’t fully understand them or what they are feeling at the moment. Still, even this is an excellent opportunity to learn more about the other person and to get better attuned with how they think and feel from now on. Most people will appreciate the effort.
2. Follow the Three Principles of Humanistic Psychology
Carl Rogers was a Humanistic Psychologist who believed that only three elements were essential for promoting growth and well-being in others. These were:
Unconditional Positive Regard: No matter what the other person does or doesn’t do, it is essential to separate the person from their actions and continue to see the person positively. As a parent or a partner, it is more than okay not to accept or tolerate certain behaviours, but we need to show that we are unhappy with the behaviour rather than who they are. If it is someone that we love, our love for them should not diminish, because we can still see that they are a good person who sometimes does the wrong thing. If they can feel this, it will help them learn right from wrong going forward, rather than feeling like they have to be a certain way to be loved.
Empathic Attunement: It is essential to see the world in the way the other person does and understand how they view the particular situation and feel about it. If we can show this to them in a way that they feel it, they will know that we get it and will develop greater trust in opening up to us about other things as we advance. They will also feel less alone and isolated and be more responsive if we suggest potential ways to help them out of a predicament. Without understanding first, any advice you give usually falls flat and is not taken on at best or is seen as uncaring and interfering at worst.
Congruency: It is essential to ensure that what we are expressing is consistent with how we feel (in a way appropriate to the other person or audience). A parent who is upset at something that has happened in their life may not want to burden a child with their problems. However, it is still better to say, “Mummy is a little upset, but she is going to be okay” rather than “nothing, everything is fine” when a child asks, “what’s wrong mummy?” because they have accurately picked up on how you are feeling. Telling them something that is not congruent with how you feel will only confuse them and potentially make them doubt how their perception is going forward. The more congruent we are, the more trustworthy we are to others, and the less they have to worry about resentment building up or you keeping things from them.
3. Practice Effective Communication
As part of Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT), Marsha Linehan teaches interpersonal effectiveness skills. She says that if we want to get an objective met when communicating, try the following four steps:
D — Describe the situation, and stick to facts, not judgments
(e.g.” When you are 30 minutes late”, not “When you are rude and don’t care!”).
E — Explain how you feel
(Emotions — e.g. “I feel hurt and upset!”. Not opinions — e.g. “I feel like you don’t care at all!”)
A — Ask for what you need or would prefer
(Behaviours — e.g. “I would prefer that if you are late next time that you either try to leave a bit earlier or text or call to let me know that you are running late”. Not feelings — e.g. “I would prefer if you cared about and loved me like you say you do”).
R — Reinforce the potential benefits to them, you and the relationship if they could do what you have asked
(e.g. “Then you won’t need to rush as much, you’ll be safer on the road getting here, I won’t worry as much, we won’t end up fighting, and we’ll be able to enjoy a great night out together!”).
You might be sceptical, but it really can work, and it does become more comfortable with practice.
4. Avoid the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse
John Gottman, the legendary relationship researcher, claims that he can successfully predict with a 91% accuracy which couples will get divorced in the future after observing them for only five minutes. He says that if you want to avoid a later break-up (the apocalypse), it is essential to prevent the following four things (the four horsemen) that can significantly erode the goodwill of a relationship over time. These are:
Criticism: While it is essential to be able to make a complaint about a specific behaviour in a relationship (e.g. “you left the toilet seat up again”), a criticism about who the person is will never be helpful (e.g. “you’re such a slob!”).
Contempt: This includes anything that communicates disgust, resentment or looking down upon the other. Contempt may be spoken through hostile humour such as sarcasm, cynicism or name-calling, or displayed through behaviours such as eye-rolling, sneering or mocking laughter with the head tilted back. Building a culture of mutual respect and appreciation is the antidote to this.
Defensiveness: This is usually in response to criticisms or contempt, and each partner then feels that they are right and the other is wrong, and the argument becomes about who will win. When each partner is trying to win an argument and blame the other, the relationship suffers in the end. It’s much better to take responsibility for your part and then work towards what will be best for both of you going forward.
Stonewalling: Eventually, after escalating conflict, one partner tries to tune out the other partner, disengaging from the communication or the relationship emotionally while remaining physically present. Stonewalling is done more by males than females and is a way to calm themselves down when feeling overwhelmed and flooded. The result on the other partner is escalating distress, much like a baby who is suddenly unable to interact with their mother in the Stillface Experiment:
Let your partner know that you are overwhelmed and need a 20-minute break. Then, tell them that you will be back and happy to continue the discussion once you feel calmer. Doing this is a much more effective way than just shutting off or shutting out the other person. It also leads to both of you feeling more in control and less distressed.
5. Find Out Their Primary and Secondary Love Languages
People often express their love to others in the way they would most want, rather than showing their love in how their partner, child, parent, or sibling would wish them to.
For example, many fathers will try to show their love to their children by working hard, making lots of money, and providing financial security and stability for their future. But, conversely, the child often wants to spend some time with their dad, play at the park, kick the football, or play video games together.
The most confusing scenario to me is males, who tend to be more visual than females, sending explicit pictures of themselves to a female they are pursuing. I think they do this because they would like to receive a graphic image from the female. However, they assume that the women would want the same. It is considered a crime if you do this in public without prior consent and not through a phone.
Meanwhile, females, usually more sentimental than males, may prefer some flowers or a lovely card with a thoughtful handwritten message. Still, men don’t understand this because it’s typically not something they would ever want to receive. Therefore they don’t see the point. Big mistake!
Understanding the five love languages, written about by Gary Chapman in various books, becomes very handy.
When trying to show someone that you care, the first step is to determine which love languages seem to mean the most to them. A questionnaire exists on the website http://www.5lovelanguages.com that you could ask the other person to complete if you are unsure what they value most and want to understand them better.
The next step is to disregard what you would want from them and do what you think will make them the happiest, based on their love language preferences:
Words of Affirmation:
DO: Give them compliments, encouraging words, written cards or letters
DON’T: Give them undue criticism or emotionally harsh words
Quality Time:
DO: Give them your undivided attention, have one-on-one conversations without interruptions, do things together, take trips together, sit and talk.
DON’T: Spend too much time with friends or groups (even if it’s together), neglect them or have long gaps of time between catch-ups and check-ins.
Gifts:
DO: Give gifts, give time, remember special occasions, give small tokens of appreciation or love — show that you have put in the effort or thought in choosing.
DON’T: Forget special events or anniversaries, or buy meaningless, generic or thoughtless gifts that show that you haven’t put in time or effort in choosing
Acts of Service:
DO: Assist with chores, make a checklist together, tick something off their to-do list, fix something, ask “How can I help?” or “What can I do?”
DON’T: Overcommit to tasks that you won’t be able to complete, forget to follow through on something you have promised to do, fail to help.
Physical Touch:
DO: Sit close, hug, touch
DON’T: Withhold affection or threaten to do so, neglect, physically hit or abuse
By loving those we love in the way they want to be loved, there is a much higher chance that we will feel loved and appreciated, and our relationships will likely improve. Seeing that relationship warmth is the number one predictor of long-term health and happiness, making small changes in how we listen to, talk to, and care for others could go a long way to improving the overall quality of our lives.
John Gottman is a legendary relationship researcher. He began using “The Love Lab” as his research centre at the University of Washington in 1986.
Here, he would have couples stay in the apartment at The Love Lab, and watch as they bring up an old topic that they would typically fight about. During this conflict, he would also film the couple and measure their vitals or physiological responses.
By 1992, Gottman became so accurate at predicting which couples would eventually divorce that he published a study on it. His findings successfully indicated with 91% accuracy which of the 57 couples would later break up after recording them deal with conflict for only five minutes.
How Do You and Your Partner Fight?
The main thing that Gottman realised was what we now know as conflict style. The average therapist will say that the most healthy conflict style is a validating or compromising conflict style. With this style, the partner will want to discuss the issue calmly and rationally, talk about how the couple can resolve the problem, and collaboratively develop an amicable solution that will work well for both parties.
Now Gottman found that if both parties or people in a disagreement had this validating or compromising conflict style, it worked well and didn’t predict a later break up. It wasn’t the case if only one person was validating or compromising in their conflict style. If their partner was avoidant, volatile or passive-aggressive in their conflict style, this mismatch was more predictive of a later divorce.
What might be surprising to therapists is that if both people were avoidant in their conflict style, their outcome tended to be no worse than if they were both validating. So if you prefer to only focus on the good and not discuss any of the issues in your relationship, you may not need to start bringing stuff up. Instead, it would be best if you found a partner who also prefers to sweep the bad things under the rug rather than discuss any problematic issues. However, if your partner needs to bring things up, you may need to, too, if you want your relationship to be happy and work out in the long run.
Similarly, if your ideal conflict style is to be volatile and get everything off your chest regardless of how you say it, this can work if your partner wants to be volatile too. Again, you are likely to fare just as well as the validating or avoidant couples, and much better than if you prefer to be volatile and your partner does not.
Which Conflict Style Is Ideal for Your Relationship?
It turns out that deciding upon which conflict style is likely to work best for you and your partner, and then both doing this is more important than figuring out which conflict style is best in general. For example, some relationships may work out precisely because the bad stuff is avoided and never discussed. Others may be passionate and work because each partner gets everything they think and feel off their chest. And another couple may work out because they chat about the important things without losing their temper and work together to come up with a solution while both choosing to let some of the more minor things go.
Whether you prefer to be avoidant, compromising or validating in how you manage conflict, try to see if you can get on the same page about how to best deal with disagreements with your partner. Being on the same team about how you want to try and manage fights will give you the best chance to maintain a happy and healthy relationship. On the other hand, if you can’t get on the same team about how you want to fight, Gottman’s research findings indicate that your different conflict styles are more than likely to be the end of your relationship one day.
If you want to learn more, Gottman has some great books that I would highly recommend reading, including:
The Seven Principals for Making Marriage Work: A Practical Guide from the Country’s Foremost Relationship Expert
Eight Dates: Essential Conversations for a Lifetime of Love
The Man’s Guide to Women: Scientifically Proven Secrets from the “Love Lab” About What Women Really Want
The Relationship Cure: A 5-Step Guide to Strengthening Your Marriage, Family and Friendships
The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples
Why Marriages Succeed or Fail: And How You Can Make Your Last
A fascinating book that I read towards the end of 2017 was ‘The 48 Laws of Power’ by Robert Greene.
Since the book was first released in 1998, it has sold over 2 million copies worldwide and has influenced many successful people, from Will Smith to Kanye West, Jay-Z and 50 Cent, who later co-wrote a New York Times’ bestseller with Greene.
It is also the most highly requested book in U.S. prisons due to the synthesis of Machiavelli, Sun Tzu and other famous writers’ key prescriptions for effectively managing power struggles in difficult environments.
Some of the 48 laws do seem contradictory, and others seem a little repetitive. Still, there are some truly great bits of advice for effectively managing situations where power may play a role. This might be a corporate environment, a difficult but smaller workplace, a large social group, to really anywhere where there is a power imbalance between people or a formal or informal hierarchy.
Here are my 10 favourite laws, including a description of each law from the following website. The parts that I especially like are bolded. Enjoy!
Law 4: Always Say Less than Necessary
When you are trying to impress people with words, the more you say, the more common you appear, and the less in control… Powerful people impress by saying less. The more you say, the more likely you are to say something foolish.
Like the Danish proverb that says, “deep rivers move with silent majesty, shallow brooks are noisy”, law 4 reminds me only to say things that I believe will be of value. It also helps me stay within my circle of competence and not give advice on things that I do not know much about.
Law 9: Win through your Actions, Never through Argument
Any momentary triumph you think gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
A parent who smokes but tells their children not to is unlikely to be successful at persuading their children because “actions speak louder than words”. The better option is not to smoke or quit if you want to set a good example. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “you must be the change you wish to see in the world”.
Law 13: When Asking for Help, Appeal to People’s Self-Interest, Never to their Mercy or Gratitude
If you need to turn to an ally for help, do not bother to remind him of your past assistance and good deeds. He will find a way to ignore you. Instead, uncover something in your request, or in your alliance with him, that will benefit him, and emphasise it… He will respond enthusiastically when he sees something to be gained for himself.
As sad as this may appear, most people are self-motivated and want to do the right thing if it makes them look good. For example, a hybrid car such as a Toyota Prius sells well because it is known as a hybrid car. It screams out, “I care about the environment,” in a way that the Toyota Camry Hybrid does not because the hybrid version of the Camry looks almost identical to the regular Camry. The 2014 sales in the US of each car highlights this point: Prius = 194,000; Toyota Camry Hybrid = 39,500; Toyota Camry (non-hybrid) = 428,600. Figure out how what you want will benefit the other person or help them look good before you ask for a favour, and you are much more likely to get them on board.
Law 18: Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself — Isolation is Dangerous
The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere — everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from — it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people, find allies, mingle.
Many people that I see try to protect themselves at the cost of a real sense of connection and belonging with others. This law helps by reminding me of the dangers and costs of not opening up to honest people you can trust.
Law 23:Concentrate Your Forces
Conserve your forces and energies by keeping them concentrated at their strongest point. You gain more by finding a rich mine and mining it deeper, than by flitting from one shallow mine to another — intensity defeats extensiveness every time.
This reminds me of the saying, “jack of all trades; master of none”. If you want to make progress in anything, it is important to prioritise and put your energy into the activities and thought patterns that will give you the best results. Law 23 also helps me to build upon my strengths rather than worrying too much about my weaknesses.
Law 25:Re-Create Yourself
Do not accept the roles that society foists on you. Re-create yourself by forging a new identity, one that commands attention and never bores the audience. Be the master of your own image rather than letting others define it for you.
I often encourage my clients to clarify their most important values and see how these differ from what their family, friends, culture, or society may want. The idea of working hard and not enjoying life until retirement is not a role that I want to accept, even though this is considered normal in many respects by society. It’s much better to create and live a sustainable life for myself, whatever that may look like. Then it won’t matter if and when I retire, especially if I keep loving what I do for work.
Law 28: Enter Action with Boldness
If you are unsure of a course of action, do not attempt it. Your doubts and hesitations will infect your execution. Timidity is dangerous: Better to enter with boldness. Any mistakes you commit through audacity are easily corrected with more audacity. Everyone admires the bold; no one honours the timid.
Law 28 reminds me not to doubt myself once I have settled on a course of action and fully commit myself to it for a set period of time instead of remaining uncertain or indecisive. Once a decision is made, it is much better to give it 100% until the next decision needs to be made. Uncertainty only leads to more stress and anxiety and less satisfaction in the long run.
Law 29: Plan All the Way to the End
The ending is everything. Plan all the way to it, taking into account all the possible consequences, obstacles, and twists of fortune that might reverse your hard work… By planning to the end you will not be overwhelmed by circumstances and you will know when to stop. Gently guide fortune and help determine the future by thinking far ahead.
This reminds me of the benefits of thinking into the future and clarifying how I would want my life to look. For example, if I had a 50th birthday and someone close to me stood up and spoke about the person I had been for the past 18 years, what would I want to hear them say? Based on my response to this, it is then important to see if my 1-, 5- or 10-year plan is helping me to head in that direction. If not, more planning and some big changes may be required, as long as my plans are flexible enough to change as I continue to grow with time.
Law 35: Master the Art of Timing
Never be in a hurry — hurrying betrays a lack of control over yourself, and over time. Always (be) patient, as if you know that everything will come to you eventually. Become a detective of the right moment; sniff out the spirit of the times, the trends that will carry you to power. Learn to stand back when the time is not yet ripe, and to strike fiercely when it has reached fruition.
Patience is a massively underrated value, especially in today’s society. How often do you see people multitasking or telling you how busy they are? I know I sometimes do. But slowing things down and really making sure that my attention is 100% on what is most important in any given moment is a great recipe for long-term happiness and well-being. While it is important to “strike while the iron is hot”, I think it is also important not to be too reactive and make sure that the decisions you make are really consistent with your values and long-term plans. Knowing how to say no to the wrong things in life is also a crucial element of success.
Law 45: Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once
Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic, and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it a gentle improvement on the past.
Trying to change my eating habits has taught me this law better than anything else recently. As soon as I try to be too restrictive, I rebel against any prescriptions. Long-term sustainable changes are again much better than short-term dramatic changes. The 20-minute walk that you manage to do is better than the 10km run you do not, so start small and try to build up slowly. If you can do this, changes are much more likely to stick.
If you want to see the remaining 38 laws, please click here or purchase the book. Some of the laws seem pretty ruthless, but pretending that they don’t exist in power dynamics is much more dangerous than learning how they work.
I also recommend checking out my dealing with toxic people article for more information on successfully managing and surviving difficult interactions.
I just finished reading the book ‘Modern Romance: An Investigation’ by Aziz Ansari and Eric Klinenberg and was pleasantly surprised to see such a well-researched book written predominantly by a Stand-up Comedian (with a helping hand from a Sociologist).
For those of you who don’t know Aziz, his stand-up shows typically consist of interesting observations about relationships, as does his new series ‘Master of None’.
Considering that I liked his stand-up and show, I was intrigued to see his book about relationships in my local bookstore. Here’s what his research found:
How Has Dating Changed?
1. Distance
Back in 1932, a Sociologist named James Bossard examined 5000 consecutive marriage licences in the city of Philidelphia, USA, and looked into how close the partners had lived to each other before they married. Here’s what he found:
Same address — 12.64%
Same block — 4.54%
1 to 2 blocks — 6.08%
2 to 4 blocks — 7.3%
4 to 10 blocks — 10.16%
10 to 20 blocks — 9.62%
20+ blocks — 17.8%
Different cities — 17.8%
More than half of Philidelphia in the 1930s married someone who lived in a ten-block radius to them. More than one-in-six didn’t even cross the road to find their marriage partner.
Other Sociologists looked to see if this pattern remained in smaller towns and found that it did whenever suitable marriage partners were available. For example, John Ellsworth Jr., who examined marriage patterns in a Connecticut town of less than 4,000 called Simsbury, declared:
“People will go as far as they have to to find a mate, but no farther.”
While this quote may still be somewhat applicable in modern times, it does seem that we are much more likely to date people of different origins, cultures and addresses to us, rather than settling down with someone who lived on the same street.
2. Places
Where we meet our romantic partners is much different too. Sociologist Michael Rosenfeld’s survey ‘How Couples Meet and Stay Together’ asked over 3,000 American adults of all ages when and how they met their spouse or romantic partner. Because the age of the respondents differed, it made it possible to see the changes between 1940 and 2010. Here’s what he found:
In 1940, the most common way couples met was through family (approximately 25%). The second was meeting through friends (21%), followed by meeting in church (13%), and being neighbours (12%).
In 1950, meeting via friends had become the most popular method to meet someone (approximately 26%). Meeting through family was still popular (24%) and was a clear second. Meeting in a bar or a restaurant (14%) was becoming more popular, and meeting at work (12%) or being neighbours (12%) was now more popular than meeting at church (10%).
In 1970, meeting through friends was the preferred method to find a partner (approximately 31%). Matching through family (20%) was challenged by meeting at a bar or restaurant (18%). Meeting at work was fourth (15%), followed by neighbours, church and college.
In 1990, meeting through friends was just below 40%, finding your partner at work was now second (20%), followed by meeting at a bar or a restaurant (18%). Meeting through family and being neighbours had declined as ways to find a partner. Instead, more people were meeting in college, presumably because more people were also going to college and studying longer. Some early adopters were starting to date online too, but this was still the least favourite method of meeting potential partners.
Fast forward to 2010, and meeting through friends was still the most common way couples met, but it was under 30% for the first time since 1960. Meeting at a bar or restaurant fought with meeting online for the 2nd most popular method, with both around 20%. Meeting online was already the most popular option for same-sex partners in 2005 and was up to about 70% by 2010. Meeting at work, meeting through family, being neighbours and finding dates through the church was now much less popular as ways to meet someone, and even meeting at college was beginning to decline. All thanks to the rise of the internet!
In a separate study looking at how Americans met their spouses between 2005 and 2012, Psychologist John Cacioppo found that more than one-in-three married couples met online (34.95%), which was more than work (14.09%), friends (12.4%) and a bar or club (5.68%) combined. So all of the recent advances in technology, especially the internet and smartphones, really has changed the dating scene dramatically, including how we meet, who we meet, how many potential partners we can meet, and even how we communicate with each other.
3. Communication Methods
The first text ever was by a British engineer called Neil Papworth in 1992. It’s crazy to think how much this form of communication has grown in only 24 years. In 2007, text messages began to outnumber phone calls made in the US each month, and in 2010 the world sent approximately 200,000 texts each minute. Since 2010, the number of people owning smartphones has dramatically increased in the USA. It rose from 17% in 2010 to 58% in 2014. 83% of 18- to 29-year-olds already owned a smartphone in 2014. With greater smartphone use comes an increasing use in apps such as Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Viber, which further increases instant messages sent.
Calling vs Texting vs Face-to-Face?
First Dates
Seeing that text messages have been a more popular way of communicating since 2007, does this mean that it is now okay to text someone to ask them out on a first date?
In 2010, only 10% of adults under 30 used texts to ask someone out for the first time.
By 2013, a Match.com survey found that this number had increased to 32%, with face-to-face still leading the way with 37%, a phone call less popular at 23%, and e-mails virtually non-existent at 1%.
For adults over 30, this same Match.com survey found that a phone call (52%) was the most likely method of communication when asking someone out on a date, followed by face-to-face (28%), text messages (8%) and e-mail (7%).
Older females tended to appreciate phone calls in the focus groups that Aziz and Eric ran about whether to phone or text. They saw them as a sign of confidence and helped separate the person from other potential suitors. It also helped them feel more safe and comfortable going out on a date with someone they may not know very well.
Younger females seemed just as afraid to receive phone calls as younger males were in making them. They preferred not having to respond on the spot and having time to think of a witty or genuine reply or not even reply at all if they weren’t interested, and texting provided them with these options.
Breaking Up
What about breaking up — can this too be done via text without seeing the reaction of the heart that you are potentially breaking? It sure sounds more comfortable, but is it socially acceptable?
In a 2014 survey of 2,712 18- to 30-year-olds, 73% said they would be upset if their date broke up with them via text, social media or email.
In this same survey, out of those who had ended a relationship in the previous 12 months, 25% had used text, 20% had used social media, 18% had split face-to-face, 15% had broken up through a phone call, and 11% had used email.
With texting, those who had used this method to break up said that they did so because it was “less awkward” and easier to be “more honest.” I still think it is wrong to end a long relationship over text, no matter how much easier it may be. Even though the majority of young adults still agree with me, their actions say the opposite. It’s only a matter of time before their attitudes begin to change in regards to this too.
Texting Guidelines for Dating:
1. Do not just say “hey”, “hi”, “what’s up?”, “what’s going on?”
Generic messages like this tend to be a real turn-off for some people, especially females who receive many texts like this from several different guys. It is much better to ask a specific question about them or something that refers to the last time you spoke.
2. Do not just engage in endless banter that never leads to a real-world catch-up.
Endless banter gets boring eventually, and older women, in particular, have less patience for constant text exchanges.
3. Do not just ask someone if they want to “hang out sometime?”
It’s confusing whether hanging out is a date or just friends, and it may never lead to an actual date. So instead, invite them out to a particular event, or ask them to meet you at a specific time and place.
4. Do try to proofread your text messages for correct grammar and spelling.
Incorrect spelling is often a major turn off, as is shortening words or using text slang. Determine the audience first, but stick to “tonight” rather than “2nite” if unsure.
5. Do use a bit of playfulness and humour, but with caution.
Make sure that you have a similar sense of humour before engaging in anything too risky or crude, and remember that it can be challenging to pick up on tone in text messages.
6. Follow the other basic rules around texting:
Please wait a while to text back instead of doing it right away, especially early in the dating process. Waiting a bit implies that you have a busy life and builds suspense, increasing the emotional intensity and attraction in the person who has to wait.
If you have already sent a text, do not send another message to the same person until you hear back from them unless it is an absolute emergency.
Write a similar amount in your texts to what the other person does. If you increase it slightly, they should too if they like you due to our tendency to reciprocate. If they do not, this may mean that they are not aware of the cultural norms around texting, or they are just not that into you.
If you are not interested, others will tell you to be upfront and honest with them, but most people actually either pretend to be busy or stop texting back.
4. Expectations
When choosing a partner, it seems that our expectations of what the other person needs to provide us have continued to increase over the past 50 years:
Before the 1960s, most people were happy enough with settling for a “companionate” or good-enough marriage. People didn’t spend forever looking for passion and love (even though this may have developed over time). Many people saw passionate love as too volatile or irrational to use as the basis for whether or not they should marry someone.
When looking for a prospective husband back in 1939, men with a dependable character, emotional stability, maturity and a pleasing disposition were all more highly sought after by women than men they felt mutual attraction and love towards.
By the early 1960s, 76% of women were willing to marry a man they didn’t love.
“Marriage was an economic institution in which you were given a partnership for life in terms of children and social status and succession and companionship.” — Esther Perel.
When looking for a prospective wife in 1939, men also highly valued emotional stability, maturity, a dependable character and pleasing disposition, and interestingly also appreciated ambition and industriousness over mutual love and attraction.
By the early 1960s, however, only 35% of men admitted that they were willing to marry a woman that they didn’t love. Men already had more legal rights and financial freedom and weren’t looked down upon for moving out of the house and enjoying single life before getting married.
By the 1980s, things had changed, with 86% of men and 91% of women in the US saying they needed romantic love to marry someone.
In 2008, mutual love and attraction were rated #1 for men and women looking for a prospective partner.
No longer do people settle for companionship or what is good enough. We also want passion and the perfect life partner who completes us, gives us belonging and identity, mystery and awe, and makes us happy. Some people even declare that they are looking for their soul mate and refuse to settle for anything less.
This search for the perfect partner seems to take a lot of emotional investment, trial and error, potential heartbreak, and much stress and indecision. However, if we find our soul mate, the potential pay-off should theoretically be much higher than for an old-fashioned “companionate” marriage. However, with more possible options and higher expectations, how can we know if we have found the one to marry?
5. Marriages
At what age do we get married?
From 1950 until about 1968, the average age of first marriages in the US was about 20 for females and 23 for males. In the mid-1970s, this age rapidly increased until it briefly stagnated at about 24 for women and 27 for men between 1999 and 2004. It then began to rise again to about 27 for females and 29 for males in 2014. In bigger cities, such as New York, it is over 30 for both males and females.
After how long do we tend to get married?
Before the 1960s, the average couple wed after just six months, according to Stephanie Coontz, author of ‘Marriage, A History’. However, the dating period and the engagement period tend to be much longer these days, with some couples even choosing to live together in a de-facto relationship without ever marrying.
Do we even need to get married anymore?
Before the 1960s, getting married, buying a house, and moving out were the first significant steps that signified the transition to adulthood. Single women rarely lived alone, and many families discouraged their daughters from moving into shared housing with other working girls. Their parents were heavily involved in their decisions, even who they dated, and typically always knew about their whereabouts.
Women of previous generations would sometimes get married to get out of the house and get their first taste of adulthood and freedom. However, once married, they were not always more free to do what they wanted. Instead, they had to depend on their husbands for legal and financial purposes whilst being fully responsible for looking after the house and the children.
Although things still aren’t fully equal with men and women, with women typically earning less and having to do more housework and child-rearing, they now have equal legal rights regarding property and divorce. Alongside the greater acceptance of various lifestyle choices, including moving out without getting married, marriage is now a choice rather than a necessity for many women.
Thanks to the advances in technology, we now have more potential options available to us at the click of a mouse or swipe of a button than we have ever had before.
Thanks to the greater rights and freedom provided to most women in the Australian culture, we also have a new developmental period between adolescence and adulthood called emerging adulthood (ages 18–29). It is a phase where people can go to university, start a career, travel, move around a bit, and have some fun and relationship experiences before settling down and getting married.
During emerging adulthood, we end up greatly expanding our pool of potential romantic partners. Once you include online dating and other apps for meeting people, the number of possible partners grows exponentially, especially in bigger cities like Melbourne.
But does having more choices make it easier to find “the one”?
Research on the paradox of choice would suggest not. As I’ve already mentioned in a previous post, Barry Schwartz, a Psychologist, describes an experiment at a supermarket where they offered 24 different samples of jelly (jam) to customers on day one and six jellies on day two. The day with only six options outsold the day with 24 possibilities by ten times the amount.
Too many options lead to indecision and paralysis and higher discontent after a decision. So before you are searching for a partner, especially if it is online, make sure that you have a sense of what is truly important to you and what is not, and try to limit your search to these options. Then if you find someone who seems to be alright, give them a real chance before moving onto the next one. You’re likely to be more satisfied on a long-term basis if you do.
Damon Ashworth Psychology 
You must be logged in to post a comment.