RELATIONSHIP COMMUNICATION

THE HIDDEN EFFECTS OF COMMUNICATING NEGATIVELY

       The effect of hurting or punishing your partner if they simply say something you disagree with is that every time you do so that decreases the chances of the other person speaking openly and honestly with you, and increases the chances of them not wanting to communicate, interact with you, or value you.  Whether a response to just kind conversation is a punch in the face, an insulting comment, or a tone of anger or derision, the principle and effect type is the same.  It's a move towards people doing their own separate "thing" rather than figuring things out together, and thus contributes to loneliness and a decrease of all the nicer things you'd hope for in a relationship.   If the potential for a great relationship was there, the cost of "punishing" is huge whether you realize what you're doing or not.  If the relationship holds little value, the loss is proportionally smaller. But there is a downward spiraling feedback loop, of punishing causing a lower quality relationship, which lowers the value of the relationship, which lowers the care about hurting the relationship, etc.   The degree of a person wanting to be "in this" and reduce their willingness to speak openly is generally in proportion to the frequency and severity of the hurt and punishing that is being included in the communication, and in proportion to the recipient's distaste for the other person's "anger & negative vibration". 

       Before going further, lets clarify that the subject of "punishing" the other person in response to trying to talk nicely in a current conversation, even when talking about any past problem event, is what this paper is saying you shouldn't do.  This paper is not saying you shouldn't take aggressive action in response to a currently occurring violation of someone's safely or personal rights.   If a physical problem or action against you is occurring NOW then take action NOW. But if it is a long past problem that is just being attempted to be discussed NOW, then it is important to discuss it nicely NOW if your purpose is to improve anything.  If someone tries to discuss something nicely NOW, regardless of the problem subject, and the response is aggression and attack, then that means THERE IS ALWAYS AT EVERY SINGLE MOMENT PERPETUALLY the same ability to bring up out of the air any past problem and introduce violence and aggression out of the air.  This means there's no moment safe from random sudden violence and aggression, and this becomes a legitimate reason for someone subjected to this to withdraw from the relationship, close off their heart and not want to speak openly.  Even if this is only done occasionally, it turns the relationship into a situation of Russian Roulette where the recipient never knows when the next punch is going to spring up out of the air.  The cost of responding to talking nicely with anger and aggression is the result of moving the relationship away from love, closeness, and all the other good things you want in a relationship.  It makes the other person not want to do those "good relationship" things, where they might have otherwise. This paper is simply saying be aware of the cause and effect of what you're choosing, and don't just blame the other person for valuing you less and not wanting a deeper relationship with you.

       It is common for a person who employs punishment in their communication to either not recognize it as such, or to justify it by holding onto the thought that it is necessary for the communication.  Those who do it habitually just as habitually justify it to themselves with well practiced mantras.  But you'd be talking yourself into what is taking away the things you say you want. There is a way to communicate any information in a non-hurtful or non-punishing way, and this claim can be put to the test if you ever have the inclination to do so.  So when punishing and hurting are used in communication it is actually still a choice, and so just an excuse to let one's anger and stubbornness rule their head and dictate their internal narration, not an actually needed thing.   You not knowing how to (or being willing to) communicate your desired information in a loving kind way does not make it unable to be done.   To aid in recognizing when "punishment" is being employed, we'll name some of the main forms here.  

1) Speak in an angry, agressive or derisive tone.

2) yell, throw, scream, hit, kick, spit, break, slam, damage property, theft/not returning property, 2) repeat call with the intention of bothering the other person.  

3) Hinder the other person from leaving or ceasing interaction with you (or consider this harm), 

4) Act to get the other in trouble with authorities or others, or retribution.

5) Sleep with someone else. Insult the other person. 

6) Rapid fire complaints so that no one subject can actually be addressed enough to help.

7) Indicate to the other person you are not interested in what they have to say.

8) "Shush" the other person and not allow them to contribute to the conversation.

9) Hold both sides of the conversation, stating what the other person's thoughts, motivations, and emotions are (without their current confirmation) and then also argue against your own words.

10) Tell the other person they are lying or wrong, rather than leaving room to explore nicely a possible difference of opinion or a mistaken understanding.

TOGETHER OR NOT TOGETHER

       If a person is doing these punishing aspects in response to current conversation, this causes the recipient of the anger and aggression to close off and back away from the vulnerability of trying to tackle the problem truly together.  When this wall of separation exists, a couple isn't discovering what the couple could have figured out together without the hindrance of these punishing aspects.  Not figuring things out together is figuring it out yourself, which is a solo operation, meaning NOT tackled together.   Can you reiterate what the other person's thoughts are on your various "complaints and problems" to where the other person would say "Yes, you understand what I think about that correctly"?  If not then you have not tried to tackle the problem "together".   In essence, this isn't being together in the first place, other than in name only.   If you do recognize that these punishing aspects prevent "figuring it out together", and you've done these punishing aspects, then you really don't know what might have come from all the past problems if you had tried to tackle those past problems together.   But what you can say is that with the presence of these punishing aspects, you have not offered a "do it together" kind of relationship in the first place.  Some would say that's being together by name only but not by practice or reality, and so it wasn't the experience of really being together.  

       If you believe your partner's input has no chance of helping to better figure out your problem, then you have a pretty low opinion of your partner, and that in itself is enough to ruin a relationship and cause the loss of many of the things you'd want in a relationship.   That's what you think when you think your partner just needs to shut up and only listen and agree with you.  If this is what you think, THIS (and YOU) are a major cause of your partner not wanting to be the partner you'd want them to be. If you disconnect this cause and effect in your beliefs, and you look only at the effect of you not being treated the way you'd like and act victimized, that's you just deluding yourself in a false narrative, ignoring a primary cause.  If you don't value your partner's thoughts, this is a relationship that has no chance of being a good one, and it is the definition of NOT tackling life "together".  Would you value a relationship where you were told your thoughts hold no value, not interested,  shut up, just do what I say?  That's not together.

WANTING TO KNOW WHAT THE OTHER PERSON THINKS

       If you think it's just you talking and the other person listening and agreeing is what needs to happen, then you don't think the other person might have some valuable thoughts and ideas they might contribute that could help the situation.  If this is the case, the relationship is sunk before it's afloat, and this is not a relationship you should expect much quality out of.  Having a high enough opinion of the other person to think they might have something valuable to add is a critical component of any really good relationship.  So by pursuing a conversation with you thinking "you need to just shut up and listen and agree" is a guaranteed recipe for a not-great relationship.  If you want a chance at a truly great relationship you have to have a high opinion of the other person and so be thinking "I wonder and want to know what they think about this" and "they might add improvements to even my own thoughts about this".  Without this you can teach a class, but you can't have a good partner relationship.  Without respect and a high opinion of the other person, don't expect a quality relationship with that person, and it's not really fair of you to give false hope to that person by pretending like you value their thoughts.   But first, you should be truthful with yourself about valuing the other person's thoughts.

UNMOVING POSITION, BEING ABSOLUTELY SURE

       If you have the required prerequisite of valuing and wanting to know your partner's thoughts, there's still the problem of how to allow both parties to express their thoughts in a manner that feeds off and gains benefit from the other person's thoughts.  The idea for a great relationship isn't  just for each person to express their own individual separated perspective.   It's for each person's perspective to grow from and be improved by listening to the other person's thoughts.  That means each person explains some, and that helps their partner's understanding, and then the other partner's improved understanding is used to better explain their own improved perspective, which then helps the first partner's perspective get even better, which then can help the other partner's perspective grow, etc.  It's the idea of each person helping each other climb further up the rock wall side by side, back and forth, NOT that each person has one solid unmoving position that is separated, unmovable, and independent from the other person's perspective.  These are very different things. 

       If a partner is experiencing the sensation of "BEING SURE" that nothing can change their perspective, they have blown up the possibility of exploring what they could figure out TOGETHER.  One is solo, the other is together.  One is being absolutely "sure" and unmovable of the already existing perspective, the other is thinking there's a possibility their partner might add something valuable to improve the already existing perspective.  This difference causes a night and day difference to the nature and outcome of the interaction.  One is the nice feeling of working on it "together", and the other is the feeling of being "oppositional", regardless of the outcome.  Being absolutely "sure" comes at a huge price.  And being absolutely sure is a hallucination anyway.  The truth of reality is that we don't know what we don't know, and that by definition means there might be something we don't know that could change our perspective.  The wisest of people know enough to know to not be absolutely sure about what they think they know, to leave at least some small room for unknown possibilities.  It is only the simpler minds that are absolutely sure and unmovable about all they think they know.  Leaving some benefit of the doubt that your partner might be able to change your perspective (if you were to listen) is simply TRUTH, besides being a critical component to a really good relationship.  Unmoving sureness is simply less intelligent, besides being a recipe for a poor relationship.  I say, choose higher intelligence.  To clarify, we're all sure we're right.  Just don't be absolutely sure.

ASSUMING POSITIVE ABOUT YOUR PARTNER

       If you want a chance of having a really good relationship with your partner, you have to assume positively about your partner.  If you want a good solid relationship that will last, when a situation comes up that doesn't look good (and it will), you have to first assume there must be some good explanation for it that you just don't understand yet, and need to find out about.  This allows for the right kind of communication to be able to at least find out if there's a good explanation.  If a situation with a partner that looks bad is assumed from the start to be bad, you do not have your partner's back, and you are hindering or stopping the possibility of finding out what really happened.  There are always going to arise misunderstandings and situations that can look bad.  So if you assume bad, then before the bad-looking situation even happened you have already established this relationship as fragile and ready to fall apart at any time, giving it no chance to have ever made it in the first place.  If you can't approach problems with your partner by assuming there must be some good explanation, there's no chance for a lasting good relationship, and so don't look anywhere else but at yourself when it results in the only outcome possible, a bad one, regardless of what was actually occurring.

CAUSE AND EFFECT

       You can't have a great relationship if you've been attacking your partner, and punishing them for disagreeing with you.   You can ignore that cost, and come up with a self narrative that justifies punishment, but the cost will be there.  The Communication Rules (explained below) are an attempt to help remove punishment from a conversation, by making it much more difficult for punishment to hide behind habit and self justifying narrative.  Choose to use them or not, but it's hoped that you will recognize what you're choosing, and so make the choice knowingly.

COMMUNICATION RULES

RULE 1:  ALLOW INTERUPTIONS

Interrupt only if immediately critical for current discussion. If either of us interrupts, the other person should immediately stop talking listen to what the interrupter is explaining for at least ten seconds, while assuming a good reason for the interruption, and not interrupt the interruption.  After that ten seconds of listening, if the interrupted person judges the content to be worthwhile or about a communication concern then the interrupted person should continue to listen. If after ten seconds the interrupted person judges the interruption to be neither of these things then the originally interrupted person should interrupt and regain the "speaking floor".  If the interruption is about a communication concern the interrupted person should reply with ONLY "OK", "YES", "Sorry", "Thanks", or "I'll keep that in mind", and try to change something about the way they are speaking, and NOT, deny, refute, counter, or take more than 3 seconds to respond.

RULE 2:  DO NOT DISPUTE THE OTHER'S THOUGHTS, FEELINGS OR MOTIVATIONS

Do not state what's in the other person's mind as though you know it to be fact, i.e. "You don't want to listen to me", "You don't care", or "You are doing something to or because...".  Instead, state guessed thoughts & motivations as your guess, or how it appears to you, and if you are corrected by the other person, assume the correction is true for purposes of further conversation.

 RULE 3: LET BOTH OF US FULLY TALK IT OUT BEFORE GETTING ANGRY OR UPSET

       Each party must suspend final judgment, give benefit of doubt, and refrain from anger and condemnation of the other person until after both parties have confirmed that they have been allowed to express their full thoughts on the subject of concern, with each party confirming that the other person has correctly reiterated what they were trying to explain. No demanding an apology prior to the completion of this rule.  If a person feels they are not getting a balance of input they should request a "talking stick", granting 2 minute turns, starting with the requester.

RULE 4: TALK NICE, AND DON'T SAY THE OTHER PERSON IS NECESSARILY WRONG  

 i.e. "No, you're wrong or lying", but rather "my memory is that ...". Talk nice, like you're on the same side trying to figure it out together, in a nice loving manner, assuming the best possible or that there must be something you don't understand, not in an antagonistic or upset manner.  

RULE 5:   PROHIBITED RESPONSES TO CURRENT DISCUSSIONS

Allowed responses to talking-only discussions are only: talk nice, take space, disagree, cry, leave, break up.  Prohibited responses for current talking-only discussions are: 1) yell, throw, scream, hit, kick, spit, break, slam, damage property, theft/not returning property, 2) repeat call without a reply, 3) hinder the other person from leaving or ceasing interaction (or consider this harm), 4) Act to get the other in trouble with authorities or others, 5) Retribution, 6) threaten any of these. Prohibited responses deeply poison a relationship. Only currently happening physical violations of law, safety or space can be reacted to by currently doing prohibited responses. The past may not be used as an excuse for current violence or current prohibited responses.

Rule 6: RIGHT TO TAKE SPACE OR HAVE THE OTHER PARTY STOP OR GO AWAY

       We each have the right to "take space", discontinue conversation, break up, or have the other party leave the home or car of the owner of the home or car, from only a simple request without the other person acting with retribution, negativity, considering it harm, or denying the right to do so.  Don't exiting simply to avoid discussion of an important issue of concern.  

RULE 7:  RESPECT THE OTHER PERSON'S RIGHT TO DECIDE THEIR OWN BUSINESS

       Each person has the right to decide issues concerning their own business, home, vehicles, personal property, and their own body, health and sexual contact, and to decide when discussion on those subjects is over and the final call is made, which may not be violated or further argued.

RULE 8:  TRANSPARENCY OF EXPECTATIONS ABOUT BEING OWED

       Each partner should each be transparent about what they expect to be owed for any interactions with each other, recording this by text to each other, covering assumption of a worst case scenario.  Otherwise, it should be agreed that there currently is and never will be anything owed between the partners.

RULE 9:  THESE RULES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

When these rules are violated, the quality of the relationship is going to degrade in proportion to the degree of the rules violations.  Take responsibility for this cause and effect.