Conference quark::human_relations-v1

		HAPPY COUPLES ARGUE BUT RESOLVE PROBLEMS



All unhappy couples are alike:  They think happy couples don't fight.

But even ideally suited people have disagreements over such things as 
money, sex, in-laws, children, careers, and lifestyles -- or all of these.  
Its just that they know how to resolve them.

In happy marriages, spouses communicate their dissatisfactions to each 
other and negotiate -- which is not the same as compromise, says 
psychiatrist Dr. Harvey Ruben.

Compromising amounts to taking turns giving in, which can be frustrating; 
negotiating allows the couple to come to a mutually acceptable solution.  
for example, if one partner wants to buy a bigger house and the other says 
they can't afford it, the partners agree that an addition to their present 
home will satisfy them both.

Ruben advises couple to adopt his unselfishness formula or a "60-40 
solution," in which you will be a little more selfless than selfish.

"Its give and take -- with more give," agrees one woman interviewed on the 
subject who has been married to her high school sweetheart for 31 years.  
"if he wants to see a Western movie, and I want to see a drama, we end up 
going to see a comedy becuase we can both enjoy that," she says.  "you 
can't be selfish.  In a lot of marriages, there's too much of this 'me' 
business."

"Even in the best of marriages, there are always areas in which the couple 
has to make adjustments," says Ruben who has written a book on the subject 
called "Super Marriages:  Overcoming the Predictable Crises of Married 
Life."  Ruben also dispenses marital advice on the NBC radio show 
"Talknet."

			HELPFUL TRAITS

He says the most helpful traits to bring to a marriage are flexibility and 
tolerance, becuase nobody's perfect.

What if you want to change a trait your spouse has, such as getting him (or 
her) to stop smoking, drinking, gambling, or overeating?  "You can't change 
a person," Ruben says, "but you can create an atmosphere for him or her to 
want to change."  It can be the offer of a diamond bracelet, or a year of 
gourmet meals, or sharing the housekeeping tasks, or going out to dinner 
100 times, or unlimited sex -- "Whatever it takes" he says.

Ruben says that "the more you share the better," but he draws the line at 
confessions of infidelity.  Unloading your guilt will only upset your 
spouse and may ruin the marriage.  "Tell it to a priest or your best 
friend,"  Ruben says, adding that he has had a "super marriage" for 21 
years.

Three things make up a super marriage,"  he says: sexual attraction, 
intellectual compatibility and friendship.

According to Ruben, today's high divorce rate could be cut by 50 percent if 
couples would follow his 10 commandments for a super marriage.  In addition 
to being able to negotiate,the couple should talk and share continuously, 
using an "I love you but..." approach before all complaints; exercise 
flexibility and tolerance for each other's faults; have mutual trust and 
respect; be unselfish.

    		SOARING DIVORCE RATE
    
He cautions against that common marital mistake, taking each other for 
granted.  "Never stop noticing and valuing the special things about the 
other person,"  he says.  "In my case, I try to never get so wrapped up in 
myself that I'm not appreciative of her or what gives her pleasure."

One reason for today's soaring divorce rate, Ruben says, is that people 
don't have the commitment to stay together long enough to work through a 
problem.  Another is marring for the wrong reason, for money, say, or the 
person concludes, "I'm 33; it's time to hurry up because of the ticking of 
my biological clock,"  without regard to the suitability of the partner.

Still another is marring on the basis of a strong sexual attraction, he 
says, citing the case of a couple who only stopped fighting while they were 
in bed.  "they had a great sex life, but they also had so many conflicts 
and differing expectations,"  Ruben says.  "She wanted children, he didn't; 
she wanted to pursuer a career, he didn't want her to; he didn't like to 
socialize, she did; he's into swimming tennis, sailing and running, all of 
which she hates.  She loves going to the theater, concerts and galleries, 
and he hates that stuff."

Not all marriages are meant to be saved, says Ruben.  Both parties have to 
be willing to cooperate "If one spouse wants to discuss problems, and the 
other refuses to, there's no way the other partner can have a good marriage.

    
   Article by Carolyn Rushefsky - Newhouse News Service
    Springfield Daily News - Wednesday, September 17, 1986

    I don't think you can tell the difference in compromise and negotiation
    from the outside.  It seems to me that the difference is how I feel
    about the outcome.  If I/you go along, but don't have enough information
    to feel that it was fair, then it was compromise.  If enough
    information is revealed for me/you to feel that the outcome was
    fair, then it was negotiation.  I don't see how you can tell the
    difference from the outside.
    
    Note that I don't include "folding" in compromise.  Avoiding
    confrontation with "whatever you want, dear" may be compromising
    who I am, but it is not compromising on the issue.  It is folding
    on the issue.  Also, I don't call escalating every confrontation
    to the point that the other person folds negotiating.  I don't have
    a good name for it, but it is not constructive, so it shouldn't
    be called negotiation.  

    I think the views expressed in the article are spot on - compromising
    eventually leads to the total unwillingness to express your opinion,
    and your partner will never know that underneath your painted smile,
    you are seething.  When I was married, we never negotiated - we
    always compromised.  We never fought either - instead letting the
    resentment build up inside.  Since I used the past tense, you can
    see what happened.
    
    I'm certainly going to consciously try negotiation in my future
    relationships - it certainly can't be worse than compromising. 
    I agree that the effect of negotiation is that BOTH parties think
    they have "won" - at least they both agree that the solution chosen
    is the best for both of them.
    
    Regarding Bob's questions in .2 - I think there is a visible
    difference. In compromise, usually one partner sets the terms and
    the other concedes.  In negotiation, BOTH partners work together
    to decide on a mutually satisfactory solution.  The difference is
    subtle but it IS there.
    				Steve

    RE: .3  More on the difference
    
    Steve,
    	Your definition of compromise seems like my definition of folding.
    I think there is a state in which neither person has enough information
    about the feelings/want/needs of the other to know whether the outcome
    is optimal for anybody, and both parties feel like they must have
    "compromised".  I'm not sure how this would be labeled in your
    definitions, but it isn't win-lose, which is how you defined a
    compromise.  This may be a special case, but it is likely to occur
    when communication has stopped and confrontation is being avoided
    by both parties.
    
    Bob

    Once all the talking and negotiating is done and the decision is
    made, hasn't it all come about because of compromise?  In my mind,
    I'm having difficulty in seeing a difference. 

    The book I read on negotiation (trade paperback, title forgotten
    but had "Negotiate" in it) defined the difference thus:
    
    Compromise:
    	ME: 	I'll pay 100 dollars
    	YOU:	I want 200 dollars
    	RESULT: wind up somewhere in the middle, maybe.
    
    Negotiate:
    	ME:	I'm worried about the rust, so I would require a
    		guarantee to pay more than 100 dollars
    	YOU:	I want a quick sale, but could promise to fix
    		any problem in the first year for free, if
		you pay 200 today
    	ME:	I'd take a six-month guarantee if you'd let me
    		wait until next week...
    	RESULT:	Both feel happy.  Final price might be over 100 or
    		under 200, and could include side deals.
    
    NOTE:
    	Negotiation is not an adversary process.
    	Negotiation exposes interests.
    	Negotiation does not require "hidden" mental work (example:
    		"I'm willing to pay 150, but if I offer 150 then the
    		final price will be over 150, so I'll offer 125.  But
    		if I offer only 100, maybe he'll drop the price...")

    If I could remember the book's title I'd recommend it more. The
    stuff above is what I do remember.
    
    				-John Bishop

    The way I get the process going is to ask the other person what
    it would take to make them perfectly happy.  Then I state what will
    make me perfectly happy.  Then one of us points out the differences
    and we try to find a path.  Works for me.

If a month after the discussion:

You're still happy with the settlement, then you probably negotiated.
You feel you were taken, than you probably compromised.

And if it's the latter, believe you should feel ok about opening the 
subject up again to negotiate.  Sometimes in the heat, we can give 
something away that is more important than we then realize.

	Mike

    My first husband would neither compromise nor negotiate; he had
    to "win" every disagreement.  His second marriage was over a long
    time before I remarried!  Nothing works if both parties to a
    disagreement don't actively try to make an amicable solution.

    Hmmm.  I have some problems with this article.  It hit one
    of my real "hot buttons"  when Ruben suggested "unlimited sex"
    as one of the rewards to be offered for a behavior change.
    I've heard Ruben on Talknet, and this is typical of the kinds
    of things which upset me about the show Ruben runs.  I don't
    think that sex should be offered by one party as a reward
    to the other - if it's not a mutual reward but is being used
    as a tool by one member of the relationship, then something
    is terribly wrong.  And something is terribly wrong with a
    marital advisor who suggests doing this sort of thing.
    
    Regarding the Compromise vs Negotiaton issue - I think there's
    some semantic games going on here.  What Ruben is calling
    negotiation is what I always thought compromises were supposed
    to be.  And negotation can also be misused if one party is more
    forceful than the other.  The point is to be sensitive to what
    the other person's needs and wants and feelings are, to listen
    to each other - and also to be sensitive to your own needs and
    wants and feelings, and to communicate them to the other person.
    Also to do all this without treating either yourself or the
    other person badly - without accusing, without degrading either
    the other or yourself, and without making your decision BEFORE
    the discussion begins.
    
    I don't know why, but it's sometimes difficult to remember to treat
    "family" with the same sort of kindness you'd treat a friend.  I
    wouldn't think of hollering at someone at work when I have to
    explain the same point three times before they understand it.  Why
    do I end up hollering at Jim for this type of thing?  It's better
    when I remember to think before engaging my mouth (the old "count
    to 10" trick).
    
    Anyone got any more insight into why people end up treating "family"
    with less respect and patience than friends, and how to keep this
    from happening?
    
    --Louise
    

There are two whole different sets of social, or personal attitudes and values
related to 'Compromize vs. Negotiate'.

What I am talking about is the tendancy to:

Think of "Us vs. Them"                     Think of "All of Us"
you have to fight for what you want        all you have to do is ask
we have to win, they have to lose          we can all win
This is mine, that is yours                Sharing ...

In short, the attitude is ways to seperate yourself from other people. 
In my mind, this is a bad thing.

This attitude has been characterized as:

male                                       female
patriarchial                               matriarchial
selfish                                    community

Personally, I think that the female/male, etc distinction is an artificial
one due to conditioning.

Jim.

There are many books on negotiating; one called "Getting to Yes" (I
don't recall the authors at the moment) has the kind of approaches
mentioned in .9.  Basically, it tries to get people to treat negotiating
as a rational process of trying to find the best solution rather than
a confrontation over principles or a "get all you can" dogfight.

I don't know that I quite agree with the semantic distinction made in the
article in .1, but there is indeed a distinct difference in resolving
issues through negotiation (which implies that each side explains the basis
for their position and attempts to understand the other side's basis) as
opposed to any process which implies that at least one side must give up
something for the sake of agreement. Compromise may be necessary in
negotiations at times, but not always.

As to why spouses/families treat each other differently, a hypothesis:
there are continuing disagreements which don't get satisfactorily resolved
and usually remain beneath the surface, but can come to the fore very
quickly given the right trigger.  Kind of like a boxing match between
rounds, but when the bell rings, the combatants are at one another again
immediately.  The point of disagreement can be brought into irrelevant
discussions when one partner feels s/he is losing and needs more
ammunition.  Since the point has been fought many times before without
resolution, it has become an emotional rat's nest of supposed injuries,
injustices, attacks, etc., and any rational process is precluded.

Dan Murphy