What do you think?
Rate this book
The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples
An eminent therapist explains what makes couples compatible and how to sustain a happy marriage. For the past thirty-five years, John Gottman’s research has been internationally recognized for its unprecedented ability to precisely measure interactive processes in couples and to predict the long-term success or failure of relationships. In this groundbreaking book, he presents a new approach to understanding and changing couples: a fundamental social skill called “emotional attunement,” which describes a couple’s ability to fully process and move on from negative emotional events, ultimately creating a stronger relationship.
Gottman draws from this longitudinal research and theory to show how emotional attunement can downregulate negative affect, help couples focus on positive traits and memories, and even help prevent domestic violence. He offers a detailed intervention devised to cultivate attunement, thereby helping couples connect, respect, and show affection. Emotional attunement is extended to tackle the subjects of flooding, the story we tell ourselves about our relationship, conflict, personality, changing relationships, and gender. Gottman also explains how to create emotional attunement when it is missing, to lay a foundation that will carry the relationship through difficult times.
Gottman encourages couples to cultivate attunement through awareness, tolerance, understanding, non-defensive listening, and empathy. These qualities, he argues, inspire confidence in couples, and the sense that despite the inevitable struggles, the relationship is enduring and resilient.
This book, an essential follow-up to his 1999 The Marriage Clinic , offers therapists, students, and researchers detailed intervention for working with couples, and offers couples a roadmap to a stronger future together.
Gottman draws from this longitudinal research and theory to show how emotional attunement can downregulate negative affect, help couples focus on positive traits and memories, and even help prevent domestic violence. He offers a detailed intervention devised to cultivate attunement, thereby helping couples connect, respect, and show affection. Emotional attunement is extended to tackle the subjects of flooding, the story we tell ourselves about our relationship, conflict, personality, changing relationships, and gender. Gottman also explains how to create emotional attunement when it is missing, to lay a foundation that will carry the relationship through difficult times.
Gottman encourages couples to cultivate attunement through awareness, tolerance, understanding, non-defensive listening, and empathy. These qualities, he argues, inspire confidence in couples, and the sense that despite the inevitable struggles, the relationship is enduring and resilient.
This book, an essential follow-up to his 1999 The Marriage Clinic , offers therapists, students, and researchers detailed intervention for working with couples, and offers couples a roadmap to a stronger future together.
496 pages, Hardcover
First published April 11, 2011
553 people are currently reading
8757 people want to read
About the author
John M. Gottman
97 books2,015 followersDr. Gottman was one of the Top 10 Most Influential Therapists of the past quarter-century by the Psychotherapy Networker. He is the author or co-author of over 200 published academic articles and more than 40 books, including the bestselling The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work; What Makes Love Last; Eight Dates: Essential Conversations for a Lifetime of Love; The Relationship Cure; Why Marriages Succeed or Fail; and Raising An Emotionally Intelligent Child — among many others. Dr. Gottman’s media appearances include Good Morning America, Today, CBS Morning News, and Oprah, as well articles in The New York Times, Ladies Home Journal, Redbook, Glamour, Woman’s Day, People, Self, Reader’s Digest, and Psychology Today.
Co-founder of The Gottman Institute and co-founder of Affective Software, Inc. with his wife, Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman, John was also the Executive Director of the Relationship Research Institute. He is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Washington, where he founded “The Love Lab” at which much of his research on couples’ interactions was conducted.
Co-founder of The Gottman Institute and co-founder of Affective Software, Inc. with his wife, Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman, John was also the Executive Director of the Relationship Research Institute. He is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Washington, where he founded “The Love Lab” at which much of his research on couples’ interactions was conducted.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 147 reviews
October 23, 2014
First of all, in order to really appreciate this book, you've got to know its intended audience. This is no "Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work" (which I recommend to just about everyone). This doesn't even seem like it was written for clinicians. This is a book detailing Gottman's research and mathematical/statistical work in creating a coherent theory regarding trust in marriage relationships. Thus, it is DENSE. It starts with an overly thorough discussion of how to use game theory in order to develop a metric for measuring trust that, while foundational for the overall thrust of the book, is really hard/boring to get through. It ends with a really technical discussion of how he used mathematics in order to study couples' interactions and predict marriage success or breakdown. If you can press on through these two sections, what's left is very important, interesting, and necessary for those of us who work with couples to know. Some of it is a recap of what he has discussed in his other books, but he does a great job of synthesizing his previous work with new research findings and the work of other recent theorists (including Sue Johnson, my personal fave).
I give this five stars based on its (incredibly important) contribution to the field of couples counseling, not necessarily on how enjoyable it was to read. Know what you're getting yourself into and give yourself permission to skim when it gets dense; you will gain a lot from this book.
I give this five stars based on its (incredibly important) contribution to the field of couples counseling, not necessarily on how enjoyable it was to read. Know what you're getting yourself into and give yourself permission to skim when it gets dense; you will gain a lot from this book.
March 3, 2023
This was a very interesting book. It builds on Gottman's 20 years of research on what makes marriages work and fail by adding a new component of trust and attunement. I found it incredibly interesting and insightful.
The book is long and the ventures in game theory and lengthy discussions of trust metrics and his research methods were less interesting. And it is not really for general audiences - it is written more for couples therapists and academics. Chapters 1, 4, and 6 were the highlights.
Overall the book gave me a lot of new information for my teaching and for my clinical practice so it was definitely worth it.
The book is long and the ventures in game theory and lengthy discussions of trust metrics and his research methods were less interesting. And it is not really for general audiences - it is written more for couples therapists and academics. Chapters 1, 4, and 6 were the highlights.
Overall the book gave me a lot of new information for my teaching and for my clinical practice so it was definitely worth it.
May 28, 2015
If you're looking for a book that very clearly explains the science behind why and how people trust, and how that can be used to create a healthy intimate relationship with a longtime partner or spouse, this is the book for you. Granted it is written by someone who is primarily a research scientist, and it's full of things like research terminology and mathematical graphs. If you can work your way through the trickier chapters (like the one on game theory) and stick it out for the practical advice at the end, it is well worth the read.
August 3, 2016
Top 5 books I've ever read. I credit John M. Gottman with giving me the courage to get married, and this book with keeping it on an upward trajectory. Thank you Mr. Gottman.
June 9, 2024
Plenty of reports of studies and theory and whatnot, whether mathematics or psychology, regarding how trust functions interpersonally. Some of it is plainly for use in marital counseling. Two bits, one right at the beginning and one at the end, worth highlighting. First, the Note to Readers:
Second, the text concludes with an optimistic appraisal:
Standards of clinical practice and protocol change over time, and no technique or recommendation is guaranteed to be safe and effective in all circumstances,. This volume is intended as a general information resource for professionals practicing in the field of psychotherapy and mental health; it is no a substitute for appropriate training, peer review, and/or clinical supervision. Neither the publisher nor the author(s) can guarantee the complete accuracy, effcacy, or appropriateness of any particular recommendation n every respect. (iv)I'm fairly sure that a similar warning should go on every popular psychology text, too. 'Self-Help' seems to me to be the worst idea when it comes to mental health--just because someone possesses a mind doesn't mean they know how it works, but long and exclusive familiarity with one's phenomenological perspective leads to the worst sort of Dunning-Kruger errors.
Second, the text concludes with an optimistic appraisal:
This dream of a mathematics for human social relationships is not new. The work we have done is reminiscent of Isaac Asimov's classic science fiction series of books called The Foundation series. In that series a fictional mathematician named Hari Seldon creates a set of equations for predicting the future of the entire human species, a new branch of study he calls 'psycho-history.' Later in the books another mathematician creates a new set of equations, considered much harder to accomplish, for 'micro-social-history,' which is about accurate prediction of the fate of smaller social units. I believe that's exactly the enterprise that we've begun with the mathematical modeling of relationship interactions. Just two equations for each couple, with some general principles. The best part of this enterprise using mathematics is that it is no longer science fiction, it's just science. (43)I don't know if that's awesome or hubristic or what.
May 25, 2016
The beginning date is an absolute guess. It took me far too long to finish this book. Obviously I read it precisely BECAUSE the subject matter is so troubling to me...not that this is an intrinsically troubling book. It's quite a fascinating read that seems unintentionally to bring in quite a few insights from varied branches of psychology and game theory; you won't come away having only learned about marital/romantic relationships.
The book is repetitive both intrinsically and with Gottman's Seven Principles book (and no doubt the rest of his corpus). As a planetary scientist, I recognize this as inevitable. Far too many people have far too many ideas and there is not enough data for all these opinions to chase...hmmm, that sounds familiar. It also reads a bit like Karl Popper, who spends so much of his space elaborating answers to critics. You can consequently, I should think, read most chapters in isolation. Then there's that last chapter, which I just finished reading and which I think is far too short...probably his editor told him, "No one will read this part, so cut 3/4 of it," and now the few people who would love to follow the solutions to these differential equations with him are stuck with this spotty and confusing outline.
Gottman's interpretations of his data will be challenged and revised as the years go by, but this is a valuable book because up to this point any attempt to offer marriage advice based on actual quantitative data, intelligently collected and analyzed, is so rare.
It also follows that this book is not for everyone. You will likely want to consider Gottman's Seven Principles or one of his other books before starting on this one. If you're not really intellectually curious about psychology and want to maximize your return on reading time invested in regards to your specific relationship, you will do better with one of the others.
The book is repetitive both intrinsically and with Gottman's Seven Principles book (and no doubt the rest of his corpus). As a planetary scientist, I recognize this as inevitable. Far too many people have far too many ideas and there is not enough data for all these opinions to chase...hmmm, that sounds familiar. It also reads a bit like Karl Popper, who spends so much of his space elaborating answers to critics. You can consequently, I should think, read most chapters in isolation. Then there's that last chapter, which I just finished reading and which I think is far too short...probably his editor told him, "No one will read this part, so cut 3/4 of it," and now the few people who would love to follow the solutions to these differential equations with him are stuck with this spotty and confusing outline.
Gottman's interpretations of his data will be challenged and revised as the years go by, but this is a valuable book because up to this point any attempt to offer marriage advice based on actual quantitative data, intelligently collected and analyzed, is so rare.
It also follows that this book is not for everyone. You will likely want to consider Gottman's Seven Principles or one of his other books before starting on this one. If you're not really intellectually curious about psychology and want to maximize your return on reading time invested in regards to your specific relationship, you will do better with one of the others.
September 26, 2016
My rating doesn't reflect the quality of the book. I go with Goodreads rating system, which 2 stars means that "it was ok" based on my reading experience.
I appreciate this book, and I usually appreciate research-based books. It's good that you read a very important topic in the light of science, where all the claims were tested, not merely just a postulate. What I am trying to say is, I usually enjoy these types of books, say Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daring Greatly, Me, Myself, and Why, and so on. But not this time. See, this book was written *mainly* not as an education to common people, I think the target was the therapists, counselors and researchers of the same field. It dig too deep into the history, research methodology, even the mathematics so I kind of overwhelmed by it. I feel like reading a literature back in the college.
I do get some important insights though, mainly on the 1st, 2nd and 6th chapter, but overall, I can't say that I do enjoy it.
It's not the book, I believe it is great. I'm just not the targeted audience.
I appreciate this book, and I usually appreciate research-based books. It's good that you read a very important topic in the light of science, where all the claims were tested, not merely just a postulate. What I am trying to say is, I usually enjoy these types of books, say Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daring Greatly, Me, Myself, and Why, and so on. But not this time. See, this book was written *mainly* not as an education to common people, I think the target was the therapists, counselors and researchers of the same field. It dig too deep into the history, research methodology, even the mathematics so I kind of overwhelmed by it. I feel like reading a literature back in the college.
I do get some important insights though, mainly on the 1st, 2nd and 6th chapter, but overall, I can't say that I do enjoy it.
It's not the book, I believe it is great. I'm just not the targeted audience.
November 12, 2017
What is trust in a relationship?
When you trust someone, does it imply your interests should have the highest priority in her mind or is it enough for your interests to be considered, as part of the decision process? When you are not present, how do expect the person you trust to make decisions? Is it an act of betrayal when your interests are entirely ignored? Should you trust someone who does not understand you or agree with you in critical areas?
How can you measure trustworthiness in your interactions?
How do you build trust in a relationship? What behavior factors contribute to the evolution of trust in a relationship? What are the red flags that you should be looking out for in order save the relationship? How can you recover from betrayals? Why a proper conflict management is a predictor of survival of relationships? When is it time to leave?
I strongly recommend this book to everyone.
You can find the answer to the above questions through painful trial-and-error and proper reflection or just spend <12 hours to read this book while thinking about your own, or your friends' relationships.
What I also found interesting about this book, is how Game Theory and Dynamical Systems can be applied to characterize interactions within a relationship. But don't be deterred, the author presents a gentle introduction to everything you need to know to understand the results and implications. What you already remember from high-school math should be enough to understand everything.
When you trust someone, does it imply your interests should have the highest priority in her mind or is it enough for your interests to be considered, as part of the decision process? When you are not present, how do expect the person you trust to make decisions? Is it an act of betrayal when your interests are entirely ignored? Should you trust someone who does not understand you or agree with you in critical areas?
How can you measure trustworthiness in your interactions?
How do you build trust in a relationship? What behavior factors contribute to the evolution of trust in a relationship? What are the red flags that you should be looking out for in order save the relationship? How can you recover from betrayals? Why a proper conflict management is a predictor of survival of relationships? When is it time to leave?
I strongly recommend this book to everyone.
You can find the answer to the above questions through painful trial-and-error and proper reflection or just spend <12 hours to read this book while thinking about your own, or your friends' relationships.
What I also found interesting about this book, is how Game Theory and Dynamical Systems can be applied to characterize interactions within a relationship. But don't be deterred, the author presents a gentle introduction to everything you need to know to understand the results and implications. What you already remember from high-school math should be enough to understand everything.
Read
February 26, 2020The science can be on the dense side, especially if you don't have any previous knowledge in this area, but he does a good job of walking you through it.
I definitely got some good pointers, and my number one takeaway was the importance of starting conflict gently. Sure, I know this, but I didn't realize how crucial it is for outcomes. Repair early, repair often! This book made me feel really good about how my partner and I handle conflict—not perfectly, but consistently positively without avoiding it. I'll definitely be adjusting my behavior to be better in conflict as well, and I appreciate having specific ways to do so without just telling myself to "be nicer" or something.
There were parts of the book I ended up skipping through a bit because they felt very irrelevant to me (as a happily non-monogamous person who rarely experiences jealousy, I ended up skipping the long conversation between two jealous people).
I definitely got some good pointers, and my number one takeaway was the importance of starting conflict gently. Sure, I know this, but I didn't realize how crucial it is for outcomes. Repair early, repair often! This book made me feel really good about how my partner and I handle conflict—not perfectly, but consistently positively without avoiding it. I'll definitely be adjusting my behavior to be better in conflict as well, and I appreciate having specific ways to do so without just telling myself to "be nicer" or something.
There were parts of the book I ended up skipping through a bit because they felt very irrelevant to me (as a happily non-monogamous person who rarely experiences jealousy, I ended up skipping the long conversation between two jealous people).
April 24, 2025
من أجمل وأعمق وأعقد وأدق ما كتب جوتمان..
محتاج يتقرا مرتين تلاتة.
محتاج يتقرا مرتين تلاتة.
March 10, 2023
Rally science heavy for those interested in the data
February 1, 2025
I never was very good at math
Read
October 29, 2013Very interesting all around - took a bunch of things I'm more comfortable with like game theory, math, and scientific observation, and did its best to "understand" emotions and relationships this way. At the same time, it stayed true to the sort of necessary lack of logic that exists in the realm of feelings - I was suspicious at first of how sciency it was, but the book manages to walk the line perfectly between the reality of emotions, and how much we can do to step out of them and understand interaction theoretically. The end effect was sort of a combination of the feel-good books I've read and more technical reading I do - it always really "rang true" with my experience, while remaining trustworthy in its assertions by backing them up.
It seemed more about the subtitle to me, and less about the title. "Trust" seemed to end up being a way to describe couples who were emotionally attuned. Staying in tune with one another gradually builds "trust", good will, good vibes, whatever, that tends to grow with time. On the flip side is missing these opportunities, and degrading into negativity. Probably the biggest takeaway: our attitudes feed off themselves. General positive or negative feelings about a partner or a relationship create more of the same in yourself, as well as your partner, generally feeding us eventually into really happy places or really sad ones.
It seemed more about the subtitle to me, and less about the title. "Trust" seemed to end up being a way to describe couples who were emotionally attuned. Staying in tune with one another gradually builds "trust", good will, good vibes, whatever, that tends to grow with time. On the flip side is missing these opportunities, and degrading into negativity. Probably the biggest takeaway: our attitudes feed off themselves. General positive or negative feelings about a partner or a relationship create more of the same in yourself, as well as your partner, generally feeding us eventually into really happy places or really sad ones.
March 25, 2019
Needs a serious look at what to include and what to leave behind for the subsequent editions . I appreciate evidence based science but this book was disjointed, repetitive and pages ,I found ,do not flow . The writer reported a great deal of his results that might not have a great significance in his discussions. His work is undoubtedly cherished and the topic always needs more evidence to support current practices. This does not change the abysmal rating I gave it. The book needs an editor with a better vision.
August 11, 2011
Accessibly written to people outside the field, Gottman has observed human relationships for decades. This book is about romantic relationships and all kinds, lots of hints at how to not screw up little kids emotionally.
Read
April 27, 2023DNF ~16%
Probably should have realized, but the "Science" part of the title is really meant, and this was just a lot more boring and technical than I'm in the mood for.
Probably should have realized, but the "Science" part of the title is really meant, and this was just a lot more boring and technical than I'm in the mood for.
March 9, 2022
Zeci de ani de studiu și cercetare pentru niște chestiuni atât de evidente pentru toată lumea. Mă îndoiesc că există oameni pentru care această carte constituie o epifanie. Observ un val de cărți străbătute de acest fir roșu al unor așa-numite “științe” care nu sunt altceva decât teorii ale chibritului. Cartea mi s-a părut foarte diluată, de un volum inutil.
Care-i marele secret? Că pozitivitatea în toate formele ei într-un cuplu este un predictor al succesului, iar negativitatea are sensul invers? Uău! Sunt răvășit de aceste procese absconse care au loc în cadrul cuplurilor.
Care-i marele secret? Că pozitivitatea în toate formele ei într-un cuplu este un predictor al succesului, iar negativitatea are sensul invers? Uău! Sunt răvășit de aceste procese absconse care au loc în cadrul cuplurilor.
May 24, 2019
I really like the part about the game theory and betrayal dynamics, but the last part about the influence of the affect, although definitely interesting and relevant for many couples, just didn't resonate with me at all. The reason is basically that I tend to think in terms of my own affect, i.e. why I am having certain emotions, and not "how I can influence my partner with my negative emotions". I know that it doesn't detract from the value of the studies, they are definitely groundbreaking and mathematical modelling of the relationships is super interesting to me, but nonetheless, I just didn't enjoy it as much in this period. Maybe will come back to it at some point in the future.
July 10, 2025
This is an excellent book. It’s a little math heavy at times. (Markov chains and systems of ODE’s.) But the core theory about how trust in relationships erodes, how to prevent trust eroding and when to implement those interventions, seems plausible. The example conflict conversations in the book come from real couples in real conflict. Those were interesting to listen to.
December 23, 2023
Excellent book, this should have been part of basic training for all of us.
------Notes truncated, due to review length limit.
# ch1
- learn to listen and understand
How relationships were studied in the past
- how children make friends
- remember how we made friends at age 4 and sketch a program vs observation
Tolstoi's observation about "everyone is unhappy in the different ways, but happy in the same way" - > not true. Jay Hailey showed that there is more rigidity in distressed families, while happiness brings more diversity and variations.
Emotion coaching
## predictors of divorce
1. more negativity than positivity
- in good relationships, the pos:neg ratio is 5:1, in bad ones it is <0.8:1
2. Escalation of negative affect
3. Turning away: ignore the partner's attempts to reconnect or get support
4. Turning against: irritability, withdrawal, emotional disengagement
5. Little positivity during conflict: no jokes, no q&a, no affection, no support, no joy, no empathy -> divorce in ~16 years after marriage
6. Failure of repair attempts
7. Negative sentiment override -> a positive or a neutral message is perceived as negative.
- when one is unhappy, they notice only 50% of the positive interactions with the partner
8. Retell the history of the relationship in negative terms
9. Maintaining vigilance and physiological arousal: when heart rate is high, there's more adrenaline in the system, the sense of humor gets diminished, so does creativity.
10. Chronic diffuse physiological arousal: increased defensiveness, repeating one's own position. Reduces ability to listen and empathize.
11. Failure of men to accept influence from women
## predictors of stability in marriage
1. Matches in conflict style: conflict-avoiding, bickering, harmonious; as long as the 5:1 pos:neg ratio is respected during conflict. Mismatches are signs of an upcoming divorce.
2. Dialog with perpetual issues:
- 30% have problems about a resolvable issue
- 70% of the couples handle an unresolvable, perpetual issue (e. g., due to fundamental personality differences)
- some couples discuss them in a constructive way: dialog
- others in a non-constructive one: gridlock
- functional problem solving for the resolvable issues
- active listening plays no major role(!)
- if it works at all, it does when the speaker is "downregulated"
- soft-vs-hard start
- accept influence
- effective repair attempts
- de-escalate negativity
- anger can be very dangerous
- positive affect
3. Happy couples introduced issues as **joint** problems, which are **specific** to a situation
- unhappy ones present them as global and persistent issues tied to defects in one's personality
4. Remain physiologically calm during arousal
5. Accept influence from the partner
6. Active building of friendship and intimacy and playfulness
## The Sound relationship house theory
1. Build love-maps: your own Mindmap of your partner's inner world (what are their hopes and worries? What are their aspirations? Do you know their mission statement in life?) - > gotta know the answers or keep looking for them. Ask, remember, keep asking.
2. Share fondness and admiration, express it verbally and non-verbally. Actively build a culture of appreciation and respect.
3. Toward vs. away: bids for attention and emotional bank accounts. Turning toward: acknowledge the bid, react to it in a positive way. Anything is better than just ignoring it.
4. A positive perspective
5. Manage conflict (not necessarily resolve). "choosing a partner = choosing a set of problems".
6. Make life dreams come true: talk openly about your life aspirations and spin it in a way that the relationship supports you on that path. Ask about your partner's life dreams, and remember the answer.
7. Create shared meaning: develop common goals and work towards them.
# ch1 the trust metric
## social capital research
- High and low trust regions
- 2% brazilians trust people
- 65% Norwegians
- low-trust regions have much higher income disparities, lower political engagement, lower involvement in voluntary acts, lower levels of altruism, lower sense of community with neighbors, poorer mental and physical health, lower performance in schools
- "bowling alone" book where this research is documented
- a study found
- income disparity
- legal enforcement of contracts
- social similarity across the culture
- these 3 factors account for 76% of the variance in trust levels across a population
- study finding
- trustworthy: the most desired characteristic of a partner
- positive:negative ratio (elements of an interaction)
## trust metric
Measure trust and potential of betrayal
### 2-person game theory
- Model any relationship with it.
- Develop a pay-off matrix for pairing possible strategies of players.
- Most games in life, when modeling relationships, are not zero-sum games.
Von Neumann's
- minimax: the highest of the low payoffs.
- maximin: lowest of the high layoffs
- saddle point: where they intersect
Nash equilibrium
- both players are doing well
- neither has regrets about how they've played
## Spaff: specific affect coding system
- predict divorce with great accuracy
- predict how happy people will be if they stay together
- how long a relationship will last, based on some interaction patterns
Categories: nasty, nice, neutral
### Positive affect exchanges, nice:nice
- couples don't just stay together
- but they're also not miserable while at it :-)
positivity during conflicts was used very precisely by partners
Payoffs for positive interactions were much higher for happy couples than for unhappy ones.
Couples who had higher payoffs in their nice:nice cell did these positive actions more often.
Be nice to your partner even when in conflict.
### neutral:neutral
An intermediate step from nasty:nasty to nice:nice.
Couples that are together for a long time tend to the neutral:neutral cell.
### nasty:nasty
Negative reciprocity and conflict escalation.
Unhappy couples rate this as even more negative than the happy couples do. And yet, they engage in this type of behavior more often.
Happy couples don't get as upset by the nasty:nasty exchanges, as the unhappy ones do. (me: this implies that even happy couples have these interactions sometimes)
**absorbing state**
- easy to enter, difficult to leave.
- unhappy couples are absorbed by nasty:nasty
- happy ones aren't
- unhappy couples enter this absorbing state easier and leave it with more difficulty
- happy couples - the other way around
**Negative reciprocity** - going out on a limb to punish your peer, taking some damage along the way, as long as they get even more damage.
Illustrated in the _ultimatum game_, where participants reject very unfair offers.
_continental divide_ game
- basin of attraction -> (me) some sort of an intermediary stable equilibrium
- there are 2 such basins, flowing towards 3 points and flowing towards 12 points.
### 2 types of conflict resolution strategies
- absorbing state nasty:nasty
- effective repair
Happy couples argue, but they have a repair technique they apply and which is effective. Unhappy couples either don't apply one, or it isn't effective.
Sentiment override
- negative: interpret the partner's action as negative, even if outside observers label it as neutral or positive. This person is hypervigilant for negativity from their partner (me: like in the happiness hypothesis, someone being vigilant for signs of disrespect, or opportunities to make money)
- positive: give the partner the benefit of doubt and see them in a positive light.
Microwave example
- you're not supposed to turn on a microwave oven if it is empty
- negative bias, hear that as: you asshole, you're not supposed to turn thr microwave on if there's nothing in it
- positive bias: I'm sorry sweetheart, but I have a little remark, not a big deal, it's just that I read somewhere that it is not safe to turn the microwave on if there is no food inside.
People who have a negative sentiment override are "running on empty" in the friendship part of the relationship
- they feel disrespected
- unappreciated
- or unloved
- they see the partner as the adversary
- trust began to erode
Things to measure
- How much can you count on your partner changing **their behavior** to help you maximize your own points?
- how much does their change in behavior **motivate you to change your own**?
- multiply these to get a single number for _trust metric_
**validity of trust metric**
The calculated trust metric correlates well with levels of X during conflict
- verbal aggression
- skin conductivity (transpiration, arousal)
- less disappointment in the relationship
- fewer thoughts of divorce
- less disgust, contempt and domineering during conversation
Trust is low when you are in the nasty:nasty cell.
Trust
- permits action with incomplete information
- reduces complexity of transactions
- reduces transaction costs
It makes transactions smoother, you can think about your next steps without having to consider the long history of previous interactions, to determine whether the next one will be safe or not.
On the other side of the spectrum - you turn into a private investigator, always on the lookout for violations of trust (me: like in Happinness hypothesis, if you have a fixation on something).
Storyjoke
- do you love me?
- I do
- but do you really love me?
- I do
-...
- do you really*N love me?
- I think so
- I knew it!
Unhappy do nasty:nasty more often than happy ones, even if they are aware of the negative payoffs.
- me: it means the behavior is not rational
- me: we're not homo economicus
# ch3 metrics of trustworthiness and betrayal
Van Neumann advocated for a preemptive nuclear strike on the USSR.
Rapport advocated for peace.
Different approaches to optimization
- van Neumann, lack of trust - > best of the worst values
- Rapoport - >best outcome for everyone
# ch4 physiology of trust and betrayal
Emotional flooding effect - think of hurricane Katrina and how many families were not worried when flooding began, even when their homes were slowly affected. Only when the flooding reached a critical threshold did they realize the gravity of the situation.
În their la experiment of couple arguments
- heart rates go as high as 168bpm
- when you're flooded, you perceive things as potentially life threatening
- this pushes you towards nasty:nasty
Happy couples are less flooded, hence less likely to end up in or linger I nasty:nasty.
Unhappy couples do these more often than happy ones (the 4 horsemen)
- defensiveness: defending one's own innocence, denying responsibility, cross-complaining, whining.
- stonewalling: listener's withdrawal from interaction.
- contempt: a statement made to put a partner down and maintain a higher moral ground
- claiming to be better than the partner on any dimension
- interrupt to correct someone's grammar when they're angry with you
- husband's contempt predicts the number of the wife's infectious illnesses for the next 4 years
- best predictor of divorce
- frequency of contempt in happy couples is nearly 0
- criticism: suggesting that an issue is caused by a partner's personality flaw.
- You always/never X
- they're more harmful at the start of a conversation, as they set the tone
- the first 3 minutes predict the outcome very well in 96%; criticism = "harsh start".
Unhappier husbands have higher skin conductance -> sweating more during conflict. This reliably predicts a decline in marital satisfaction in the next 3 years.
Experiment:
- stop am argument and ask the couple to take a break
- a: read magazines for a while
- b: perform a psychological exercise for a while to lower heart rate
- then they're asked to resume the argument
- check if there's a delta depending on the heart rate at the time the argument was resumed
- reducing heart rates made the interaction better, but only for men.
- reducing women's heart rate wasn't associated with less frequent appeal to the 4 horsemen.
Antidote for flooding
- self-soothing
- Co-regulation - borrowing our partner's cerebral cortex :-)
Whenever one says they're flooded -> gotta take a break, otherwise escalation will lead to nothing good.
Some couples can't do it because they really have to say what they want to say.
Unhappy couples have no ritual for taking a break when flooded.
- at least 20min
- epinephrine and norepinephrine don't have enzymes to degrade them
- so they must be diffused through blood, which takes at least 3min
- because decay is slow - the break requirement is estimated to be ~20min
- and it **must** be relaxing, otherwise your thoughts will just keep refreshing the substance.
- and it cannot be an excuse to avoid talking, they have to get back to the discussion eventually
**Vagal tone** plays a key role in self soothing:
- vagus nerve (vagabond)
- vagal tone measures how active our body is, it can calm everything down
- it is not genetic, it is something you can work on (like muscle tone)
Dpa: diffuse physiological arousal
- can happen automatically
- (me: managed by the elephant)
- affects many systems at the same time (hence diffuse)
- inhibit the vagus nerve
- fight or flight mode is engaged
- focused attention
- this also happens during a relationship conflict, not only when physical threats arise
- empathy, sense of humor et al. get de-prioritized
It is important to **detect when you or your partner are in DPA and soothe** each other.
Self-assessment 51-item questionnaire, ex:
1. When my partner gets angry, I feel attacked
2. I just don't understand why he/she has to get so upset
3. After a fight I just want to keep away
4. My partner's feelings are too easily hurt.
5. Suddenly small issues become big ones
...
## brain physiology and trust
Experiment
- you're in fmri
- shocks are sent to your toes
- if you're happy and your spuse holds your hand - the body's reaction is calm
- if you're in an unhappy relationship, the partner's hand has no effect (same for a stranger's hand)
- also replicated with gay and lesbian couples
-> trust gives us physiological benefits.
Trust hormone
- oxytocin and vasopressin (for men)
- oxytocin responsible for mother/child bonding
- experiment with investors who got an oxytocin nasal spray (they were more willing to give, more trusting).
## trust and death
People who reliably die young
- lonely
- socially isolated
- disconnected
- usually men
Study:
Some immigrant populations had much better health than non-immigrant Americans.
- example: Chinese - different diet, low in fat
- but it was found that it wasn't about the diet, but about building a community
- strong family connections override hard work for low salaries,stress, homesickness, etc.
- the quality of the relationships also matters a lot.
- it is important to **trust people who are trustworthy**
Loneliness - inability to trust. They miss the enormous benefits of good social connections.
Lonely people are deficient
- in empathy
- in reading other people
- in social skills
- they have troubles regulating their sourness and hostility
- they focus on potential threats
- they have higher blood pressure
Trust and blood velocity
- high correlation between wife's trust metric and slower blood velocity of both partners
- how much she trusts him is what matters physiologically to both
**Mutually synchronizing exchange limbic regulation**
- rely on another person, maybe your spouse or partner, to control your body's systems
- like an external clock source
- hormone levels
- cardiovascular functions
- immune system responses
- this happens reciprocally
- works with parents/infants, and with adult lovers
Warm relationship with mom
- better health in life
- father's love has an additive effect
# ch5 when it's time to bail out of a relationship
"the story of us" switch
Oral history interview (ohi)
- questions about a couple's history
- let them talk, minimum interference
- long interview, ~2h
Memory is lossy
- this is due to how it is stored
- each time you remember something, it is slightly altered
- if there are inconsistencies, memories are patched to make a better fit :-)
Relationship dimensions captured via OHI
- funness and admiration (love and respect vs lack thereof)
- weness vs menness (togetherness vs me) -> the more often we-words occur in an interview, the more satisfied the partners are with the relationship
- questionable summary] love-map (how much of one's mind is preoccupied with the relationship state)
- chaos vs purpose and meaning: things happening to the couple uncontrollably, vs their own agency and power to change the world around them
- disappointment or satisfaction: the relationship isn't what they thought it would be, they don't recommend others to get married, they're depressed about the relationship, disillusioned, bitter.
Further analysis shows that they all can be represented by one dimension: do we focus on the positive stuff, or the negative stuff?
- emphasize the good time together and minimize the bad time
- emphasize the partner's good traits and minimize the annoying ones
-... Or the other way around
Note that the positive stories in the OHI didn't come from people who had flawless pasts.
- everyone has ups and downs
- but how do you interpret these events and what do you choose to focus on -> that's what matters
# ch6 how couples build trust with attunement
**sliding door** moments: small moments in which a need is expressed, and the partner's responsiveness acts as a test. Will they turn to our need?
**regretable incidents**
**conflict** (in Rapoport's terms)
Parenting and emotions (this can vary for each emotion)
- **Emotion-coaching** parents:
- understand what the child is feeling, empathize
- notice low-intensity emotions in themselves and their children
- these moments are seen as an opportunity to teach
- see negative emotions as a healthy part of normal development
- not impatient with the child's negativity
- help the child Label each emotion they feel
- communicate the family values
- set limits if there's misbehavior: although all emotions are acceptable, not all behavior is.
- apply problem-solving when there's negative affect without misbehavior
- **emotion-dismissive** parents:
- handle with distraction, or change how you feel, impatient with the children's emotion.
------Notes truncated, due to review length limit.
# ch1
- learn to listen and understand
How relationships were studied in the past
- how children make friends
- remember how we made friends at age 4 and sketch a program vs observation
Tolstoi's observation about "everyone is unhappy in the different ways, but happy in the same way" - > not true. Jay Hailey showed that there is more rigidity in distressed families, while happiness brings more diversity and variations.
Emotion coaching
## predictors of divorce
1. more negativity than positivity
- in good relationships, the pos:neg ratio is 5:1, in bad ones it is <0.8:1
2. Escalation of negative affect
3. Turning away: ignore the partner's attempts to reconnect or get support
4. Turning against: irritability, withdrawal, emotional disengagement
5. Little positivity during conflict: no jokes, no q&a, no affection, no support, no joy, no empathy -> divorce in ~16 years after marriage
6. Failure of repair attempts
7. Negative sentiment override -> a positive or a neutral message is perceived as negative.
- when one is unhappy, they notice only 50% of the positive interactions with the partner
8. Retell the history of the relationship in negative terms
9. Maintaining vigilance and physiological arousal: when heart rate is high, there's more adrenaline in the system, the sense of humor gets diminished, so does creativity.
10. Chronic diffuse physiological arousal: increased defensiveness, repeating one's own position. Reduces ability to listen and empathize.
11. Failure of men to accept influence from women
## predictors of stability in marriage
1. Matches in conflict style: conflict-avoiding, bickering, harmonious; as long as the 5:1 pos:neg ratio is respected during conflict. Mismatches are signs of an upcoming divorce.
2. Dialog with perpetual issues:
- 30% have problems about a resolvable issue
- 70% of the couples handle an unresolvable, perpetual issue (e. g., due to fundamental personality differences)
- some couples discuss them in a constructive way: dialog
- others in a non-constructive one: gridlock
- functional problem solving for the resolvable issues
- active listening plays no major role(!)
- if it works at all, it does when the speaker is "downregulated"
- soft-vs-hard start
- accept influence
- effective repair attempts
- de-escalate negativity
- anger can be very dangerous
- positive affect
3. Happy couples introduced issues as **joint** problems, which are **specific** to a situation
- unhappy ones present them as global and persistent issues tied to defects in one's personality
4. Remain physiologically calm during arousal
5. Accept influence from the partner
6. Active building of friendship and intimacy and playfulness
## The Sound relationship house theory
1. Build love-maps: your own Mindmap of your partner's inner world (what are their hopes and worries? What are their aspirations? Do you know their mission statement in life?) - > gotta know the answers or keep looking for them. Ask, remember, keep asking.
2. Share fondness and admiration, express it verbally and non-verbally. Actively build a culture of appreciation and respect.
3. Toward vs. away: bids for attention and emotional bank accounts. Turning toward: acknowledge the bid, react to it in a positive way. Anything is better than just ignoring it.
4. A positive perspective
5. Manage conflict (not necessarily resolve). "choosing a partner = choosing a set of problems".
6. Make life dreams come true: talk openly about your life aspirations and spin it in a way that the relationship supports you on that path. Ask about your partner's life dreams, and remember the answer.
7. Create shared meaning: develop common goals and work towards them.
# ch1 the trust metric
## social capital research
- High and low trust regions
- 2% brazilians trust people
- 65% Norwegians
- low-trust regions have much higher income disparities, lower political engagement, lower involvement in voluntary acts, lower levels of altruism, lower sense of community with neighbors, poorer mental and physical health, lower performance in schools
- "bowling alone" book where this research is documented
- a study found
- income disparity
- legal enforcement of contracts
- social similarity across the culture
- these 3 factors account for 76% of the variance in trust levels across a population
- study finding
- trustworthy: the most desired characteristic of a partner
- positive:negative ratio (elements of an interaction)
## trust metric
Measure trust and potential of betrayal
### 2-person game theory
- Model any relationship with it.
- Develop a pay-off matrix for pairing possible strategies of players.
- Most games in life, when modeling relationships, are not zero-sum games.
Von Neumann's
- minimax: the highest of the low payoffs.
- maximin: lowest of the high layoffs
- saddle point: where they intersect
Nash equilibrium
- both players are doing well
- neither has regrets about how they've played
## Spaff: specific affect coding system
- predict divorce with great accuracy
- predict how happy people will be if they stay together
- how long a relationship will last, based on some interaction patterns
Categories: nasty, nice, neutral
### Positive affect exchanges, nice:nice
- couples don't just stay together
- but they're also not miserable while at it :-)
positivity during conflicts was used very precisely by partners
Payoffs for positive interactions were much higher for happy couples than for unhappy ones.
Couples who had higher payoffs in their nice:nice cell did these positive actions more often.
Be nice to your partner even when in conflict.
### neutral:neutral
An intermediate step from nasty:nasty to nice:nice.
Couples that are together for a long time tend to the neutral:neutral cell.
### nasty:nasty
Negative reciprocity and conflict escalation.
Unhappy couples rate this as even more negative than the happy couples do. And yet, they engage in this type of behavior more often.
Happy couples don't get as upset by the nasty:nasty exchanges, as the unhappy ones do. (me: this implies that even happy couples have these interactions sometimes)
**absorbing state**
- easy to enter, difficult to leave.
- unhappy couples are absorbed by nasty:nasty
- happy ones aren't
- unhappy couples enter this absorbing state easier and leave it with more difficulty
- happy couples - the other way around
**Negative reciprocity** - going out on a limb to punish your peer, taking some damage along the way, as long as they get even more damage.
Illustrated in the _ultimatum game_, where participants reject very unfair offers.
_continental divide_ game
- basin of attraction -> (me) some sort of an intermediary stable equilibrium
- there are 2 such basins, flowing towards 3 points and flowing towards 12 points.
### 2 types of conflict resolution strategies
- absorbing state nasty:nasty
- effective repair
Happy couples argue, but they have a repair technique they apply and which is effective. Unhappy couples either don't apply one, or it isn't effective.
Sentiment override
- negative: interpret the partner's action as negative, even if outside observers label it as neutral or positive. This person is hypervigilant for negativity from their partner (me: like in the happiness hypothesis, someone being vigilant for signs of disrespect, or opportunities to make money)
- positive: give the partner the benefit of doubt and see them in a positive light.
Microwave example
- you're not supposed to turn on a microwave oven if it is empty
- negative bias, hear that as: you asshole, you're not supposed to turn thr microwave on if there's nothing in it
- positive bias: I'm sorry sweetheart, but I have a little remark, not a big deal, it's just that I read somewhere that it is not safe to turn the microwave on if there is no food inside.
People who have a negative sentiment override are "running on empty" in the friendship part of the relationship
- they feel disrespected
- unappreciated
- or unloved
- they see the partner as the adversary
- trust began to erode
Things to measure
- How much can you count on your partner changing **their behavior** to help you maximize your own points?
- how much does their change in behavior **motivate you to change your own**?
- multiply these to get a single number for _trust metric_
**validity of trust metric**
The calculated trust metric correlates well with levels of X during conflict
- verbal aggression
- skin conductivity (transpiration, arousal)
- less disappointment in the relationship
- fewer thoughts of divorce
- less disgust, contempt and domineering during conversation
Trust is low when you are in the nasty:nasty cell.
Trust
- permits action with incomplete information
- reduces complexity of transactions
- reduces transaction costs
It makes transactions smoother, you can think about your next steps without having to consider the long history of previous interactions, to determine whether the next one will be safe or not.
On the other side of the spectrum - you turn into a private investigator, always on the lookout for violations of trust (me: like in Happinness hypothesis, if you have a fixation on something).
Storyjoke
- do you love me?
- I do
- but do you really love me?
- I do
-...
- do you really*N love me?
- I think so
- I knew it!
Unhappy do nasty:nasty more often than happy ones, even if they are aware of the negative payoffs.
- me: it means the behavior is not rational
- me: we're not homo economicus
# ch3 metrics of trustworthiness and betrayal
Van Neumann advocated for a preemptive nuclear strike on the USSR.
Rapport advocated for peace.
Different approaches to optimization
- van Neumann, lack of trust - > best of the worst values
- Rapoport - >best outcome for everyone
# ch4 physiology of trust and betrayal
Emotional flooding effect - think of hurricane Katrina and how many families were not worried when flooding began, even when their homes were slowly affected. Only when the flooding reached a critical threshold did they realize the gravity of the situation.
În their la experiment of couple arguments
- heart rates go as high as 168bpm
- when you're flooded, you perceive things as potentially life threatening
- this pushes you towards nasty:nasty
Happy couples are less flooded, hence less likely to end up in or linger I nasty:nasty.
Unhappy couples do these more often than happy ones (the 4 horsemen)
- defensiveness: defending one's own innocence, denying responsibility, cross-complaining, whining.
- stonewalling: listener's withdrawal from interaction.
- contempt: a statement made to put a partner down and maintain a higher moral ground
- claiming to be better than the partner on any dimension
- interrupt to correct someone's grammar when they're angry with you
- husband's contempt predicts the number of the wife's infectious illnesses for the next 4 years
- best predictor of divorce
- frequency of contempt in happy couples is nearly 0
- criticism: suggesting that an issue is caused by a partner's personality flaw.
- You always/never X
- they're more harmful at the start of a conversation, as they set the tone
- the first 3 minutes predict the outcome very well in 96%; criticism = "harsh start".
Unhappier husbands have higher skin conductance -> sweating more during conflict. This reliably predicts a decline in marital satisfaction in the next 3 years.
Experiment:
- stop am argument and ask the couple to take a break
- a: read magazines for a while
- b: perform a psychological exercise for a while to lower heart rate
- then they're asked to resume the argument
- check if there's a delta depending on the heart rate at the time the argument was resumed
- reducing heart rates made the interaction better, but only for men.
- reducing women's heart rate wasn't associated with less frequent appeal to the 4 horsemen.
Antidote for flooding
- self-soothing
- Co-regulation - borrowing our partner's cerebral cortex :-)
Whenever one says they're flooded -> gotta take a break, otherwise escalation will lead to nothing good.
Some couples can't do it because they really have to say what they want to say.
Unhappy couples have no ritual for taking a break when flooded.
- at least 20min
- epinephrine and norepinephrine don't have enzymes to degrade them
- so they must be diffused through blood, which takes at least 3min
- because decay is slow - the break requirement is estimated to be ~20min
- and it **must** be relaxing, otherwise your thoughts will just keep refreshing the substance.
- and it cannot be an excuse to avoid talking, they have to get back to the discussion eventually
**Vagal tone** plays a key role in self soothing:
- vagus nerve (vagabond)
- vagal tone measures how active our body is, it can calm everything down
- it is not genetic, it is something you can work on (like muscle tone)
Dpa: diffuse physiological arousal
- can happen automatically
- (me: managed by the elephant)
- affects many systems at the same time (hence diffuse)
- inhibit the vagus nerve
- fight or flight mode is engaged
- focused attention
- this also happens during a relationship conflict, not only when physical threats arise
- empathy, sense of humor et al. get de-prioritized
It is important to **detect when you or your partner are in DPA and soothe** each other.
Self-assessment 51-item questionnaire, ex:
1. When my partner gets angry, I feel attacked
2. I just don't understand why he/she has to get so upset
3. After a fight I just want to keep away
4. My partner's feelings are too easily hurt.
5. Suddenly small issues become big ones
...
## brain physiology and trust
Experiment
- you're in fmri
- shocks are sent to your toes
- if you're happy and your spuse holds your hand - the body's reaction is calm
- if you're in an unhappy relationship, the partner's hand has no effect (same for a stranger's hand)
- also replicated with gay and lesbian couples
-> trust gives us physiological benefits.
Trust hormone
- oxytocin and vasopressin (for men)
- oxytocin responsible for mother/child bonding
- experiment with investors who got an oxytocin nasal spray (they were more willing to give, more trusting).
## trust and death
People who reliably die young
- lonely
- socially isolated
- disconnected
- usually men
Study:
Some immigrant populations had much better health than non-immigrant Americans.
- example: Chinese - different diet, low in fat
- but it was found that it wasn't about the diet, but about building a community
- strong family connections override hard work for low salaries,stress, homesickness, etc.
- the quality of the relationships also matters a lot.
- it is important to **trust people who are trustworthy**
Loneliness - inability to trust. They miss the enormous benefits of good social connections.
Lonely people are deficient
- in empathy
- in reading other people
- in social skills
- they have troubles regulating their sourness and hostility
- they focus on potential threats
- they have higher blood pressure
Trust and blood velocity
- high correlation between wife's trust metric and slower blood velocity of both partners
- how much she trusts him is what matters physiologically to both
**Mutually synchronizing exchange limbic regulation**
- rely on another person, maybe your spouse or partner, to control your body's systems
- like an external clock source
- hormone levels
- cardiovascular functions
- immune system responses
- this happens reciprocally
- works with parents/infants, and with adult lovers
Warm relationship with mom
- better health in life
- father's love has an additive effect
# ch5 when it's time to bail out of a relationship
"the story of us" switch
Oral history interview (ohi)
- questions about a couple's history
- let them talk, minimum interference
- long interview, ~2h
Memory is lossy
- this is due to how it is stored
- each time you remember something, it is slightly altered
- if there are inconsistencies, memories are patched to make a better fit :-)
Relationship dimensions captured via OHI
- funness and admiration (love and respect vs lack thereof)
- weness vs menness (togetherness vs me) -> the more often we-words occur in an interview, the more satisfied the partners are with the relationship
- questionable summary] love-map (how much of one's mind is preoccupied with the relationship state)
- chaos vs purpose and meaning: things happening to the couple uncontrollably, vs their own agency and power to change the world around them
- disappointment or satisfaction: the relationship isn't what they thought it would be, they don't recommend others to get married, they're depressed about the relationship, disillusioned, bitter.
Further analysis shows that they all can be represented by one dimension: do we focus on the positive stuff, or the negative stuff?
- emphasize the good time together and minimize the bad time
- emphasize the partner's good traits and minimize the annoying ones
-... Or the other way around
Note that the positive stories in the OHI didn't come from people who had flawless pasts.
- everyone has ups and downs
- but how do you interpret these events and what do you choose to focus on -> that's what matters
# ch6 how couples build trust with attunement
**sliding door** moments: small moments in which a need is expressed, and the partner's responsiveness acts as a test. Will they turn to our need?
**regretable incidents**
**conflict** (in Rapoport's terms)
Parenting and emotions (this can vary for each emotion)
- **Emotion-coaching** parents:
- understand what the child is feeling, empathize
- notice low-intensity emotions in themselves and their children
- these moments are seen as an opportunity to teach
- see negative emotions as a healthy part of normal development
- not impatient with the child's negativity
- help the child Label each emotion they feel
- communicate the family values
- set limits if there's misbehavior: although all emotions are acceptable, not all behavior is.
- apply problem-solving when there's negative affect without misbehavior
- **emotion-dismissive** parents:
- handle with distraction, or change how you feel, impatient with the children's emotion.
January 11, 2024
Some great learnings, but this book can be 30-60 pages...
The best parts were the excerpts from couples' conversations and then going through what could be done instead.
The best parts were the excerpts from couples' conversations and then going through what could be done instead.
June 18, 2025
Gottman proposes some points of psychology of mediocre interest and significance, particularly the famous 4 horsemen that destroy relationships. However he is also influenced by all manner of enlightenment thinkers, rationalists, and sexologists, worst of all Alfred Kinsey. He also has disgusting things to say in support of homosexual relationships, porn, sex dolls and "sex robots," all of which he is a placid supporter. Before you seriously consider seeking him out for psychological advice, know what sort of nauseating perversions this man has acquiesced to and promulgated.
1. Children do not make friends by introducing themselves
“Young children do not start a play session with strangers by introducing themselves. Calling attention to yourself is also guaranteed to get you rejected.” (Gottman, Ch. 1).
2. Couples are more likely to get a divorce if they go to therapy rather than not
“For the first 24 years of research we never tried to help anyone. In fact, we asked the people who participated in our research if they were getting therapy. And we discovered that there was a reasonably high correlation between getting therapy and getting a divorce. It was more likely that couples would get a divorce if they had therapy than if they had no therapy. This was especially true for individual therapy, but it was also true of couple therapy.” (Gottman, Ch. 1).
3. Men’s flight or fight is aroused more easily than in women:
“Men are more likely to rehearse distressed maintaining thoughts than women. This is related to becoming diffusely physiologically aroused. When our heartrates become high, we also start secreting adrenaline, and we can’t process information very well. We also don’t have access to our sense of humor or our creativity. We tend to repeat ourselves, and become aggressive, or we run away.” (Gottman, Ch. 1).
4. Active listening in a conflict is entirely ineffective
“Functional problem solving about resolvable issues had the following characteristics: a. the much touted active listening model of functional relationship received no support in our research in discriminating happy from unhappy couples. We also found, that people rarely naturally engaged in active listening during conflict, even in stable happy relationships, and even when they did, it wasn’t predictive of positive outcomes for the relationship. … extensive training in active listening … was essentially ineffective, with a low effect size and high relapse.” (Gottman, Ch. 1).
5. On Gottman’s perverseness:
“I am now ready to define the trust metric mathematically. First, let’s make everyday language more precise to define trust. We will use the he/she language of heterosexual relationships although this language is easily modifiable for gay and lesbian couples. I mean no disrespect to same-sex relationships.” (Gottman, Ch. 2).
6. Definition of the Four Horsemen
“These are the four horsemen of the apocalypse: criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling. Further definitions:
Criticism. A person using criticism is suggesting that the conflict issue is caused by a personality flaw in the partner. A global attack will do for criticism, for example. This problem would never happen if you weren’t so selfish. The ‘selfish’ attribution is usually the first attribution made in unhappy relationships. And it has been observed repeatedly in many laboratories. Notice that the word, selfish,’ suggests a violation of trust in exactly the way we have defined the trust metric. Blaming one’s partner for the problem is one example of criticism. Criticism is a type of complaining that is designed as a global attack on the partner’s personality. Criticism is not necessarily about being global. A long list of very specific complaints will appear global, so people shouldn’t save up those requests. Complaints that begin with, ‘you always,’ or, ‘you never,’ are criticisms. So are questions that are rhetorical accusations of negative motive such as, ‘why don’t you care about me?’ or, ‘why can’t you be nice to me?’ or, ‘what is wrong with you?’ Why questions are usually taken as criticism, even if they aren’t intended that way. The complaint has direct implications that there is something wrong with the partner’s character. Criticisms are most harmful at the start of the interaction. Women, in heterosexual relationships, characteristically exceed men in this behavior. We have found that the way a discussion begins in the first three minutes determines the remainder of the discussion in 96% of cases. Criticisms are usually a part of what we call, ‘harsh starting.’
Defensiveness. Defensiveness is defending one’s own innocence, warding off a perceived attack, meeting an attack with a counter-attack, a righteous stance of indignation, or whining at innocent victim stance. There are many ways to do this, such as denying responsibility for a problem – it is all the partner’s fault; cross-complaining, or whining. The denial of responsibility fuels the escalation of conflict, probably because it suggests one partner is totally at fault for the issue.
Contempt. Contempt is typically a statement made to put one’s partner down by taking a superior high plane than one’s partner by maintaining the high moral ground. It usually arises from the sense that one is better than one’s partner on any dimension, such as neatness or punctuality. People are very creative with contempt and snobbery. The usual method is an incel or calling one’s partner an unflattering name. For example, ‘you’re a jerk.’ One of my favorites is interrupting to correct someone’s grammar when that person is angry with you. … Contempt may be accompanied by belligerence, which is a provocative form of anger.
Stonewalling. Stonewalling is the listener’s withdrawal from interaction. The listener does not give the speaker the usual listener tracking cues, eye contact, open body, head nods, brief vocalizations, or move the face or look continuously at the speaking partner. The listener may use brief monitoring gazes. In heterosexual relationships, men exceed women in this behavior. This behavior indexes emotional withdrawal.
… Contempt is our single best predictor of divorce. We also found that a husband’s contempt predicts the number of a wife’s infectious illnesses in the next four years. It is interesting to note that the frequency of contempt among happy couples is nearly zero.” (Gottman, Ch. 4).
7. More of Gottman’s perversion
“Impersonal sex may also be about erotic correspondence with a total stranger. If many people didn’t prefer impersonal sex than prostitution, pornography, and all the sex fetishes, such as kink and SNM, wouldn’t be as popular as they are. There are an astounding estimated 500,000,000 pornography websites on the internet. As a scientist I do not judge people for preferring personal over impersonal sex. It is what it is.” (Gottman, Ch. 7).
8. On Artificial Love, and more on Gottman’s nauseating perversions
“A recent article in Discover Magazine speculated about the future possibility of robots being used as sex surrogates. Hardware and software have already been created for making these robots quite lifelike. Their skin and outer coverings can be made to resemble that of humans. Some are even capable of making human facial expressions. Animations have already succeeded in recreating the range of human emotional expression. We also know that computer programs, like the program Elisa, have been created to simulate the language of an accepting therapist. So theoretically these robots can be designed to appear understanding and accepting, even loving. They can be programmed to remember what someone has said and create sentences like, ‘I remember when you were last sad like you are today. It was when you were talking about your best friend’s drowning. So, this new loss is a big moment for you. I’m so sorry for your loss.’ I imagine that this will someday be a growth industry, and its effects won’t be all bad. If these robots can be made to cook and clean, they may even suffice as … partners for many people in our population, who would rather not be bothered with, or may lack the social skills for, establishing a real relationship with a real person. Not everyone should be in a relationship with a real person. There is no question that it does take a lot of work to make an intimate personal relationship work well. That entails some cost. Perhaps these robots might eliminate or significantly change the professions of prostitution.” (Gottman, Ch. 7).
9. Gottman seems to be proud of his association with the work and institutions of Alfred Kinsey, known for all manners of sexual perversions (see Matt Walsh’s What is a Woman)
“… in the early 1970’s, I was an assistant professor at Indiana University, home of the famous Kinsey Institute.” (Gottman, Ch. 7).
10. Gottman’s inexorable arrogance relegates matters of theology to matters of psychology
“Until recently forgiveness remained in the world of theology. However, scientists have begun trying to understand how betrayal and forgiveness occur, how they are perceived, and how forgiveness can be encouraged.” (Gottman, Ch. 10).
1. Children do not make friends by introducing themselves
“Young children do not start a play session with strangers by introducing themselves. Calling attention to yourself is also guaranteed to get you rejected.” (Gottman, Ch. 1).
2. Couples are more likely to get a divorce if they go to therapy rather than not
“For the first 24 years of research we never tried to help anyone. In fact, we asked the people who participated in our research if they were getting therapy. And we discovered that there was a reasonably high correlation between getting therapy and getting a divorce. It was more likely that couples would get a divorce if they had therapy than if they had no therapy. This was especially true for individual therapy, but it was also true of couple therapy.” (Gottman, Ch. 1).
3. Men’s flight or fight is aroused more easily than in women:
“Men are more likely to rehearse distressed maintaining thoughts than women. This is related to becoming diffusely physiologically aroused. When our heartrates become high, we also start secreting adrenaline, and we can’t process information very well. We also don’t have access to our sense of humor or our creativity. We tend to repeat ourselves, and become aggressive, or we run away.” (Gottman, Ch. 1).
4. Active listening in a conflict is entirely ineffective
“Functional problem solving about resolvable issues had the following characteristics: a. the much touted active listening model of functional relationship received no support in our research in discriminating happy from unhappy couples. We also found, that people rarely naturally engaged in active listening during conflict, even in stable happy relationships, and even when they did, it wasn’t predictive of positive outcomes for the relationship. … extensive training in active listening … was essentially ineffective, with a low effect size and high relapse.” (Gottman, Ch. 1).
5. On Gottman’s perverseness:
“I am now ready to define the trust metric mathematically. First, let’s make everyday language more precise to define trust. We will use the he/she language of heterosexual relationships although this language is easily modifiable for gay and lesbian couples. I mean no disrespect to same-sex relationships.” (Gottman, Ch. 2).
6. Definition of the Four Horsemen
“These are the four horsemen of the apocalypse: criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling. Further definitions:
Criticism. A person using criticism is suggesting that the conflict issue is caused by a personality flaw in the partner. A global attack will do for criticism, for example. This problem would never happen if you weren’t so selfish. The ‘selfish’ attribution is usually the first attribution made in unhappy relationships. And it has been observed repeatedly in many laboratories. Notice that the word, selfish,’ suggests a violation of trust in exactly the way we have defined the trust metric. Blaming one’s partner for the problem is one example of criticism. Criticism is a type of complaining that is designed as a global attack on the partner’s personality. Criticism is not necessarily about being global. A long list of very specific complaints will appear global, so people shouldn’t save up those requests. Complaints that begin with, ‘you always,’ or, ‘you never,’ are criticisms. So are questions that are rhetorical accusations of negative motive such as, ‘why don’t you care about me?’ or, ‘why can’t you be nice to me?’ or, ‘what is wrong with you?’ Why questions are usually taken as criticism, even if they aren’t intended that way. The complaint has direct implications that there is something wrong with the partner’s character. Criticisms are most harmful at the start of the interaction. Women, in heterosexual relationships, characteristically exceed men in this behavior. We have found that the way a discussion begins in the first three minutes determines the remainder of the discussion in 96% of cases. Criticisms are usually a part of what we call, ‘harsh starting.’
Defensiveness. Defensiveness is defending one’s own innocence, warding off a perceived attack, meeting an attack with a counter-attack, a righteous stance of indignation, or whining at innocent victim stance. There are many ways to do this, such as denying responsibility for a problem – it is all the partner’s fault; cross-complaining, or whining. The denial of responsibility fuels the escalation of conflict, probably because it suggests one partner is totally at fault for the issue.
Contempt. Contempt is typically a statement made to put one’s partner down by taking a superior high plane than one’s partner by maintaining the high moral ground. It usually arises from the sense that one is better than one’s partner on any dimension, such as neatness or punctuality. People are very creative with contempt and snobbery. The usual method is an incel or calling one’s partner an unflattering name. For example, ‘you’re a jerk.’ One of my favorites is interrupting to correct someone’s grammar when that person is angry with you. … Contempt may be accompanied by belligerence, which is a provocative form of anger.
Stonewalling. Stonewalling is the listener’s withdrawal from interaction. The listener does not give the speaker the usual listener tracking cues, eye contact, open body, head nods, brief vocalizations, or move the face or look continuously at the speaking partner. The listener may use brief monitoring gazes. In heterosexual relationships, men exceed women in this behavior. This behavior indexes emotional withdrawal.
… Contempt is our single best predictor of divorce. We also found that a husband’s contempt predicts the number of a wife’s infectious illnesses in the next four years. It is interesting to note that the frequency of contempt among happy couples is nearly zero.” (Gottman, Ch. 4).
7. More of Gottman’s perversion
“Impersonal sex may also be about erotic correspondence with a total stranger. If many people didn’t prefer impersonal sex than prostitution, pornography, and all the sex fetishes, such as kink and SNM, wouldn’t be as popular as they are. There are an astounding estimated 500,000,000 pornography websites on the internet. As a scientist I do not judge people for preferring personal over impersonal sex. It is what it is.” (Gottman, Ch. 7).
8. On Artificial Love, and more on Gottman’s nauseating perversions
“A recent article in Discover Magazine speculated about the future possibility of robots being used as sex surrogates. Hardware and software have already been created for making these robots quite lifelike. Their skin and outer coverings can be made to resemble that of humans. Some are even capable of making human facial expressions. Animations have already succeeded in recreating the range of human emotional expression. We also know that computer programs, like the program Elisa, have been created to simulate the language of an accepting therapist. So theoretically these robots can be designed to appear understanding and accepting, even loving. They can be programmed to remember what someone has said and create sentences like, ‘I remember when you were last sad like you are today. It was when you were talking about your best friend’s drowning. So, this new loss is a big moment for you. I’m so sorry for your loss.’ I imagine that this will someday be a growth industry, and its effects won’t be all bad. If these robots can be made to cook and clean, they may even suffice as … partners for many people in our population, who would rather not be bothered with, or may lack the social skills for, establishing a real relationship with a real person. Not everyone should be in a relationship with a real person. There is no question that it does take a lot of work to make an intimate personal relationship work well. That entails some cost. Perhaps these robots might eliminate or significantly change the professions of prostitution.” (Gottman, Ch. 7).
9. Gottman seems to be proud of his association with the work and institutions of Alfred Kinsey, known for all manners of sexual perversions (see Matt Walsh’s What is a Woman)
“… in the early 1970’s, I was an assistant professor at Indiana University, home of the famous Kinsey Institute.” (Gottman, Ch. 7).
10. Gottman’s inexorable arrogance relegates matters of theology to matters of psychology
“Until recently forgiveness remained in the world of theology. However, scientists have begun trying to understand how betrayal and forgiveness occur, how they are perceived, and how forgiveness can be encouraged.” (Gottman, Ch. 10).
August 25, 2024
I read this a few months ago but I didn’t get many clear takeaways from it. That may well be my fault rather than the book’s. But the only thing that really stuck with me was the impression that the book spent way more time talking about the history of game theory than I was expecting. Anyway, here’s a grab-bag of interesting bits.
1. This finding definitely plays to my biases:
(Reining in one’s emotions during an argument can be difficult and I don’t think any of us can expect to succeed all the time, but sometimes it seems like our culture denies that there’s value in even making the effort.)
2. How a successful relationship can naturally drive itself toward the situations that will endanger it:
3. On the importance of taking breaks to deal with flooding:
4. Summarizing a result from Schwartz & Russek 1998:
5. I think this comment, suggesting that a sense of responsibility for another person’s state of mind can inhibit us from accurately understanding their state of mind, is insightful:
6. Another suggestion which plays to my biases:
7. A hard but plausible piece of advice:
8. Gottman is definitely selling me on this guy:
9. Gottman directly pushes back against one popular relationship-advice book—Esther Perel’s Mating in Captivity :
10. I find the first part of this to be easy to believe but hard to accept:
11. This sucks:
12. Bad news for the Internet era:
Gottman also refers to a book called The Porn Trap and summarizes an interesting claim it makes:
[1] John Mordechai Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples, 1st ed (New York: W.W. Norton, 2011), 64, emphasis added.
[2] Ibid., 66.
[3] Ibid., 76–77, emphasis added.
[4] Ibid., 125–26.
[5] Ibid., 144.
[6] Ibid., 194.
[7] Ibid., 219, bold added, italics in original.
[8] Ibid., 219–20, emphasis added.
[9] Ibid., 249, emphasis added.
[10] Ibid., 253.
[11] Ibid., 282.
[12] Ibid., 349.
[13] Ibid., 387.
[14] Ibid., emphasis added.
(crosspost)
1. This finding definitely plays to my biases:
…neutral affect is a good thing during conflict.[1]
…couple therapists should work toward moving couples into a less emotional exchange during conflict, not just on getting them out of the nasty-nasty cell of the matrix or on increasing positive affect.[2]
(Reining in one’s emotions during an argument can be difficult and I don’t think any of us can expect to succeed all the time, but sometimes it seems like our culture denies that there’s value in even making the effort.)
2. How a successful relationship can naturally drive itself toward the situations that will endanger it:
…In the beginning years of a new relationship, couples work to see if they can trust each other in various areas of their lives. They are setting up a secure relationship as a base for building a life together.
Once they have established this security, they work harder, or they decide to remodel the kitchen, or they decide to change jobs, or they decide to have a baby. In fact, with regard to the decision to have the first baby, it was the newlyweds who were doing better in their marriages who “progressed” to that decision.
…
The overall life pattern is that people in our culture continually increase complexity in their lives until many live at what mathematicians call the “cusp of a catastrophe.” That word “catastrophe” doesn’t mean disaster; rather, it has a precise meaning for mathematicians. A catastrophe state means that people keep slowly increasing the complexity of their lives until they are at risk for entering a new qualitative state. Mathematically, catastrophe means that small increases in a parameter (like complexity, or stress) can suddenly, once a precise threshold of stress is passed, completely alter the qualitative nature of their relationship.[3]
3. On the importance of taking breaks to deal with flooding:
We now know that taking breaks and creating a way of saying, “Stop, I’m flooded,” is very important for couples. Nothing else will do. Couples who are in a nasty-nasty interchange have to stop talking immediately when one person claims to be flooded and asks for a break….
…The break must be at least 20 minutes long… [b]ecause of the slow decay of [certain] neurotransmitters…
Also, it cannot be a break that gives people time to rehearse “distress maintaining” thoughts like, “I don’t have to take this” or “I’m going to get even.” It must be truly relaxing, like a pleasant walk around the block. That’s not an easy thing to accomplish.
…People need to…schedule a precise time to get together again so the request for a break doesn’t seem like an excuse for avoiding the issue or avoiding the partner.[4]
4. Summarizing a result from Schwartz & Russek 1998:
Ninety-one percent of participants who did not have a warm relationship with their mothers were diagnosed with a serious medical disease in midlife, compared to only 45% who said they did have a warm relationship with their mothers.[5]
5. I think this comment, suggesting that a sense of responsibility for another person’s state of mind can inhibit us from accurately understanding their state of mind, is insightful:
Somewhat counterintuitively, understanding is facilitated by taking no responsibility for the partner’s feelings, except trying to understand. When one’s partner is crying, for example, the response should not be, “Please stop crying,” but something like, “Please help me understand what the tears are all about.” The goal is understanding, and that is enough.[6]
6. Another suggestion which plays to my biases:
Another very important principle in Rapoport’s theory is that to make conflict safe, we first need to postpone persuasion until each person can state the partner’s position to the partner’s satisfaction.[7]
7. A hard but plausible piece of advice:
No one can listen nondefensively to a perceived attack. The speaker cannot begin expressing negative affect with blaming or criticism. There appears to be no such thing as “constructive criticism.” Instead, the speaker must state his or her feelings as neutrally as possible, and then convert any complaint about his or her partner into a positive need.[8]
8. Gottman is definitely selling me on this guy:
Hence, Rapoport suggested two things. First, when we identify a negative quality in our partner (or adversary), we try to see that very quality in ourselves. That is a truly amazing suggestion. Second, he suggested that when we identify a positive quality in ourselves, we try to see that very quality in our partner (or adversary). Another truly amazing suggestion.[9]
9. Gottman directly pushes back against one popular relationship-advice book—Esther Perel’s Mating in Captivity :
The Perel hypothesis is that boundaries between people and emotional distance create great sex and intimacy. The alternative hypothesis, which I favor, is that emotional attunement creates intimate trust and makes intimacy personal.[10]
10. I find the first part of this to be easy to believe but hard to accept:
When we compare cognitively based repairs that appeal to logic and rational problem solving, we must generally conclude that these repair attempts are quite ineffective. However, repair attempts that are based on increasing emotional closeness (taking responsibility, agreement, affection, humor, self-disclosure, understanding and empathy, and “we’re okay”) were highly effective.[11]
11. This sucks:
Harvard professor Robert Weiss’s classic book, Staying the Course, qualitatively analyzed the relationships of 100 successful men. He reported that these couples had about two serious arguments a year. Furthermore, he reported that, after an argument, women generally said that even though it was an unpleasant experience, it was constructive because issues became raised and were now out on the table. In contrast, most of the men had serious thoughts of leaving the relationship after the same argument.[12]
12. Bad news for the Internet era:
Habitual pornography use promotes unfavorable CL-ALT comparisons and supports denigrating rather than cherishing the partner.[13]
Gottman also refers to a book called The Porn Trap and summarizes an interesting claim it makes:
Some images are highly disappointing but some are very exciting and surprising, so the hunt continues, resulting in the porn user being on a variable ratio schedule of reinforcement, which is highly resistant to extinction.[14]
[1] John Mordechai Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples, 1st ed (New York: W.W. Norton, 2011), 64, emphasis added.
[2] Ibid., 66.
[3] Ibid., 76–77, emphasis added.
[4] Ibid., 125–26.
[5] Ibid., 144.
[6] Ibid., 194.
[7] Ibid., 219, bold added, italics in original.
[8] Ibid., 219–20, emphasis added.
[9] Ibid., 249, emphasis added.
[10] Ibid., 253.
[11] Ibid., 282.
[12] Ibid., 349.
[13] Ibid., 387.
[14] Ibid., emphasis added.
(crosspost)
February 24, 2015
Relationships, explained by math!
Gottman uses game theory and various other fancy math things to explain how relationships succeed and fail. This book took me awhile to get through--it oscillated between so mathy I had to reread, and very intimate and feely. He mentions having done studies on same-sex relationships as well, and cited them in the book when the findings correlated with mixed-sex couples, but this book is decidedly heteronormative.
Overall, useful book with tons of interesting data.
Big takeaways:
You can tell a lot about the health of a relationship by how you/your partners respond to bids for attention and affection.
Preemptively addressing your partner's emotional state can lead to opportunities to build trust--he emphasizes that responding appropriately to these "sliding door" moments are crucial for long term relationship health, because each one is an opportunity to build emotional resonance and trust.
There's some sex-specific data about conflict resolution, but all members of a partnership show the same hallmarks of positive and negative relationships--positive ones are characterized by shared humor, a "we-" oriented story, and lots of tenderness and kindness during conflict. Negative ones show a lot of fundamental attribution error (where you forgive yourself for making mistakes, but attribute other people's mistakes to fundamental weaknesses of character--you're a cautious driver who sometimes makes mistakes, but the person who merged into you is a selfish, lazy jerk who can't drive, etc.), a "me-" centered story, rather than a "we-" centered one, and explosive, accusatory, or dismissive conflict.
Gottman identifies the "four horsemen" of relationships as stonewalling, criticism, defensiveness, and contempt. If you're getting any of these from your partner, or using them, it's a really bad sign.
Gottman uses game theory and various other fancy math things to explain how relationships succeed and fail. This book took me awhile to get through--it oscillated between so mathy I had to reread, and very intimate and feely. He mentions having done studies on same-sex relationships as well, and cited them in the book when the findings correlated with mixed-sex couples, but this book is decidedly heteronormative.
Overall, useful book with tons of interesting data.
Big takeaways:
You can tell a lot about the health of a relationship by how you/your partners respond to bids for attention and affection.
Preemptively addressing your partner's emotional state can lead to opportunities to build trust--he emphasizes that responding appropriately to these "sliding door" moments are crucial for long term relationship health, because each one is an opportunity to build emotional resonance and trust.
There's some sex-specific data about conflict resolution, but all members of a partnership show the same hallmarks of positive and negative relationships--positive ones are characterized by shared humor, a "we-" oriented story, and lots of tenderness and kindness during conflict. Negative ones show a lot of fundamental attribution error (where you forgive yourself for making mistakes, but attribute other people's mistakes to fundamental weaknesses of character--you're a cautious driver who sometimes makes mistakes, but the person who merged into you is a selfish, lazy jerk who can't drive, etc.), a "me-" centered story, rather than a "we-" centered one, and explosive, accusatory, or dismissive conflict.
Gottman identifies the "four horsemen" of relationships as stonewalling, criticism, defensiveness, and contempt. If you're getting any of these from your partner, or using them, it's a really bad sign.
July 7, 2020
I think this is so perfect. The scientific approach makes things so clear cut and easy to understand. I am glad I have the opportunity to read this. The data is presented before Gotman does the interpretation and the implication. Conceptualization for "trust", mind-boggling !
Overall, emotional attunement is the illusive basics for "being there for one's partner whenever he or she is feeling emotional or has a need" XD it is listening non-defensively and empathically in order to understand one's emotion
A= awareness of the emotion
T= turning towards the emotion
T= tolerance of the emotional experience
U= understanding the emotion
N= non-defensive listening to the emotion
E= empathy for the emotion
All emotion has adaptive value - all emotions and all wishes are acceptable, but not all behaviour may be acceptable"
Choosing a relationship is choosing a set of problems. every relationship have a set of problem and a particular person would have a set of problems no matter who they married.
1. LOVE MAPS- ask questions and remember the answer. Importance of repair - all relationships will have times where harm is done.
2. FONDNESS AND ADMIRATION
3. TURNING TOWARDS- being sensitive to emotional cues and seeing bits
4. perpetual issues are caused by fundamental differences of personalities and needs that are fundamental to their core values of self
What is trust?
1. trust that your partner has your best interest
2. trust that your partner will be there when you need them
3. trust that you can depend on your partner in touch times
Overall, emotional attunement is the illusive basics for "being there for one's partner whenever he or she is feeling emotional or has a need" XD it is listening non-defensively and empathically in order to understand one's emotion
A= awareness of the emotion
T= turning towards the emotion
T= tolerance of the emotional experience
U= understanding the emotion
N= non-defensive listening to the emotion
E= empathy for the emotion
All emotion has adaptive value - all emotions and all wishes are acceptable, but not all behaviour may be acceptable"
Choosing a relationship is choosing a set of problems. every relationship have a set of problem and a particular person would have a set of problems no matter who they married.
1. LOVE MAPS- ask questions and remember the answer. Importance of repair - all relationships will have times where harm is done.
2. FONDNESS AND ADMIRATION
3. TURNING TOWARDS- being sensitive to emotional cues and seeing bits
4. perpetual issues are caused by fundamental differences of personalities and needs that are fundamental to their core values of self
What is trust?
1. trust that your partner has your best interest
2. trust that your partner will be there when you need them
3. trust that you can depend on your partner in touch times
July 7, 2017
I'll start off by noting that this was a terrible choice to get as an audio book. The target audience of this book is professional relationship counselors and researchers. As such, it has its fair share of math and acronyms. Nothing terrible, but when you've forgotten -- yet again -- what CL-ALT is, it would be nice to be able to flip back and look it up.
The other thing about this book is that, for the reasons mentioned above, it isn't an easy read. Although I haven't read it, from the description I suspect that the newer What Makes Love Last? is Gottman's version of this data for a more general audience.
What makes this book particularly valuable is that, while Gottman's research focuses on trust in couples, much of the information feels like it would generalize to trust in other settings. This feeling is supported by the fact that much of the material he discusses is not related to couples -- such as the work of Anatol Rapoport. Because this book focused on research, it could sometimes feel like the meat -- the practically applicable bits -- got lost in the theory, but it also meant there was a level of precision that you don't usually see in books about human relationships.
Overall, this book was a challenging read, but well worth the effort.
The other thing about this book is that, for the reasons mentioned above, it isn't an easy read. Although I haven't read it, from the description I suspect that the newer What Makes Love Last? is Gottman's version of this data for a more general audience.
What makes this book particularly valuable is that, while Gottman's research focuses on trust in couples, much of the information feels like it would generalize to trust in other settings. This feeling is supported by the fact that much of the material he discusses is not related to couples -- such as the work of Anatol Rapoport. Because this book focused on research, it could sometimes feel like the meat -- the practically applicable bits -- got lost in the theory, but it also meant there was a level of precision that you don't usually see in books about human relationships.
Overall, this book was a challenging read, but well worth the effort.
July 8, 2013
This book is not for everyone. Some chapters are incredibly helpful and pretty easy to understand, and some chapters spend a lot of time justifying the research and explaining the math behind his research. I found the game theory chapters really interesting- but I was sometimes impatient because I was eager to jump into the meat-and-potatoes of relationship advice. So if you're going into this, just know that you need to maintain a meta perspective about the whole endeavor. This book feels more oriented to therapists than the average reader, but that appeals to me. In fact, this book appealed to my science-oriented, computer programmer husband much more than other similar books probably would have.
I found Gottman's insights to be helpful and interesting. But I do think that sometimes he explains his research without decoding for the reader how exactly that would translate into therapy or couple interaction. I wished he would make the connections a little more thoroughly, rather than just explaining the results and leaving them to stand on their own.
Overall, I think this book gives an important research-backed perspective on relationships and what makes them work- and how we can improve all the relationships in our lives. I especially recommend it for couples who approach relationship books with a lot of skepticism.
I found Gottman's insights to be helpful and interesting. But I do think that sometimes he explains his research without decoding for the reader how exactly that would translate into therapy or couple interaction. I wished he would make the connections a little more thoroughly, rather than just explaining the results and leaving them to stand on their own.
Overall, I think this book gives an important research-backed perspective on relationships and what makes them work- and how we can improve all the relationships in our lives. I especially recommend it for couples who approach relationship books with a lot of skepticism.
October 10, 2015
At first I thought this was going to be just an update of the 7 principles. But it wasn't. It was about building the foundation for the 7 principles - the trust (of knowing the other person is going to be ther for you) that underpins them. It was quite scientific (as far as social science goes). Not necessary to the advice itself, but good to see its backing.
In summary, trust is the positive answer to the question "are you going to be there for me?" Then conversely what untrustworthiness and betrayal is and how it is caused. And ending with how to build trust, and come back from untrustworthiness and betrayal. Here it did in fact use similar advice as the 7 principles - building trust by "attuning" to your partner, avoiding untrustworthiness by turning towards your partner and repairing conflicts, and avoiding betrayal by not allowing the untrustworthiness seed to grow. And the key point in working it all out, committing to doing so, the both of you.
Insightful, helpful, and a good follow up read from the 7 principles.
In summary, trust is the positive answer to the question "are you going to be there for me?" Then conversely what untrustworthiness and betrayal is and how it is caused. And ending with how to build trust, and come back from untrustworthiness and betrayal. Here it did in fact use similar advice as the 7 principles - building trust by "attuning" to your partner, avoiding untrustworthiness by turning towards your partner and repairing conflicts, and avoiding betrayal by not allowing the untrustworthiness seed to grow. And the key point in working it all out, committing to doing so, the both of you.
Insightful, helpful, and a good follow up read from the 7 principles.
January 23, 2024
Sacrilegious opinion: I don’t think the research is that strong. For the populations they study? Absolutely. A slam dunk and there is a lot to be learned. I respect that and have nothing bad to say.
However, the bias is consistently skewed toward white middle class heterosexual married folks. When other populations are mentioned it is in a, “Oh yea and gay and lesbian couples show similar results” or “Low income couples show this too”. Not even a casual mention toward BIPOC folks, like they don’t even exist, which is its own glaring implication.
So much of academia makes the error of continuing to study white middle class America and then casually extrapolating it to other populations without acknowledging harm that the generalization can cause. We’ve seen how this shows up in studies of Autism, body fat, heart attacks, and IQ tests. But it continues to happen. Again, love the amount of knowledge gained from the research. A lot of great information. But don’t imply this is comprehensive or inclusive.
However, the bias is consistently skewed toward white middle class heterosexual married folks. When other populations are mentioned it is in a, “Oh yea and gay and lesbian couples show similar results” or “Low income couples show this too”. Not even a casual mention toward BIPOC folks, like they don’t even exist, which is its own glaring implication.
So much of academia makes the error of continuing to study white middle class America and then casually extrapolating it to other populations without acknowledging harm that the generalization can cause. We’ve seen how this shows up in studies of Autism, body fat, heart attacks, and IQ tests. But it continues to happen. Again, love the amount of knowledge gained from the research. A lot of great information. But don’t imply this is comprehensive or inclusive.
August 28, 2020
Absolute rubbish. Honestly I've read thousands of pages of research and reading this book was just painful. His writing style is all over the place, the research he quotes is beyond what I'd consider trustworthy and drawing reasonable conclusions. This is an example of how social science like psychology is perverted to look like physics or maths and stinks of bullshit. Yes, I'm harsh. And yes, there are rare gems of worthy logic to consider, but can't say more good stuff.
I couldn't even force myself to finish it - leaving it at 29%. But my philosophy is that if you pass a 1/4 of a book and it still stinks, drop it. Maybe the rest of it is magic, but I lost faith and patience with this book.
Some people here who have rated the book highly have described this book "dense" and I agree, it is dense but not in the sense they've used the word.
I couldn't even force myself to finish it - leaving it at 29%. But my philosophy is that if you pass a 1/4 of a book and it still stinks, drop it. Maybe the rest of it is magic, but I lost faith and patience with this book.
Some people here who have rated the book highly have described this book "dense" and I agree, it is dense but not in the sense they've used the word.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 147 reviews