Gottman Couple Traces 80% of Sex Failure to Lack of Non-Sexual Touch

戈特曼夫妇：80%的性生活问题归因于缺乏非性接触 长期关系的成败取决于微互动，例如六秒接吻和日常非性接触，这些互动能建立深层情感联结与性满意度所需的催产素及心理安全感。 John与Julie Gottman博士剖析了恋爱关系背后的科学原理，打破了关于婚姻与亲密关系的常见误区。他们解释了微小的日常互动——例如回应伴侣的情感联结尝试、拥抱以及进行六秒接吻——如何显著改善身体健康、延长寿命并提升性满意度。对话还详细介绍了应对长期冲突的实用框架，如“末日四骑士”（Four Horsemen）、ATTUNE模型和处理僵局的“六问协议”（6-question gridlock protocol）。此外，戈特曼夫妇还强调了非性肢体接触、坦诚的性沟通以及彼此展露情感脆弱在维持长久激情中的重要作用。 关系质量直接影响生理寿命与身心健康：长期社交孤立与高冲突关系会缩短预期寿命，而积极的情感联结与亲密互动能显著降低压力激素并促进健康。 (9:03) 长期关系的维系依赖微小的日常互动，“关系大师”型伴侣对彼此情感联结信号（bids for connection）的回应率高达85%，而最终走向破裂的伴侣仅为33%。 (15:41) 研究表明约69%的伴侣问题属于源于性格与生活习惯差异的“永恒且无法解决的问题”，健康伴侣的关键在于接纳差异并寻求核心需求外的妥协，而非强求彻底解决。 (40:45) 导致关系走向崩溃的“四大骑士”为批评、防卫、蔑视与筑墙，其中蔑视是预测分手最核心的指标；成功的伴侣在冲突时能维持至少5:1的积极与消极互动比。 (51:19)

Drawn from over five decades of observational and clinical research, Drs. John and Julie Gottman argue that enduring relationships rely not on eliminating conflict, but on daily micro-attentiveness, emotional safety, and accepting influence. Because most relationship friction stems from perpetual, unsolvable differences, long-term stability depends on how partners regulate physiological stress and manage communication habits during inevitable disagreements. Micro-Bids, Daily Affection, and Physical Health (15:41) The Gottmans observe that long-term marital health hinges on how partners handle routine "bids for connection." In Love Lab observational studies, couples who remained happily married turned toward each other's bids 85% to 86% of the time, compared to only 33% among couples who eventually divorced or stayed unhappily married. Chronically ignoring or dismissing these subtle overtures builds emotional distance, mutual withdrawal, and vulnerability to relationship breakdown. These interpersonal dynamics directly affect physical longevity. Citing the Alameda County Study and epidemiological data, the researchers note that social isolation predicts earlier mortality. Children of divorce live an average of four years less, rising to eight years less for individuals who experience both parental and personal divorce. Conversely, daily affection provides biological buffers: gestures like regular cuddling (lacking in 96% of couples reporting terrible sex lives) and six-second kisses stimulate oxytocin, dampen stress hormones, and correlate with measurable longevity gains, including a German study indicating men who kiss their wives goodbye live four years longer. Perpetual Problems and Navigating Gridlock (39:42) A cornerstone finding of the Gottmans' research is that 69% of all relationship problems are perpetual and unsolvable, stemming from permanent differences in personality, lifestyle, and basic habits. Successful couples do not waste energy attempting to eradicate these conflicts; instead, they adapt through humor, affection, and minor compromises around the edges. To prevent perpetual issues from deteriorating into painful gridlock, the Gottmans propose the "Bagel Method," which differentiates non-negotiable core identity values from a flexible outer ring open to pragmatic negotiation. When partners find themselves stuck in repetitive shouting or defensive stonewalling, a structured six-question interview technique that explores the childhood background, underlying meaning, and core dreams behind each partner's position breaks the impasse in an estimated 87% of cases. The Four Horsemen, Flooding, and De-escalation (51:19) Observational research demonstrates that stable couples maintain at least a 5:1 ratio of positive-to-negative interactions during conflict discussions, compared to an average of 0.8:1 in distressed relationships. Four hostile behaviors reliably signal relationship destruction: criticism, defensiveness, contempt (the single strongest predictor of divorce), and stonewalling. Stonewalling is largely rooted in physiological "flooding"—a sympathetic nervous system response driven by adrenaline and cortisol that spikes heart rate and impairs cognitive flexibility. Approximately 85% of stonewallers are men, which the Gottmans attribute to vasopressin secretion, evolutionary threat vigilance, and slower autonomic recovery compared to oxytocin-mediated female physiology. Because 96% of arguments end how they begin, couples must avoid harsh startups and character attacks by framing grievances through personal feelings, neutral situational descriptions, and positive needs. When physiological flooding occurs, partners must institute structured timeouts lasting between 30 minutes and 24 hours, framed with "I" statements and accompanied by non-triggering soothing activities to allow the nervous system to reset. Intimacy Grounded in Safety and Domestic Equity (79:23) Findings from the 70,000-person Normal Bar study indicate that fulfilling sex lives depend primarily on non-sexual affection outside the bedroom rather than novel sexual techniques. The Gottmans challenge the cultural myth that eroticism requires mystery and unpredictability, asserting that emotional familiarity, psychological safety, and explicit communication about desires—such as using structured questions from their "Got Sex?" framework—sustain long-term physical intimacy. For women, whose baseline safety concerns are shaped by elevated societal rates of physical assault and disproportionate domestic caretaker duties, emotional security and equitable partnership are direct prerequisites for desire. The Gottmans observe that men who share domestic labor experience significantly more frequent sex. When men reject non-sexual affection and treat intercourse as their sole permissible physical outlet, couples enter an intimacy stalemate where one partner feels overwhelmed and the other feels chronically rejected. Accepting Influence and Broadening Conflict Mastery (113:21) Through mathematical modeling of couples in the Love Lab, Dr. John Gottman identified an apparent paradox: true power and durability in a relationship require accepting influence. Partners build influence not by asserting dominance or digging in their heels, but by demonstrating willingness to be persuaded and yielding to the other's needs. Maintaining this mutual responsiveness requires ongoing curiosity, such as continuously updating mental "Love Maps" of a partner's inner world and conducting regular weekly check-ins. The Gottmans explicitly connect domestic communication dynamics to broader societal polarization. Observing that modern public discourse is poisoned by contempt and a refusal to listen across ideological divides, they argue that training individuals to dismantle criticism, validate divergent viewpoints, and manage conflict constructively at home creates a necessary ripple effect toward wider social cohesion. While the Gottmans' extensive empirical dataset demonstrates high predictive validity for relationship longevity, successfully executing these frameworks requires both partners to override primitive, biological fight-or-flight reflexes. The enduring challenge is whether couples burdened by chronic distress or unresolved trauma can consistently sustain the vulnerability and disciplined non-defensiveness required to break habitual patterns without active therapeutic guidance.

约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）与朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）博士基于半个世纪的情感实验室与纵向追踪研究指出，长久婚姻的关键并不在于消灭所有分歧，而在于日常互动中对联结请求的积极回应、对不可解永恒矛盾的包容协商，以及在冲突中规避轻蔑等毁灭性模式并建立生理安全感。 微观互动与联结请求：日常依恋构建基石 (15:41) 戈特曼夫妇指出，维系高质量亲密关系并非依赖罕见的宏大仪式，而是取决于微小的日常互动习惯。在“爱情实验室”的日常追踪中，伴侣间会不断发出微小的“联结请求”（bids for connection），例如指着窗外的鸟寻求共鸣。最终维持幸福婚姻的伴侣，对伴侣联结请求的“转向并回应”（turning toward）比例高达85%（或86%），而走向破裂或长期痛苦的伴侣这一比例仅为33%。若对联结请求反复忽略或表现出烦躁，会让发出请求的一方如海葵受刺激般紧缩防御，长此以往将形成深层疏离乃至导致关系破裂。 除了言语回应，非性接触的日常肢体亲昵对关系质量具有深远影响。全球7万人的《Normal Bar》跨国调查表明，在日常完全不拥抱亲昵（non-cuddlers）的伴侣中，高达96%的人报告性生活极其糟糕。戈特曼倡导伴侣践行“6秒接吻”或20秒拥抱，这足以跨越激发体内分泌催产素的生理阈值，促成心理安全感与情感联结；相关纵向研究亦显示，出门前亲吻妻子的男性平均寿命比不亲吻者长4岁。微小的关注与不带目的的肢体温情，构成了巩固长期情感的核心防线。 永恒问题的适应之道：以核心探索打破僵局 (39:42) 传统婚姻观念常将彻底解决分歧视为健康指标，但戈特曼夫妇的研究证实，亲密关系中高达69%的问题属于“永恒问题”（perpetual problems），源于双方根深蒂固的个性、生活习惯与价值观差异，在本质上是无法彻底解决的。成功的伴侣并不强求消灭差异，而是学会以幽默与边界妥协与之共存。为了防止永恒问题演变成充满怨恨的僵局，戈特曼夫妇提出了“百吉饼折中法”（Bagel Method）：内圈代表不可妥协的核心信念与自我认同，外圈则是涉及时间、方式或具体细节的弹性协商区域。 当伴侣试图强行改变对方或在争论中争夺胜负时，永恒问题便会恶化为“僵局冲突”（gridlock）。数据显示，87%的僵局可以通过特定的“六问深度访谈法”得到化解。该方法引导双方不再纠缠于表面对错，而是探寻彼此立场背后的核心价值、童年成长经历、深层梦想与未被接纳的痛点。通过理解行为背后的身份认同与生命追求，伴侣能够跳出对抗模式，在守住彼此核心边界的同时建立共鸣与相互支持。 冲突动力与生理淹没：四大骑士与性别机制 (51:19) 在冲突讨论中，戈特曼团队发现幸福伴侣的正负互动比例维持在5:1以上，而破裂边缘的伴侣则降至0.8:1。预测关系走向瓦解的核心信号被称为“末日四骑士”：批评（针对人格缺陷的人身攻击）、防御（反击或扮演无辜受害者）、轻蔑（居高临下的嘲讽与翻白眼，这是导致分手的最强预测指标）以及筑墙（彻底切断反应的冷漠回避）。在发生冲突时，80%的关系问题由女性率先提出，这与社会赋予女性维护家庭关系的照料者角色及安全警惕相关；而在筑墙行为中，85%的个体为男性。 男女应对冲突的差异受进化生物学与生理机制驱动。在高度冲突下，人体会陷入“生理淹没”（flooding），交感神经被肾上腺素和皮质醇充斥，导致心率激增、认知僵化与视野狭窄。女性在进化上因哺乳需求具备更敏锐的催产素调节机制，能在情绪压力后更快平静；男性则受加压素影响，生理上倾向于对潜在威胁维持高度警觉，心率升高后需要更长时间平复，因而往往通过筑墙关闭沟通以压制自身攻击冲动。此时强行争吵只会恶化局势，戈特曼夫妇建议采取暂停机制（timeout），以“我”为主语提出暂停，约定30分钟至24小时后继续对话，并在此期间通过散步或阅读平复神经系统。 修复机制与亲密重构：情绪安全与接受影响 (71:41) 研究显示，96%的争论结局由最初三分钟的开启方式决定。采用冷冰冰的企业式成本收益分析在亲密关系中往往失效，有效的关系维系高度依赖于及时脆弱的情感“修复尝试”（repair attempts）。当发生严重冲突后，戈特曼夫妇推荐五步修复法：表达当时感受、以“我”为主语陈述视角、识别触碰的童年或既往创伤软肋、真诚认错道歉、共同制定未来预防方案。通过将诉求聚焦于自身感受与积极需求，而非指责对方缺陷，可以极大降低彼此的防御心理。 在身体亲密与性生活方面，戈特曼的研究打破了“性吸引力需要神秘与偶发”的迷思。长期热烈性生活的基石在于深厚的情感熟悉度与心理安全感。40,000对伴侣的数据显示，80%的高冲突伴侣在丧失性生活的同时也停止了共同玩耍与探索；而男性主动分担日常家务、公开表达爱意并坦诚讨论性偏好（如运用“Got Sex?”七项对话框架），能直接提升伴侣的性满意度。戈特曼总结的数学模型得出一项关键法则：在亲密关系中获得力量的唯一方式是“接受对方的影响”（accepting influence），唯有保持开放与让步，才能构建坚固的信任与承诺。 戈特曼夫妇的研究表明，健康婚姻不在于强求没有矛盾，而在于掌握科学的互动模式。然而，由于这些理论主要基于实验室微表情观察、生理遥测及长期跟踪问卷，其干预效果仍高度依赖双方是否具备最低限度的反思意愿；面对根本性的背叛或完全不可调和的底层核心需求冲突，理性的分离同样不可忽视。

## Background 该视频由知名访谈频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特 Steven Bartlett）于 2024 年 3 月 28 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目邀请了世界顶级亲密关系研究泰斗约翰·戈特曼博士（Dr. John Gottman）与临床心理学家朱莉·戈特曼博士（Dr. Julie Gottman）夫妇，基于戈特曼研究所与“爱情实验室”超 40 年对数千对伴侣的实证追踪展开深度对话。视频简介重点介绍了两位学者颠覆常识的实证发现——包括女性在婚姻中的不快乐倾向、肢体依偎对性生活质量的决定性影响，以及他们在新书《Fight Right》中提出的冲突化解之道。 ## TL;DR 戈特曼夫妇在访谈中指出，亲密关系对身心健康和寿命具有关键影响，而伴侣间高达 69% 的矛盾本质上是无法彻底根除的“永久性问题”，因此维系关系的核心在于管理分歧而非强行消除。“关系大师”与“灾难制造者”的根本区别在于日常对微小“情感联结尝试”的积极回应（86% 对比 33%），并在争吵中保持 5:1 的正向互动比例以遏制以“蔑视”为首的末日四骑士。高质量的性爱与持久激情并不依赖神秘感，而是建立在深层心理安全感、日常肢体依偎、家务分担和坦诚沟通的基础之上。通过掌握科学暂停、遗憾事件五步复盘法以及深入探寻彼此的内心梦想，伴侣能够学会接纳对方的影响，将破坏性的争吵转化为深厚的情感连接。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场访谈兼具严谨的实证科学力量与极具感染力的人情温度，学术洞察与夫妇间长达 36 年的恩爱默契及幽默拌嘴交织辉映。主持人史蒂芬极其真诚地袒露自身在感情中的盲区与现实困惑，而戈特曼夫妇不仅现场即兴展开“灾难夫妻与大师夫妻”的吵架角色扮演，更毫无保留地分享随身带笔记本记录伴侣诉求的相处细节。从前期震撼颠覆的大量硬核数据，到后半段关于原生家庭创伤、彼此深情告白与将家庭和平推向社会的宏大愿景，整个对话情绪充沛、直击心灵，带给观众强烈的情感共鸣与治愈感。 ## Bulletin - [40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=2445s) 戈特曼实验室长达40年的追踪研究揭示，亲密关系中高达69%的矛盾属于因性格与价值观差异导致的“永久性问题”，长久幸福的核心在于学会管理与接纳分歧，而非执着于彻底解决。 - [15:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=941s) 微观行为编码证实，幸福稳固的“大师级伴侣”在日常中对微小情感联结尝试（Bids）的回应率高达86%，而走向破裂的伴侣仅为33%，日常微小忽视的累积才是关系走向终结的主因。 - [51:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3079s) 冲突期间积极互动与消极互动的秒数比达到5:1是关系稳定的黄金法则，而在最具破坏性的“末日四骑士”中，居高临下的“蔑视”是预测离婚最致命且最精准的指标。 - [01:19:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=4762s) 跨越24国、7万名受访者的实证调研显示，日常拥抱与依偎（Cuddle）与性满意度高度正相关，在日常完全不依偎的伴侣中，高达96%的人表示性生活体验极差。 ## Key takeaways - [11:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=688s) 亲密关系质量深刻影响生理健康与寿命，长期处于冲突或孤立中会损害免疫系统，童年父母离异且成年后自身离婚的个体平均寿命缩短达8年。 - [15:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=941s) 伴侣日常随口提出的微小互动（如看窗外的鸟）是建立连接的微型邀请，习惯性“背离”（冷漠或不理会）会促使对方关闭心理防线，逐渐筑起防御心墙并滋生孤独感。 - [27:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=1664s) 践行“ATTUNE”沟通模型要求用清晰陈述个人感受及提出“正面需求”取代人身指责，明确告知伴侣“如何为你发光”，从而避免激发防御机制。 - [32:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=1966s) 传统伴侣咨询失败率高的主因在于缺乏量化评估且放任人身攻击，合格的咨询应强力制止蔑视与人格贬低，训练双方表达内在诉求。 - [40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=2445s) 应对69%无法根除的永久性冲突应运用“百吉饼法则”，分清绝不可妥协的核心内圈需求与具备灵活度的外圈操作细节，在尊重底线的前提下协商折中。 - [51:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3079s) 冲突中的“末日四骑士”（批评、防卫、蔑视、冷战）极具腐蚀性，尤其是蔑视通过嘲弄、挖苦和优越感摧毁自尊，是预测关系破裂的最强指标。 - [55:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3336s) 在85%的案例中冷战由男性发起，根源在于男性更容易陷入心率与血压飙升的“生理情绪淹没”，需要漫长时间平复，此时应约定暂停休息而非强行在深夜争吵。 - [01:02:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3742s) 婚姻中80%的冲突由女性率先提出，女性因社会化与敏锐感知担任着关系的“守护者”，其指出的问题往往是防止伴侣渐行渐远的重要预警。 - [01:11:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=4301s) 商业谈判式的权衡利弊话术在亲密关系争吵中注定失败，唯有承认脆弱与过失的情绪修复尝试才能降温，恶性争吵后需采用“五步复盘法”系统化解遗憾事件。 - [01:21:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=4875s) 持续6秒以上的接吻与长达20秒的拥抱能显著刺激催产素分泌，降低神经压力警报，数据显示出门前亲吻妻子的男性平均寿命延长4年。 - [01:24:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5089s) 反驳“神秘感带来激情”的迷思：深度的熟悉感、日常细微温情、家务劳动分担以及心理安全感，才是激发持久激情与高质量性生活的实证基石。 - [01:39:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5999s) 坦诚且包容地公开谈论性偏好与幻想能显著改善性生活质量，当双方在某些欲望上无法身体力行时，床第间的语言描绘同样能带来深度的情感与心理满足。 - [01:51:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6688s) 在长期亲密关系中获得力量的反直觉法则是“接受伴侣的影响”，保持自我弹性、倾听并支持伴侣的底层人生梦想，是实现终身幸福的核心纽带。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=0s) 序幕预告：关系中的致命毒药与惊人数据 在访谈的一开场，约翰·戈特曼博士（Dr. John Gottman）与朱莉·戈特曼博士（Dr. Julie Gottman）抛出了一连串颠覆传统认知的实证数据。约翰指出，在婚姻中，女性往往比男性感到更不快乐，且伴侣关系中 80% 的问题最初都由女性提出。然而，最令人震惊的事实是：在所有伴侣矛盾中，高达 69% 的问题根本是“无法解决”的永久性分歧。如果一段感情的成败完全取决于矛盾能否被彻底解决，那么几乎所有婚姻都注定走向破裂。 戈特曼夫妇作为享誉全球的研究学者与临床心理学家，不仅携手走过了 36 年的婚姻，更倾注了 50 年时间用严谨的科学方法解构“爱情”。他们通过著名的“爱情实验室”（Love Lab）追踪观察了 3,000 余对伴侣，从而在数据层面彻底摸清了“亲密关系大师”（Masters）与“灾难制造者”（Disasters）在互动细节上的根本差异。约翰给出的简单建议之一竟然是肢体拥抱与依偎（cuddle）——数据显示，在不拥抱、无肢体依偎的伴侣中，有 96% 的人性生活质量极其糟糕。此外，仪式感在长寿中也扮演着不可思议的角色：每天出门上班前亲吻妻子的男性，平均寿命要比不亲吻的男性长整整 4 年。 在谈及冲突时，他们特别指出了预示关系走向毁灭的“四大杀手”行为（The Four Horsemen）：批评（Criticism）、防卫（Defensiveness）、蔑视（Contempt）与冷战石化（Stonewalling）。其中第三个行为“蔑视”，更是所有指标中预测亲密关系破裂最致命、最精准的罪魁祸首。随后，两位学者甚至现场预告将亲自进行角色扮演，还原那些注定走向终结的伴侣是如何争吵的。 - **核心数据提炼**： - 80% 的感情矛盾由女方发起。 - 69% 的伴侣冲突属于无解的永久性分歧（perpetual problems）。 - 96% 不拥抱（non-cuddlers）的伴侣性生活极其糟糕。 - 上班前亲吻妻子的男性寿命平均多出 4 年。 --- ### [01:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=91s) 频道里程碑：500万订阅背后的承诺 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）插播了一段真挚的感言，庆祝《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）在 YouTube 上的订阅人数正式突破 500 万大关。他坦言这个数字完全超出了自己最初的想象力，在三年多前刚创建播客时，他最大的野心也仅仅是能积累 10 万名听众。 史蒂芬表示，面对每周数以百万计准时收听对话的受众，他感到无比震撼与感激。他曾对观众许下承诺：只要大家持续支持并订阅频道，团队就会不断拉高制作水准。为了兑现这一承诺，团队在过去 9 个月里一直在秘密筹划一个重磅惊喜，不仅会在 2024 年全方位升级节目制作规模，还将跨出国门探索更多全球层面的精彩故事。 --- ### [02:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=162s) 走向“爱”的使命：从世界冲突到两性迷局 主持人将话题切回两位嘉宾，询问他们倾注半个多世纪研究爱情的初衷究竟是什么。朱莉感慨地回应，这是“全宇宙最棒的问题”。她谈到，放眼当今世界，到处充斥着战争、仇恨、家庭暴力与人际摩擦。在这个伤痕累累的世界上，唯有“爱”才是最伟大的疗愈力量——它能缝合破碎的心灵，将彼此隔阂的个体紧紧凝聚在一起。 然而令人无奈的现实是，学校和家庭从未开设过一门名为“亲密关系基础课”（Relationships 101）的教育。人们根本不知道该如何以一种冷静、温和且充满同理心的方式去维系一段关系。在早期研究启动前，学术界对那些恩爱长久的夫妻究竟拥有何种行为习惯也是一无所知。正是约翰与他的合作伙伴罗伯特·莱文森（Robert Levenson）所开创的早期实验室观测，才首次打破了这一认知盲区，界定了“关系大师”与“关系灾难”的微观行为区别。 --- ### [04:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=277s) 笨拙研究者的误打误撞：从象牙塔走向临床干预 当被问及为何投身这项事业时，约翰给出了一个令人忍俊不禁却格外坦诚的回答：他和鲍勃（罗伯特·莱文森的昵称）最初做这项研究，纯粹是因为他们自己在处理感情问题上“太无能了”。“我们当年就是两个极度不开窍的傻小子，亲手把一段又一段感情搞成车祸现场。”出于对自身失败的好奇，他们迫切想知道世界上到底有没有人真能把婚姻过好。 起初，他们的研究完全是由纯粹的学术好奇心驱动，压根没有任何崇高的助人目标，甚至连预设的假设都没有。然而，当 26 年前约翰与身为临床心理学家的朱莉结为伴侣并决定合伙工作时，两人的视角碰撞出了激烈的火花。朱莉一心想要拯救陷入痛苦的伴侣，而当时的约翰却持悲观态度：由于算法模型已经能以极高精度提前预测一段感情是否注定完蛋，“既然结果在科学上已成定局，你又怎么可能去逆转改变它？” 乐观坚定的朱莉最终说服了约翰。他们意识到，要打破宿命般的预测，就必须建立一套系统性的心理学理论，并在严谨测试后转化成实际的临床干预工具。朱莉回忆起大约 38 年前两人相识时的浪漫日常：每天共进晚餐时，她讲述自己在临床中遇到的鲜活案例，约翰则分享他在实验室里跑出的惊人统计数据。两人的认知最终在一次海中划独木舟时彻底交汇。朱莉对约翰说：“亲爱的，咱们把这些宝贵的发现带出象牙塔吧，根据那些成功伴侣的真实行为，去开发一套能够落地的理论与干预手段。”约翰欣然应允：“好啊，为什么不呢？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Gottman Research to Clinical Application Flow accDescr: Diagram illustrating how lab research and clinical practice merged to create relationship interventions. subgraph Phase1["科学发现阶段"] A["个人情感挫败与好奇"] --> B["与 Robert Levenson 建立实验室"] B --> C["高精度预测模型与数据积累"] end subgraph Phase2["理论融合阶段"] C --> D["朱莉的临床心理学视角"] D --> E["海上划舟共识：打破象牙塔"] end subgraph Phase3["实践落地阶段"] E --> F["构建关系系统理论"] F --> G["开发临床干预与冲突解决方案"] end ``` --- ### [07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=428s) 前所未有的研究规模：爱情实验室与40年追踪 在确立了合作方向后，他们不仅研究了异性恋伴侣，还耗费整整 12 年深度追踪了男同性恋与女同性恋伴侣，结果惊人地一致：在所有类型的伴侣中，掌握良性互动技能的“大师”与陷入泥潭的“灾难制造者”之间都有着泾渭分明的区别。在此之前，市面上几乎所有的心理咨询书籍都是由接触“问题夫妻”的咨询师撰写的，他们根本没见过真正健康的亲密关系日常到底是什么样。 戈特曼夫妇的研究填补了这项长期空白。至今，他们已累计发表了数百篇同行评审学术论文，合著出版了约 52 本专著。两人的最新研究数据库涵盖了超过 40,000 对准备进入伴侣咨询的夫妻问卷。而在被称为“爱情实验室”的精密生理与行为观测室中，他们深入追踪了 3,000 多对伴侣。更令人惊叹的是，罗伯特·莱文森通过持续获得长达 20 年的科研资助，将最初入组时分别处于 40 岁和 60 岁的两批伴侣跟踪到了他们 60 岁与 80 岁的晚年，最终拼凑出了人类心理学史上首个跨越 40 年生命周期的亲密关系纵向研究。 --- ### [09:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=543s) 社会流行病学：亲密关系与寿命的惊人纽带 史蒂芬提出了许多现代人的普遍困惑：大众往往把健康等同于健身房锻炼、控制饮食或计算卡路里，却普遍低估了亲密关系对身体健康的直接影响，这种做法是否合理？ 约翰明确否定了这种观念，并引出了加州大学伯克利分校社会流行病学（Social Epidemiology）的先驱案例。学者伦纳德·赛姆（Leonard Syme）与学生丽莎·伯克曼（Lisa Berkman）当年开展了著名的“阿拉米达县研究”（Alameda County Study），对 9,000 名居民进行了长期追踪。最初，赛姆试图从饮食和胆固醇中寻找长寿的密码，因为他发现移居美国的华裔移民普遍比本土美国人活得更长、更健康。但最终的数据粉碎了纯生理假设——真正的决定性变量不是饮食结构，而是**社群支持与社会联结**（Community）。这些移民是带着亲族与朋友一同迁徙生活的。 后续的大量医学与神经科学研究反复证实：伴侣与核心人际关系的质量，对人类的免疫系统功能和寿命预期具有极强的预测力。在全世界范围内，长期处于孤立无援或痛苦伴侣关系中的人，生病更早、死亡率更高；而拥有稳固深厚关系的人不仅寿命显著延长，身心健康指数与幸福感也高出一大截。甚至在现代社会心理学研究中，微小的日常善意也会产生生理级的影响——例如清晨通勤时与身旁的陌生人进行友善的交谈、怀着好奇心去了解对方的生活，同样能改善人体的健康状态。我们本质上是一个深度依赖联结的高度社会化物种。 - **社会流行病学核心启示**： - 伯克曼与赛姆的 9,000 人阿拉米达县研究表明，强大的社群联结比单纯的饮食与胆固醇指标对寿命影响更深远。 - 恶劣的人际关系与社交孤立会直接削弱人体免疫系统，导致早衰与早逝。 - 与陌生人的日常微小互动（如早晨通勤时的交谈）同样能显著增进生理健康与延长寿命。 ### [11:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=688s) 亲密关系与健康寿命：为什么我们要像对待“去健身房”一样经营感情 斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Stephen Bartlett）指出，在这个人们前所未有地感到孤独和疏离的时代，从来没有人教导过大家要像“去健身房锻炼身体”那样，有意识且规律地经营自己的亲密关系。针对这一点，自称是个“健身迷”的朱莉·戈特曼博士（Dr. Julie Gottman）深表赞同，并立即援引了一组令人警醒的健康与寿命数据。 朱莉指出，在破碎家庭中长大的孩子，如果其父母离异，这些人一生的平均寿命通常比那些成长于完整家庭的人少活 4 年；而更残酷的是，如果一个人童年经历过父母离异，成年后自己的婚姻也以离婚收场，其平均寿命整整减少了 8 年。之所以亲密关系对生命长度有如此惊人的影响，核心在于人体的内分泌机制：健康温暖的亲密关系能激发体内分泌催产素（Oxytocin）和血清素（Serotonin），带来平静与联结；而充满冲突和怨怼的糟糕关系，则会让身体长期被肾上腺素（Adrenaline）和皮质醇（Cortisol）等压力荷尔蒙淹没，持续侵蚀人体的免疫与心血管系统。 - 父母离异的个体平均寿命缩短 4 年。 - 经历父母离异且自己也离婚的个体，平均寿命缩短 8 年。 - 关系的生理基础体现为催产素、血清素与压力激素（皮质醇、肾上腺素）之间的对抗。 --- ### [12:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=771s) 走进“爱情实验室”：用微表情与生理数据解码亲密关系 谈及他们声名远扬的研究，斯蒂芬好奇地问起“爱情实验室”（The Love Lab）的来历。约翰·戈特曼博士（Dr. John Gottman）解释道，这个名称最初是由英国广播公司（BBC）在报道他们的新婚夫妇追踪研究时创造出来的。实验室被精心布置成一套看似普通的单身公寓，夫妻双方会在其中度过 24 小时。在他们清醒的整个时段内，摄像机都在全天候运转。 真正让这一实验室具有划时代意义的，是戈特曼夫妇与合作者罗伯特·利文森（Bob Levenson）开发的生理数据同步技术。他们将录像带的时间码精确对应到受试者的生理生理指标上，包括心率、脉搏传导时间（血流速度）以及各类免疫系统变量。研究团队不仅在夫妻婚后几个月开始追踪，还跟随着他们怀孕、分娩的过程，观察父母与婴儿的互动，并一路追踪孩子的成长。研究的核心假设非常纯粹：在不给夫妻指定任何辩题、仅仅观察他们度过日常真实一天的情境下，人际关系的发展和破裂是否存在可预测的客观规律。 朱莉进一步补充，当录像带拍摄完成后，研究人员并非走马观花，而是以“百分之一秒”（Hundredth of a second）为单位，对海量录像进行极度繁重的微观切片分析。他们逐帧拆解夫妻双方所说的字句内容、身体姿势、微表情、流露的情绪类型以及表达这些情绪的方式，尤其是夫妻之间如何回应彼此发起的微小互动信号。这项工作不仅揭示了解决冲突的底层逻辑，更重要的是发现了健康伴侣如何建立深厚的友谊——而长盛不衰的友谊，正是长久关系中激情与美满性生活的基石。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 爱情实验室的数据监测与分析机制 accDescr: 爱情实验室通过公寓环境、生理监测、录像编码等多维度，对夫妻互动展开全天候微观分析。 subgraph LabEnvironment["爱情实验室观察环境（24小时公寓）"] A["受试新婚夫妇自然生活"] B["全天候多角度高清摄像机"] end subgraph DataCollection["同步数据采集"] C["生理指标监测<br/>(心率 / 脉搏血流速度 / 免疫指标)"] D["时间码同步系统<br/>(录像画面与生理信号毫秒级对齐)"] end subgraph MicroAnalysis["百之一秒级微观编码"] E["言语内容与语气"] F["微表情与面部动作编码 (FACS)"] G["情感联结尝试 (Bids for Connection) 的响应"] end A --> B A --> C B & C --> D D --> E & F & G ``` --- ### [15:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=941s) 颠覆常识的发现：微小的“情感联结尝试”（Bids for Connection） 当斯蒂芬询问在实验室中发现的最大认知误区是什么时，朱莉指出，许多人误以为维系一段美满的关系需要付出惊天动地的努力，或者依赖极其复杂的专业技巧（比如传统的“积极倾听”——当对方怒气冲冲指责“你又没盖牙膏盖，你到底有什么毛病”时，还要冷静地复述对方的感受）。然而，实验室的真实数据表明，那种指责性的批评（例如言语中充满“你总是……”、“你从不……”）在冲突管理中几乎毫无用处，真正决定关系命运的，往往隐藏在最微不足道的瞬间。 朱莉用一个生动的场景举例：在公寓实验室的大窗户前，一方看向窗外随口说了一句：“天呐，树上有只鸟好漂亮啊！”这种看似漫不经心的举动，就是一次经典的“情感联结尝试”（Bid for Connection）。面对这一邀请，伴侣的反应通常有三种形态： 1. **反向对抗（Turn against）**：表现为敌意与不耐烦，例如粗暴地呵斥：“别打扰我，我正看书呢！” 2. **背向远离（Turn away）**：表现为彻底的冷漠与沉默，视若无睹，头也不抬。 3. **转向迎合（Turn towards）**：简单地抬头看一眼窗外，附和一句：“噢，真酷。” 就是这一声微不足道的“嗯哼”或者抬头的一瞥，成为了划分幸福与不幸的决定性分水岭。爱情实验室的数据统计揭示了极其惊人的对比： | 伴侣类型 | 最终结局 | 对微小联结尝试的“转向回应率” | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **大师级伴侣（Masters）** | 长期相守、生活幸福 | **85%** | | **灾难型伴侣（Disasters）** | 感情破裂、走向离婚或长期痛苦 | **33%** | 朱莉强调，决定一段感情是否走向终结的，往往不是轰轰烈烈的大事，而仅仅是“给予一声回应”与“彻底沉默不语”之间这微小而日积月累的差距。 --- ### [17:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=1072s) 现实生活中的冷落与专注陷阱：从自身故事看“背向”与“转向” 听到这里，斯蒂芬坦承自己正深陷这种误区之中。他分享了自己与伴侣在过去几个月里的典型矛盾：当他结束一天的工作回到家时，往往伴侣已经先一步到家，但他满脑子依然充斥着工作。他匆匆走进客厅，有时打个招呼后就立刻打开笔记本电脑开始敲键盘。当伴侣走过来想跟他说话时，他常常因为专注工作，要么连头都不抬地敷衍应一声，要么随口说：“等我一秒宝贝，我正忙着呢。”斯蒂芬坦言，这种行为显然在两人的关系中造成了严重的隔阂。 约翰对此完全感同身受，笑称自己年轻时也是这方面的“重刑犯”。他回忆道，以前自己埋头写书时，朱莉走进客厅坐在一旁，他甚至连眼皮都不抬一下；朱莉静静坐了一会儿后默默起身离开，而他自始至终根本没察觉到朱莉来过。 朱莉对此透露了约翰独特的人生背景：约翰童年时作为难民生活在纽约市一个极其拥挤逼仄的小公寓里，周围环境嘈杂吵闹，挤满了各色人等。为了生存和学习，约翰从小就必须强行锻炼出一种“隔绝外界一切杂音的极度专注力”。朱莉回忆两人初相识时的滑稽场面：她站在厨房吧台对面喊：“约翰……约翰！嘿，约翰！”甚至隔着台面使劲挥手，而正捧着一本书入神的约翰却毫无反应。直到回过神，约翰才一脸茫然地说：“啊，我真的完全没听见。” 当斯蒂芬问朱莉最初面对这种冷落是何种感受时，朱莉坦言：“一开始，那让我觉得自己是隐形的（Invisible）、微不足道的（Unimportant）、不被爱的、被拒绝的和极其孤单的。”直到后来她才逐渐理解，这不是故意冷暴力，而是约翰的大脑神经回路在生理层面上就与自己不同——朱莉自己是一个极度敏锐、仿佛“没有外皮防御”般时刻感知周围环境的人，而约翰则拥有一旦专注就彻底封闭感官的大脑。 --- ### [20:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=1230s) 破解工作与陪伴的冲突：建立沟通仪式感与倾听习惯 面对斯蒂芬关于“伴侣发起联结尝试时我究竟该怎么做”的请教，约翰给出了大师级伴侣的铁律：在真正伟大的亲密关系中，双方都有一个共同的座右铭——**“一旦伴侣感到心烦或沮丧，你就必须放下手头正在做的所有事情，全神贯注地倾听。”** 为了践行这一点，约翰透露自己至今仍在后裤袋里随身备着一本笔记本。只要朱莉严肃地说一句“我们需要谈谈”，约翰就会立刻掏出小本子和笔，坐在那里认真记笔记，以此向朱莉明确传达“我已经完全准备好倾听你”的信号。如今当朱莉走进客厅时，约翰已经学会强行打断专注，合上电脑问道：“你还好吗？在想什么呢？” 针对斯蒂芬提出的现实困境——“如果我必须在客厅等公共区域工作，如何在不随意推开伴侣的同时，又能保护工作不被频繁打扰？”戈特曼夫妇提出了“沟通仪式”与“时间确认”的解决方案： - **建立联结的提示仪式**：如果伴侣有要紧事想沟通，应当给出明确的信号（例如直接说“我们需要认真聊聊”），而不是默默等待对方猜心思。 - **主动确认沟通时机**：发起方在开口前先征询：“你现在方便聊几句吗？”如果只是琐碎闲聊，而另一方正专注于回复工作邮件，伴侣完全可以温和地回应“请稍等我一分钟把这封邮件写完”，双方应当允许彼此的时间步调存在微小的不一致。 - **用柔软的言语表达拒绝**：当手头事务确实无法打断时，拒绝的方式至关重要。朱莉分享了自己最喜欢用的一句温柔开场白：“亲爱的，我真的很想听你讲……”用接纳的意愿代替生硬的推拒，从而在守住工作边界的同时避免让伴侣体验到被冷落的情感创伤。 ### [23:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=1420s) 巧妙推迟连结请求与海葵隐喻：被忽视如何摧毁亲密关系 当伴侣抛出连结请求（Bid for connection）而自己正处于忙碌或高压状态时，最佳的回应方式不是生硬拒绝，而是温和且明确地推迟。关键在于传达出“我想听你说”的态度，例如明确表达：“我很想听你说，但我手头确实很赶，你能不能等我30分钟或一个小时？之后我会全神贯注地陪你。”这种句式既表明了对伴侣的重视与爱意，又诚恳交代了当前的现实压力。 在“爱情实验室”（Love Lab）的长期观察中，当一方指向窗外发出类似“宝贝，快来看看这个”的请求，而另一方却视而不见或冷淡打发时，被推开的那个人身体往往会下意识地“萎缩”（crumple）。无论这种忽视是有意的抗拒还是无意识的走神，一旦“背离”（Turning away）形成常态，发声的一方就会感到极度受伤，并最终彻底放弃表达需求。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 忽略连结请求引发情感破裂的连锁反应 accDescr: 展示从习惯性忽略连结请求到情感疏离、孤独甚至外遇的递进过程 subgraph 拒绝与退缩阶段 A["习惯性忽略/拒绝连结请求<br/>(Turning Away)"] --> B["伴侣感到受挫，停止发出请求<br/>(Stop Bidding)"] end subgraph 疏离与危机阶段 B --> C["筑起心墙，拉开情感距离<br/>(Emotional Distance)"] C --> D["陷入极度孤独<br/>(Deep Loneliness)"] D --> E["引发外遇与关系崩盘<br/>(Infidelity & Breakdown)"] end ``` Julie Gottman 博士用潮汐池里的“海葵”（Sea anemone）来生动比喻这种心理防御机制：海葵在放松和安全时会舒展所有触手，坦露柔软的腹部；可一旦遭到拒绝，就如同腹部被重重戳了一击，它会瞬间把所有触手紧紧封闭、深锁起来。此后需要漫长的时间与极大的安全感，它才敢重新舒展。 - 连结请求长期被冷落的连锁后果：停止尝试 $\rightarrow$ 建立情感防御墙 $\rightarrow$ 陷入深深的孤独 $\rightarrow$ 极大增加出轨（Affair）概率。 - 依恋风格的博弈：回避型（Avoidant）伴侣在说出“现在别烦我”后，往往会诱发焦虑型（Anxious）伴侣更加密集的连结请求；此时那些表面上的闲聊往往不是真的在看窗外，而是焦虑型伴侣在内心渴望被确认：“我需要与你连结，这是我内心真实的渴望”。 --- ### [27:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=1664s) ATTUNE 框架与温柔表达：如何将指责转化为“正面需求” 为了维持伴侣间的情感共鸣，John Gottman 提出了“ATTUNE”模型（包含感知 Awareness、转向靠近 Turning toward、包容 Tolerance、理解 Understanding、非防御倾听 Non-defensive listening、同理心 Empathy 六大要素）。他将健康的夫妻关系比作两件经过精准调音的乐器，只要其中一件弹奏，另一件便会产生和谐的共鸣。这需要双方建立日常的“连结仪式”（Rituals of connection）——例如清晨询问彼此“你今天有什么安排”，晚餐时交流工作见闻，或是每周探问“这周我做些什么能让你感到被爱”。 Julie 强调，同理心是建立连结最强大的工具。当伴侣带着怒气抱怨家务分工不均时，倾听者需要主动探寻原因（“多跟我说说，是什么让你觉得负担这么重？”），并给出感同身受的确认（“难怪你觉得累，上班一整天下班还要收拾，你确实需要我的支持，对吗？”）。然而，这种沟通往往容易演变成互相指责。当话语中充斥着“你总是……”或“你从不……”时，任何人都无法心平气和地认错，只会立刻激起防御与反击。 正确的沟通应当遵循以下三步结构： 1. **描述自身感受**：“我很沮丧 / 我感到压力很大”（使用“我”为主语，而非指责对方）。 2. **客观描述情境**：“厨房现在堆满了没洗的碗筷”（只陈述事实，不作人身攻击）。 3. **提出正面需求（Positive Need）**：告诉对方如何“为你发光”（How to shine for you）。将不满倒转过来，明确表达希望对方做什么，而非斥责他们没做什么（例如：“如果你今晚能帮我把碗洗了，我会非常开心”）。 主持人以自身经历印证了正面表达的魔力：他的伴侣在哥斯达黎加参加静修时发短信说：“宝贝，我好喜欢你每次录完播客后跟我分享情况的样子。”这与指责性的“你录完节目从不跟我报备”效果截然相反。积极肯定的措辞让他备受鼓舞，立刻主动录制语音留言跟她分享，而如果换成负面指责，只会让人觉得防御、反抗，甚至感觉自己像个被母亲训斥的孩子。 --- ### [32:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=1966s) 为何传统伴侣咨询往往以失败告终？ 过去传统伴侣治疗的成功率往往只有 35% 到 50%，其核心短板在于缺乏科学的评估工具与有效的干预手段。传统的咨询模式往往盲目迷信“倾听”，却忽视了咨询师对攻击性沟通的把控与引导。 - **缺乏系统评估**：多数咨询师在伴侣走进诊室时不做量化评估，无法厘清这段关系现有的核心优势是什么、哪些层面无需介入，以及真正的阻碍和危机究竟潜藏在哪里。 - **放任人身攻击**：在很多咨询室中，所谓“倾听”变成了让一方无休止地数落另一方的缺陷。咨询师未能及时制止批评与人格贬低，反而要求受攻击的一方去“理解和复述”。 - **荒谬的培训案例**：John 提及他在一次专业学术会议上看到的荒唐一幕——培训导师展示的录像中，丈夫当面辱骂妻子：“Sheila，你就是个自私透顶的人，你心里只有你自己！”而咨询师居然对妻子说：“Sheila，你能否总结并复述一遍 Harry 刚才说的话，并对他表达同理心？”John 直言这种引导极其荒谬：“没有人能对赤裸裸的人身侮辱产生同理心。” - **专业介入的核心**：合格的咨询师必须懂得约束说话者的表达边界，强力制止蔑视与指责，训练他们以“表达自身感受与正面需求”取代对伴侣的人格攻击，从而真正重塑健康的互动结构。 ### [35:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=2121s) 成功婚姻的七大核心原则与信任基石 关于幸福伴侣的相处之道，戈特曼夫妇在多年的科学研究中提炼出了七大核心原则。朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）首先指出，第一条核心原则是“构建爱情地图”（Building Love Maps）。伴侣之间需要持续向对方提出开放式问题，以紧跟对方的内心世界与人生变化。所谓的开放式问题，不是那种一两个词就能打发的问询，而是需要对方回答一整段话的深度探讨，例如：“你最希望从自己的原生家庭中把什么特质传承给我们的孩子？”或是“对你来说，最理想的开斋节或圣诞节庆祝方式是怎样的？”人的价值观、优先事项、需求和情绪随着时间不断演变，只有通过这种长期的倾听，才能真正了解站在身边的伴侣究竟是谁。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 戈特曼健康关系构架模型 accDescr: 展示从爱情地图等基础互动向上构建，直至信任与承诺承重墙的层级流动。 subgraph Base ["情感与日常联结"] A["构建爱情地图<br/>(持续了解对方内心)"] B["转向对方<br/>(积极回应情感投标)"] C["表达喜爱与赞赏<br/>(言语与肢体触碰)"] end subgraph Deep ["深度协同与应对"] D["有效管理冲突"] E["尊重彼此梦想"] F["创造共同意义<br/>(分享人生哲学与使命)"] end subgraph Pillars ["核心承重结构"] G["信任 (Trust)<br/>确定对方时刻在场"] H["承诺 (Commitment)<br/>终身携手的归属感"] end Base --> Deep Deep --> Pillars ``` 在此之上，夫妻还必须在日常中积极“转向对方”（Turning toward），并且经常“表达喜爱与赞赏”（Expressing fondness and admiration）。朱莉强调，若不在言语上坦陈爱意，也不通过至关重要的肢体触碰来表达爱，五年之后对方很可能就无法确信这份爱是否依然存在。此外，“管理冲突”是关系中的重头戏，也是戈特曼研究所投入最深的研究领域。随后是“尊重彼此的梦想”（Honoring each other's dreams）与“创造共同意义”（Creating shared meaning）——每个人都是自己生活的哲学家，对人生的终极目标抱有独特的信念，夫妻间需要彼此分享并见证这些核心愿景。 最后，整座情感大厦的承重墙是“信任”（Trust）与“承诺”（Commitment）： - **信任**：是在各种人生境遇中回答“你是否会一直为我守候”这一问题——不论是在自己生病、抑郁、沮丧，还是渴望庆祝成功的时刻，伴侣能否始终在场。没有人能做到十全十美，但频率越高，信任就越牢固。 - **承诺**：是向伴侣明确传递一个信号：这段关系是一场终身旅程（journey for life），而非仅仅维持接下来的三个星期、随时准备权衡退出的临时契约。 ### [38:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=2328s) 伴侣的梦想必须一致吗？不可妥协的地理困境 面对主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）关于“伴侣梦想若不相同甚至冲突是否会成为重大危机”的困惑，朱莉斩钉截铁地澄清：“梦想不需要保持一致，这是史上最大的误区之一。”世人常盲目相信伴侣必须高度合拍、拥有完全相同的热情与兴趣，但事实恰恰相反，人们在最初往往会被与自己截然不同的人吸引。 然而，当一方的梦想恰恰是另一方的噩梦，且根本不存在折中空间时，关系确实会陷入僵局。朱莉分享了一个自己接诊过的真实案例： - **女方定居瑞士**：育有一位患有自闭症的儿子，极度依赖当地完善的社会支持系统来应对日常生活与心理差异。 - **男方在乌干达政府任职**：在当地拥有重要的事业与社会价值感，拒绝搬往瑞士；而女方深知乌干达无法为儿子提供必需的照料。 双方的梦想完全水火不容且无法妥协。最终他们选择了和平分手。朱莉认为这种分离是理性而健康的，因为他们清楚知道分别的原因，且各自的出发点都极其正当。 ### [40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=2445s) 69% 的问题永远无法解决：永久性问题与百吉饼法则 约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）揭示了他们实验室最具颠覆性的核心数据之一：伴侣之间 69% 的矛盾本质上是“无法解决的”（not solvable）。我们往往被互补的特质吸引，但步入亲密关系后，当初迷人的特质往往变成了最刺眼的烦恼——例如当初喜欢对方的随性不羁，婚后却愤怒于对方永远无法遵守计划。戈特曼纵向追踪发现，69% 的争吵在多年后依然围绕着同一批核心议题打转。这些被称为“永久性问题”（Perpetual problems）。约翰直言：“一旦你选择了一个伴侣，你就自动继承了未来 50 年里你们将反复面对的那批特定问题。”这批问题无法被根除，伴侣能做的唯有适应、自嘲并在边缘地带进行适度妥协。 朱莉随后幽默地拿两人的真实婚姻作为例子。约翰头上戴着犹太无底便帽（yarmulke），朱莉打趣说他以为自己戴的是个圣人光环、永远觉得自己清白无辜；约翰指责朱莉是“强迫性神经质的爱整洁者”，朱莉则戏称约翰是“充满魅力的邋遢大王”（charmingly sloppy）。杂乱的环境会让朱莉的思绪彻底陷入混乱，而约翰的书籍文件常常堆到四英尺高，让朱莉为了叠被子甚至冒着扭断脖子的风险。面对这堆书，他们的周期性循环极其生动且极具仪式感： - **第一周**：朱莉温和恳求：“亲爱的，请把卧室里的书收一收。”约翰应允，但随后转头去忙别的事，不了了之。 - **第二周**：朱莉再次提醒，语气依然克制，约翰再次拖延。 - **第三周**：朱莉开始不悦：“这已经是第三次了，我开始恼火了。”约翰继续打马虎眼。 - **第四周**：越过心理红线，朱莉彻底爆发，调侃自己瞬间化身为“咄咄逼人的犹太悍妇”（pushy Jewish broad）。由于朱莉有两个哥哥，擅长摔跤且体型比约翰高大，约翰被气势震慑后立马在极短时间内把房间收拾得一尘不染。朱莉享受这份整洁数日，随后堆积如山的循环再次重演。 为了处理这种永久性问题，戈特曼夫妇提出了实用的“百吉饼/甜甜圈妥协法则”（The Bagel/Donut Method）： 1. **核心内圈（不可妥协区）**：写下在这一立场上绝对不能放弃的底线。这如同支撑身体的骨骼，或是构成个人身份认同核心的根本梦想与需要，绝不能退让。 2. **弹性外圈（可妥协区）**：写下相对灵活宽容的具体细节，即日常操作层面的事务——事件何时发生、由谁来执行、在何处进行、预算花费多少、持续多长时间等。 3. **协商机制**：双方交换内外圈内容，在各自尊重对方内圈核心需求的前提下，仅仅针对外圈的具体操作细节寻找重叠与折中的空间。 ### [46:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=2778s) 从死锁式冲突中突围：试图改变对方的陷阱 朱莉指出，永久性问题本身并不致命，甚至能演变成夫妻间心照不宣的可爱笑料；但一旦陷入“死锁”（gridlock），问题就会升级为灾难。死锁状态下的伴侣不再进行真正对话，而是坚执己见、极度渴望在这场争吵中压倒对方以证明自己是正确的。当双方都试图在这场权力斗争中胜出时，由于缺乏深度倾听与对伴侣底层立场的共情，争吵往往会瞬间爆发、掀翻屋顶，最后要么以歇斯底里的嘶吼收场，要么陷入冷战闭嘴，将情绪生生塞到地毯底下，留下一室令人窒息的隐形压抑。 主持人斯蒂芬感同身受地提到，这触及了关系的致命伤：许多人总在试图改造伴侣，而这种改造的潜台词其实是在无情地宣告“我觉得你现在的样子不够好”。约翰·戈特曼对此表示高度认同，指出这正是死锁式冲突的核心特征。为了打破这种双方剑拔弩张的死局，戈特曼团队研发了包含“六个核心问题”的对话方案，在临床与实验中能够达到 87% 的有效脱困率，通过探索彼此立场深处的情绪体验与未竟梦想，引导伴侣重新建立慈悲与连接。 ### [48:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=2890s) 六个深层提问：化解僵局与彼此理解 在亲密关系中，许多无休止的争吵本质上源于一方感到“伴侣试图改变自己”。主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）分享了一个自己反复遇到的困扰：因为工作深度依赖科技，伴侣常常抱怨他总是在看手机或抱着笔记本电脑，这让他觉得伴侣试图剥夺他的工作，想要改变他“不想改变”的核心部分。朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）对此指出，当伴侣要求你放下科技产品时，表面争吵往往停留在“我热爱工作，我想工作，仅此而已”的浅层对抗，这必然导致陷入僵局（Gridlock）。 要想破局，双方需要坐下来进行深入采访，彼此询问六个触及灵魂的核心问题。当一方回答时，另一方可以真正走进对方内心深处，理解这一立场背后究竟承载着什么；随后双方互换角色，用一模一样的问题采访对方： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 破解关系僵局的六个深层探索问题 accDescr: 展示戈特曼夫妇提出的六个用于探索伴侣深层价值观与梦想的问题架构 subgraph CoreQuestions["深入探索立场的六个核心问题"] Q1["1. 观念、价值观与道德准则<br/>（在此立场背后蕴含着怎样的价值观？）"] Q2["2. 成长背景与童年经历<br/>（个人成长史与这一立场有何渊源？）"] Q3["3. 重要性根源<br/>（为什么这件事对你而言如此至关重要？）"] Q4["4. 情绪与内在感受<br/>（面对这一立场时，你内心有何感受？）"] Q5["5. 理想中的梦想与愿景<br/>（若世界如你所愿，最理想的状态是什么？）"] Q6["6. 人生目标与终极使命<br/>（它服务于你怎样的生命目的或追求？）"] end Q1 --> Q2 --> Q3 --> Q4 --> Q5 --> Q6 ``` 通过这六个维度的探讨，伴侣能够看清对方工作背后所承载的人生使命与核心追求，而不再仅仅看到“他在看屏幕”。唯有建立起真正的理解与同理心之后，双方才能在更深层面上达成妥协。 ### [51:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3079s) 5:1黄金比例与“末日四骑士” 在戈特曼博士长达数十年的研究中，最著名的发现之一就是冲突讨论中的正负互动比例。约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）与罗伯特·利文森（Robert Levenson）合作研究发现： - 在婚姻关系健康幸福的“大师级伴侣”（Masters）中，发生冲突时**积极互动与消极互动的秒数比例达到 5:1 或更高**。积极互动包括表现出兴趣、好奇心、爱意、共同幽默、情绪确认（Validation）、认真倾听并说出“多跟我讲讲”、“哇”、“你说得很有道理”等； - 在最终破裂的“灾难级伴侣”（Disaster couples）中，该比例平均仅为 **0.8:1**，即消极互动（愤怒、失望、受伤、挑衅等敌意反应）的时间甚至超过了积极互动。 研究进一步发现，消极互动并非全部具有同等杀伤力，其中最具腐蚀性的是预示关系破裂的“末日四骑士”（The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse）： 1. **批评（Criticism）**：开口即默认“我本身没什么毛病，但你存在缺陷，这是你的问题所在”。说话者往往自以为在提出“建设性批评”，妄想对方会感激地说“你真有洞察力，多说说我哪里做得不够好”，但实际上只会引发抵触。 2. **防卫（Defensiveness）**：面对批评时的本能反弹，表现为反唇相讥（Counterattack）或扮演“无辜受害者”（Innocent victim posture）。 3. **蔑视（Contempt）**：**预测关系走向破裂的最强指标**。这是一种居高临下的优越感（Superiority），表现为嘲弄、起外号（Name calling）、尖酸挖苦（Sarcasm）、冷笑，或者在伴侣生气时挑剔对方语法、标榜自己更守时、更整洁或更有见识。挖苦或许能带来片刻幽默，但随即就会越界变成致命伤害。 4. **筑墙/冷战（Stonewalling）**：彻底关上沟通大门，完全不给予任何倾听反馈（不点头、面部肌肉僵硬、毫无“嗯”、“哦”等回应），只是冷漠地扭头避开。研究发现，在多达 85% 的情况下，冷战是由男性做出的。 朱莉特别澄清，大声吵架并不必然等同于关系完蛋。有些伴侣属于“激烈型”（Volatile），双方性格都充满激情、嗓门很大，但只要他们说出口的内容没有批评、蔑视与防卫，例如大声喊出“这件事情让我太生气了！”（仅仅描述自己的情绪状态），并不会摧毁关系。 ### [55:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3336s) 为什么男性更容易筑墙与情绪淹没？ 针对男性为何在 85% 的情况下选择“冷战筑墙”，约翰与朱莉从生理学与人类演化史进行了解释： - **生理反应差异**：男性在情绪激动时更容易被生理唤醒（Physiologically aroused），且分泌的是血管加压素（Vasopressin），而女性则大量分泌催产素（Oxytocin）。男性一旦生理唤起，心率与血压飙升，需要更漫长的时间才能恢复平静；此时男性内心涌现的往往是愤怒、攻击性以及想要压制伴侣的冲动。为了避免失控，男性的防御机制往往是强迫自己闭嘴：“闭嘴吧，什么都别说，你一开口事情只会更糟，忍忍就过去了。” - **进化层面的根源**：数千年前没有人工奶粉，女性哺乳必须依靠喷乳反射（Milk letdown response），这极度依赖催产素带来的放松与平静；若极度紧张焦虑，乳汁根本无法分泌，因此女性在演化中发展出了更快速自我安抚、恢复平静的生理机制。相反，男性的演化定位是部落防卫者，面对剑齿虎等外部威胁，男性身体被设计为时刻保持高度警惕（Hypervigilant）。然而，现代的大脑无法区分物理攻击与语言、情绪层面的攻击，面对伴侣的指责，男性的身体同样会拉响红色警报。 这种情况在心理学上被称为**情绪淹没（Flooding）**： - 身体瞬间进入“战斗或逃跑”（Fight or flight）状态，皮质醇与肾上腺素大量分泌； - 认知功能全面下降：无法吸收新信息，听觉系统受损，周边视野收窄，只能死死盯住眼前维持生存所需的线索； - 行为退化到原始的刻板反应（如攻击或逃跑），完全丧失创造性解决问题和同理倾听的能力。 斯蒂芬询问这是否解释了“男性普遍更逃避冲突”的刻板印象。约翰补充指出，在现实亲密关系中，**80% 的情况下是女性率先挑起并讨论问题**；虽然女性自我安抚能力稍好，但如果是由男性发起尖锐冲突，女性同样会产生生理淹没，并非仅有男性才会承受这种极限负荷。 ### [59:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3599s) 情绪淹没时的应对之道：打破“床头吵架床尾和”的传统迷思 当一个人陷入“情绪淹没”（Flooding）状态时，不仅无法真正倾听对方，还会陷入不断重复自己的观点、言辞愈发尖锐激进的恶性循环。主持人提出一个非常现实的困惑：传统观念总告诫大家“夫妻吵架绝不能带着怨气过夜”，如果深夜爆发争吵且自己已经陷入情绪淹没，手心出汗、心跳加速，到底该如何应对？John Gottman 幽默且明确地打破了这个迷思：如果时间已经很晚，正确的做法就是**直接去睡觉**。他打趣道，这句“不可含怒到日落”的古老箴言其实来自圣保罗（St. Paul），“可圣保罗自己根本就没结过婚”，所以这听起来虽像是好建议，但若硬撑着解决，只会让人通宵失眠、状态更糟。夫妻双方完全可以握握手、快速亲吻一下，哪怕带着怒气先去睡个好觉。 Julie Gottman 紧接着系统拆解了在争吵中正确进行“暂停”（Time-out）的具体步骤： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 应对情绪淹没的科学暂停步骤 accDescr: 展示从识别情绪淹没、单向提出暂停请求、各自平静放松，到在约定时间内回归对话的完整流程。 A["识别生理淹没信号<br/>（心率加快/手心出汗）"] --> B["使用'我'字句提出暂停<br/>'我需要休息一下'"] B --> C["明确约定回归时间<br/>（如30分钟至24小时内）"] C --> D["彻底转移注意力并自我安抚<br/>（阅读/跑步/处理邮件，绝不想反驳词）"] D --> E["按时返回继续沟通<br/>（生理状态恢复平静）"] ``` - **用“我”字句提出请求**：必须明确表达“我需要暂停休息”，而不是指责对方“你需要冷静”。 - **明确约定重新沟通的时间**：清楚告知对方何时回来继续讨论（如分开 30 分钟、1 小时，最长不超过 24 小时），这样伴侣才不会产生被抛弃或被拒绝的恐慌。 - **暂停期间严禁构思反驳**：离开后绝不能沉浸在争吵中“打腹稿”或推演如何驳倒对方，否则身体会持续处于被淹没的亢奋状态。此时应当做一些真正能安抚神经的事，如看书、翻杂志、健身慢跑或用电脑处理工作邮件，但切记“不要看悬疑凶杀片”。 - **准时返回**：等身体各项生理指标回归平静后，在约定好的时间内回到对话桌前继续交流。 --- ### [01:02:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3742s) 关系的“守护者”：为何 80% 的问题都由女性率先提出？ 研究中一个高度一致且引人深思的发现是：在婚姻中，女性往往比男性感到更加不快乐，而男性常常盲目地觉得“一切都挺好”。主持人坦言自己在前段关系中也有过完全一样的体会，甚至曾对前任说过一句不该说的大实话：“如果你从不主动挑起问题，我觉得我们之间根本就没有任何问题。”因为在他看来每天都很平静，而女方几乎每周都会提出一个需要解决的矛盾。 针对这一现象，John 和 Julie 进行了深层的社会学与心理学剖析： - **女性面临的生存压力与心理负担更沉重**：女性的抑郁症发病率显著高于男性。现实世界对女性来说更为危险与艰难，以美国为例，女性在一生中遭受肢体或性侵犯的概率高达 40%，而男性仅为 9%。 - **女性扮演着关系中的“守护者”（Caretaker）**：社会教养模式赋予了女性更多滋养、连接、维系家庭与关系的责任。女性从小被训练去感知关系的健康度，一旦察觉到潜在危机，便会本能地提出来加以修补。 - **80% 的矛盾发起者是女性**：戈特曼研究所的数据显示，亲密关系中高达 80% 的问题是由女性率先提出的。男性往往误以为对方在“无事生非”，但当拉长时间维度回看时会发现，正是女性不断指出隐患，才阻止了伴侣双方渐行渐远，维系了长久的亲密。 John 动情地分享了实验室录像里他极其崇拜的一位律师丈夫的案例：面对妻子的愤怒，这位律师没有丝毫防御姿态，反而极其耐心地引导妻子剖析自己的缺点，询问是不是自己的语气显得太专制、“像国王在发号施令”。当妻子承认这一点并直言“在法庭上管用，但在我这不管用”时，律师坦然承认“确实很有道理”，并继续真诚地鼓励对方“再多跟我说说”。这种绝不防卫、全盘接纳的姿态堪称典范。 --- ### [01:06:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3991s) 冲突的真相：从“解决问题”转向“理解差异”与记笔记的奇效 对于“冲突解决能力是否决定了长期关系的成败”这一问题，Julie 指出大众对冲突存在巨大的认知误区。既然之前的研究已经证实 69% 的亲密关系问题是永远无法彻底解决的永久性问题，那么把“解决矛盾”当成衡量关系好坏的黄金标准必然会令人绝望。冲突经常背负污名，人们误以为“频繁冲突等于坏关系”，这完全是无稽之谈。冲突的本质是一扇窗口，只要伴侣学会以健康的方式争吵（Fight Right）——清晰表达自身的感受与诉求而非一味甩锅指责——冲突就会成为深层次连接的契机，暴露出彼此隐藏的梦想、原生家庭背景与人生核心意义。 ```markdown | 常见冲突误区 | 戈特曼研究揭示的真相 | |:--- |:--- | | 频繁起冲突说明这段感情非常失败、不合适 | 冲突不可避免，健康争吵反而是增进深层了解的催化剂 | | 沟通的目标必须是彻底“解决”矛盾 | 69% 的矛盾无法解决，目标应当是“管理”冲突并达成理解 | | 伴侣提出问题是在挑衅和找茬 | 伴侣是在行使关系守护职责，表达未被满足的核心诉求 | | 沟通时必须当下立即全神贯注临场反击 | 用本子记录伴侣的话能将大脑拉回理性，有效平息情绪 | ``` 聊到如何成为应对冲突的高手，John 掏出了他随身携带在后裤袋里的小笔记本，揭秘了自己数十年来的独门秘籍： - **随身携带记录本**：每当 Julie 生气或想讨论严肃议题时，John 就会拿出笔记本认真记录妻子说的话。 - **将冲动从杏仁核转移至前额叶皮层**：做笔记将倾听从容易被激惹的情绪化对抗（杏仁核主导），转化为一种理性的信息处理流程（前额叶主导）。在动笔记录的过程中，起初那种“她怎么又在找茬，我今晚可不想这么过”的烦躁感会逐渐消退，转而变成“她说得确实有道理、很有意思”的理性思考。 - **让伴侣感受到被重视与倾听**：John 曾为了一次长谈密密麻麻记满了一整本黄色便签纸（Yellow pad）。Julie 证实，当看到伴侣认真地把自己的每一句话都当作重要的事情记录下来时，那种被尊重、被珍视的感觉是无与伦比的，这也彻底打破了沟通壁垒。 ### [01:11:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=4301s) 什么是“修复尝试”：为什么理性商业逻辑在争吵中必败 在争论中确认彼此是否真正被理解至关重要，但许多人并不懂得如何有效修复正在恶化的沟通。约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）指出，一段争吵开始的方式，往往决定了它后续走向的 96%。心理治疗师南希·德雷福斯（Nancy Dreyfus）曾造访西雅图爱情实验室（Love Lab），她此前出版过一本广受好评的著作《像对待你爱的人一样对我说话》（*Talk to Me Like I'm Someone You Love*），记录了人在情绪平稳时可以用来降温的各种话术。然而，当戈特曼团队在实验室中深入观测夫妻吵架时真实的修复行为时，却发现了一个残酷的事实：任何在商业会议中适用的理性沟通模式，在亲密关系中都会彻底失效。 诸如“让我们看看当前有哪些选项并逐一评估”、“我们的首要目标是什么”、“让我们理智一点，评估不同选择的成本与收益”等看似客观中立的商务话术，在爱情冲突中往往注定引发灾难。真正能让争吵降温的，反而是直面情感脆弱与即时自省的表达。例如坦承“天哪，对不起，我不该那么说，让我重新表达一次”，或者“我感觉自己开始竖起防御机制了，你能换一种更温和的方式跟我说吗？”越早抛出此类聚焦情绪的“修复尝试”（Repair Attempts），化解冲突的效果就越显著。 朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）进一步强调，修复是一场双向互动。当一方察觉到谈话偏离轨道并抛出求和橄榄枝时，关键在于另一方是否愿意“接住”。如果伴侣提出“我开始有防御心了，你能温柔一点吗”，倾听者既可以选择冷酷地拒绝（如“门都没有，你活该挨批”），也可以选择接纳修复（如“你说得对，那我换个方式再说一遍”）。 - **商业话术失效**：讲道理、权衡利弊、强求绝对理性的说辞不仅无法熄火，反而会加剧对立。 - **情绪聚焦的修复**：承认过失、表达脆弱、请求温和表达等基于情感觉察的语句才是真正的解药。 - **修复的时机与接纳**：修复尝试发生得越早越有效，且必须依赖另一方的善意接纳才能达成调解。 --- ### [01:14:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=4466s) 争吵后的五步复盘法：如何修复“遗憾事件” 并非所有冲突都能在当下即刻平息，伴侣之间往往会发生造成深度伤害的“遗憾事件”（Regrettable Incident）。为此，戈特曼夫妇提炼出一套极为系统的“五步复盘法”，甚至将其制成便于随身携带的小册子，许多夫妻会把它放在汽车手套箱里——因为不知为何，恶性争吵总爱在时速 70 英里的高速公路上爆发。这套方法要求双方必须在情绪彻底冷静后，按既定规则拆解事件。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 遗憾事件五步复盘法流程图 accDescr: 展示戈特曼夫妇针对亲密关系中恶性争吵后的五步系统复盘过程。 subgraph Step1_2["情绪唤醒与事实视角"] A["第一步：宣读情绪词清单"] --> B["第二步：以主观视角叙事与笔记复述"] end subgraph Step3_4["溯源诱因与归咎道歉"] B --> C["第三步：识别过往创伤的持久脆弱点"] C --> D["第四步：承认自身状态并诚恳道歉"] end subgraph Step5["未来防护"] D --> E["第五步：各提一条未来改善方案"] end ``` 第一步是**明确情绪**。双方对照一份打印好的情绪清单，逐一说出自己在冲突爆发时产生的感受，可以勾选多个词汇，例如“受伤”、“愤怒”、“被遗弃”或“被拒绝”。第二步是**叙述各自的主观视角**。双方轮流从头到尾讲述自己经历的事实，而倾听的一方必须拿出纸笔认真记录，随后复述并给予共情确认（“从你的角度看，我完全能理解你为何会那么觉得”）。在此阶段，叙事用词极其严苛，必须严格使用以“我”开头的感受与观察——“我感到”、“我看到”、“我听到”、“我想象”，绝对禁止使用指责性的“你对我说了那么难听的话”。 第三步是**挖掘持久脆弱点**（Enduring Vulnerability）。双方需要审视，在刚才的争吵中，是否某些被激起的情绪其实早在进入这段关系之前就已经存在，比如源自童年家庭、抚养者或者上一段旧感情的创伤。一旦被触发，便需要坦诚相告其历史渊源。第四步是**承担个人责任并道歉**。双方说明冲突发生时自己处于何种精神状态（如工作压力过大、极度疲惫或需要独处），并明确对自己所说或所做的事情表达悔恨与歉意。道歉被刻意安排在极靠后的位置，因为如果不先倾听该事件对伴侣造成的实质伤害，脱口而出的道歉是盲目且无效的。最后，第五步是**制定预防措施**，双方各自提出一件未来自己与伴侣可以做出的微调，防止重蹈覆辙。 --- ### [01:18:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=4700s) 避免“元沟通”沦为指责：从“你没听”到“我感觉未被倾听” 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）将这种修复机制形象地比作“从电子游戏中退出来，拿起手柄客观审视局面”，即跳出当下被卷入的情绪风暴，站在更高维度进行“元沟通”（Meta-communication），发表客观评论来促成降温。戈特曼夫妇认可了这种超脱局外视角的价值，但也发出了至关重要的警示。 朱莉提醒，伴侣在尝试跳出局外时极易踩雷：绝不能借着“理性分析”的幌子对伴侣进行心理剖析，更不能将超脱演变成变相指责。如果直接对伴侣甩出一句“我觉得你根本没在听我说话”，这本质上依然是批评和攻击。真正健康的元表达应当聚焦于自身的即时体验——“我现在感觉没有被充分倾听，让我换一种方式再试一次”。一字之差，将重心从评判对方拉回到了表达自我感受，从而彻底消除对方的防御本能。 --- ### [01:19:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=4762s) 触碰与亲密关系：从《常规标准》看性生活质量的秘密 在探讨身体接触与性生活时，约翰·戈特曼坦言，实验室早期的性研究主要集中在新生儿降生后的新婚夫妇群体，因为生下第一个孩子后的三年内，夫妻的性生活频率往往会断崖式暴跌。然而，关于全球性满意度最庞大的样本研究，当属克里斯安娜·诺斯鲁普（Chrisanna Northrup）等人在《常规标准》（*The Normal Bar*）一书中的调查。该研究跨越了 24 个国家、覆盖了 7 万名受访者，系统对比了自评性生活极佳与自评性生活糟糕的两大群体。 研究揭示了一个惊人的跨文化共性：全世界性生活美满的伴侣，在日常生活中都在践行大约十二项共同微习惯。令人意外的是，这些决定性因素几乎全与卧室内的技巧无关，而完全取决于日常的温情互动——每天发自内心地说“我爱你”、不吝赞美、赠送浪漫小礼物，以及大量的肢体接触。 数据显示，日常拥抱和依偎（Cuddling）与性生活质量呈现出极强的正相关。在日常完全不依偎拥抱的人群中，只有微不足道的 4% 表示自己的性生活很棒，高达 96% 的人坦言性生活糟糕透顶。除了私下的肢体温存，在公共场合自然的牵手与亲昵、定期安排浪漫约会和专属度假，都是维系炽热性吸引力不可或缺的基石。 - **调研规模**：涉及 24 个国家、7 万名受访者，文化差异之下的底层规律高度统一。 - **依偎与性满意度反差**：不拥抱依偎的伴侣中，96% 性生活糟糕，仅 4% 感到满意。 - **核心结论**：高质量的性生活并不取决于性爱技巧本身，而取决于日常建立的情感触碰与浪漫仪式。 --- ### [01:21:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=4875s) 接吻的力量与“六秒接吻法”：用催产素重建安全感 接吻在不同人类文化中有着不同的分布，但凡是有接吻习俗的社会，接吻都扮演着极具力量的角色，是通往情欲和浪漫连接的重要门户。德国一项长达 10 年的追踪研究甚至发现，每天早晨出门上班前习惯与妻子亲吻告别的男性，其平均寿命比不接吻的男性长了大约整整四年。 戈特曼夫妇指出，许多伴侣日常只是敷衍地在脸上轻啄一下，这种“例行公事式”的啄吻（Peck）无法带来深层的神经生理改变。他们在临床治疗和书籍中极力推崇“六秒接吻法”（The 6-Second Kiss）——即每次亲吻至少持续整整六秒。之所以设定为六秒，是因为持续 6 秒的深吻或长达 20 秒的深度拥抱，足以刺激大脑垂体后叶分泌催产素（Oxytocin）。这种神经激素能迅速瓦解人体的压力警报，在大脑神经回路中构建起深沉的心理安全感与彼此依附的连结。 ### [01:22:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=4943s) 性在亲密关系中的角色与拥抱的误解 关于性生活在婚姻中的重要程度、理想频率以及它是否能预测长期的关系成功，朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）指出伴侣之间的性需求存在极大的个体差异。有的夫妻双方其实完全不想过性生活，彼此相处模式更接近于柏拉图式的“兄弟姐妹关系”；只要双方对此感到满足，这种婚姻同样可以非常美满稳定。另一些伴侣则对性的需求极高，将其视作维系感情不可或缺的核心支柱。 真正引发矛盾的常见根源，往往在于对身体接触的认知错位。朱莉接触过大量深受“过度男性化”（hyper-masculine）观念束缚的男性，他们下意识地认为依偎、拥抱等非性接触过于“幼稚”（infantile），因而本能地加以排斥。然而，他们内心深处对身体接触有着极度渴望，最终却将“获得抚触的唯一允许途径”窄化为实质性的插入式性行为（penetrative sex）。与此同时，女性常常在繁重的家务与育儿中精疲力竭，缺乏即刻进行性行为的心力。当丈夫感到抚触匮乏时，他表达的往往不是“我需要拥抱”，而是抱怨“我们的性生活不够”；妻子则委屈地抗议“我得到的温情关怀太少了”。 两者实际上是在用两种截然不同的语言诉求亲密感。男性的底层需求其实是身体触碰，只要他们能够从观念上认同并亲身体验到“拥抱与依偎与实质性行为一样，完全可以展现男性的魅力与力量”，亲密关系中的这种僵局便能迎刃而解。 - **性偏好的多样性**：亲密关系不存在统一的性频率标准，只要双方达成共识（无论是柏拉图式还是高频性生活），关系都能长久稳定。 - **拥抱与男子气概**：许多男性将拥抱视为软弱或幼态行为，从而把所有的身体渴望强行压入性要求中，导致伴侣因感受到纯粹的生理索取而产生抗拒。 --- ### [01:24:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5089s) 生活即前戏：打破“神秘感制造激情”的迷思 日常生活中出门前的一个亲吻、抚摸伴侣的后背或简单的相拥，都是在为卧室里的亲密铺垫基石。约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）对此高度认同，强调“你在关系中做出的每一件积极小事，都是前戏”。许多陷入高冲突、停止性生活的伴侣，往往也同时扼杀了生活中的其他感官享受与乐趣。在戈特曼研究所追踪研究的40,000对伴侣中，高达80%的人坦言彼此之间的“趣味性已经消亡”，生活不再有玩乐、探险、探索新美食、旅行或共同运动，所有令人身心愉悦的元素都随之停滞。 针对流行文化中“性吸引力来自神秘与未知，而爱却源于熟悉与舒适”这一看似对立的观点，约翰·戈特曼给出了强烈的反驳。他直言持有这种观点的人“从未做过严谨的实证研究”。长期的科学数据显示，深度的熟悉感、情感联结以及对伴侣由内而外的透彻了解，恰恰是持久激情与高质量性生活的基石，远胜于刻意维持神秘却缺乏心与心紧密相连的疏离状态。 正如埃米莉·纳戈斯基（Emily Nagoski）在畅销书《Come as You Are》中所指出的，女性体验情欲的前提条件往往比男性更为苛刻。正如喜剧演员切维·切斯（Chevy Chase）曾经的幽默调侃：“女人做爱需要理由，男人做爱只需要一个地方。”（"Women need a reason for sex, men need a place."） ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 激情产生的机制对比 accDescr: 对比错误的大众迷思与戈特曼研究所的实证结论 subgraph Myth ["流行的传统迷思（未经研究验证）"] M1["追求不可预测与神秘感"] --> M2["情感保持距离与未知"] M2 --> M3["短期冲动但缺乏信任安全"] end subgraph Reality ["戈特曼实证科学结论"] R1["日常生活微小温情投入"] --> R2["建立深度情感联结与熟悉感"] R2 --> R3["营造强大的心理安全感"] R3 --> R4["激发长期持久的高质量激情"] end ``` --- ### [01:27:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5238s) 女性情欲的前提：心理安全感与创伤背景 男性通常不需要感到环境绝对安全就能产生性冲动，但女性的身体与欲望高度依赖于“心理安全感”（psychological safety）。这种安全感不仅要求双方拥有稳固的情感连接，还要求生活环境处于井井有条的状态——如果眼前堆满了被忽视的琐碎家务、待办清单堆积如山，或是宠物狗还没牵出去排便，女性的大脑往往难以放松并进入情欲状态。 朱莉补充了绝大多数男性未曾深刻意识到的残酷现实与创伤背景：仅在美国，就有四分之一的女性在18岁之前曾遭受过性骚扰或性侵犯；如果计入未报案的隐性受害者，这一比例极可能达到三分之一甚至40%。加之历史上女性长久以来被物化为性工具的文化印记与世代创伤传递（表观遗传学角度），女性对于人身与心理安全感的本能需求远远高于男性。男性若想让伴侣完全敞开身心，就必须给予对方深层的安全庇护。 戈特曼夫妇在他们的著作《The Man's Guide to Women》中特别揭示了一项有趣且经过验证的实证研究：分担家务的男性往往能获得更多的性爱。朱莉更是在现场风趣地向现场男性划重点：“尤其是主动用吸尘器打扫房间，以及把床上的杂乱书籍收拾干净。” - **性暴力创伤比例**：美国官方报案数据显示1/4的女性在18岁前遭遇性侵或性骚扰，实际潜在受害比例高达30%–40%。 - **家务与性生活的正相关**：实证研究表明，主动承担家务劳动、缓解伴侣日常认知负荷的男性，其亲密关系中的性生活频率和满意度显著更高。 --- ### [01:30:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5402s) 约炮文化、现代社会转型与性别认同困境 对于现代社会越来越“无性化”的论调，戈特曼夫妇提出了更深层的审视：当今社会或许不是无性，而是变得更加“无爱”（Loveless）。当下的即时性伴侣与“约炮文化”（hookup culture）空前盛行，大量男女在毫无认知与情感沉淀的情况下发生关系后便分道扬镳。朱莉观察到，许多经历过这种短暂欢愉的男女随后都会产生极度的空虚感，因为缺乏真实情感联结的性行为本质上是极其非人化的（impersonal sex），“体验几乎与自慰无异”。 这种逃避长期承诺的倾向主要由多重社会演变驱动： 1. **父母离异的影响**：年轻一代亲眼目睹了父母婚姻的破裂，从而丧失了对婚姻制度和长久承诺的信任。 2. **女性经济独立**：近50年来女性大规模进入职场，职业发展与个人抱负占据了同等重要的地位。 主持人由此延伸探讨了现代男性在社会变迁中的迷茫与失落感：传统社会期待男性承担家庭的主要经济支柱，但随着现代女性在受教育程度和收入水平上快速追平甚至超越男性，部分男性面对比自己更聪明、更成功的女性时容易感到男子气概受损（emasculated）；与此同时，女性在择偶时依然倾向于寻找经济与教育水平相当或更优的伴侣，导致婚恋市场的匹配难度大幅增加。 朱莉对此感同身受地回忆起自己早年开拓职业生涯时的内心挣扎：即使身处于深爱且支持自己的约翰身边，她也曾频繁陷入“我是否应该只做一个家庭主妇、一个全职母亲？我是否不该把这么多精力放在工作上？”的自我撕扯中。现代社会性别角色的急剧变迁，不仅重塑了女性的自我认同，也让现代男性在家庭与社会分工中面临着前所未有的角色困惑。 ### [01:34:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5642s) 现代男性的身份困境与两性神话 随着社会对家庭模式期待的变化，许多现代男性越来越渴望成为深度参与育儿的父亲。然而，现实却构成了残酷的悖论：当一名男性为了挣更多钱而拼命加班时，他根本无法兼顾家庭生活。与此同时，陈旧的社会神话依旧根深蒂固，依然有人笃信“挣钱越多的男人地位越高、作为人的价值越大、是更好的伴侣，也更有男人味”。朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）直言这种观念完全是错误的。在经济层面，过去的女性与男性薪资比大约是男性的每一美元对应女性的 79 美分，如今也仅仅微升至 81 美分，女性在职业机会与价值认可上依然在为平等奋斗。 在这种转型期，男性常常陷入迷茫：“如果过去我是养家糊口的人，那我现在的角色到底是什么？”史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深有共鸣，指出几代人的男性都是看着父辈和祖父承担纯粹的“养家者”形象长大的，即便如今社会提倡平等，但在现实生活中，男性往往依然背负着“必须买单”的传统社会期待。朱莉指出，女性的解放运动早在 20 世纪 70 年代就已开始，而男性当时更多是在一旁困惑旁观，如今男性在重新定位自己的角色时，面临的心理挑战甚至比女性更艰巨。 约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）进一步剖析了男性的情感困境。长期以来，男性的情感支持系统极度匮乏，许多男人连一个挚友都没有，他们生命中唯一深度的情感联结往往只寄托在同居或结婚的伴侣身上。社会过去向两性兜售了两个截然不同的谎言： - **向女性兜售的谎言**：只要全心全意当好一段关系的“情感照护者”，你就会幸福。 - **向男性兜售的谎言**：只要你在事业和成就上飞黄腾达，你就会幸福。 约翰强调，这两套谎言都有害无益。当今世界正蔓延着“孤独流行病”（epidemic of loneliness），孤独感足以致命。无论男女，都需要真挚的亲密连接、需要走出自我结交好友、接触陌生人并建立真实的社群。 --- ### [01:37:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5870s) 女性真正想要什么：力量与敏感的统一 在探讨两性择偶期望时，朱莉指出一个鲜明的事实：如果去互联网上搜索女性在寻找伴侣时最看重的特质，排名第一的词既不是“腰缠万贯”，也不是“事业辉煌”，而是**“敏感”**（sensitive）、**“具备情绪感知力”**（emotionally aware）以及**“体贴关爱”**（caring）。 史蒂文随即笑着提出了看似矛盾的现实体感，他一边打趣地秀起自己的肱二头肌（“展现肱二头肌秀”），一边反问：现实中女性难道不是同时也要求伴侣“强壮”、“能够保护自己”吗？这似乎存在一种撕裂：一方面要求男性是能够力挽狂澜、充满雄性荷尔蒙的猛兽，另一方面又要求男性敞开心扉、细腻感性。 面对这种看似矛盾的诉求，朱莉给出了深刻的回应： 1. **强壮并不等于没有情绪**：敢于袒露并表达脆弱的情感，往往比紧闭心门、压抑情绪需要更大的勇气与力量。 2. **安全的物理本能**：女性在当今社会依然面临着被强暴、攻击、伤害甚至杀害的现实恐惧，渴望能提供身体保护的伴侣是出于基本安全感的需求，但这与伴侣在精神上具备同理心和细腻情感完全不相冲突。 史蒂文也补充道，这种矛盾其实是双向的——男性同样既希望伴侣温柔体贴，有时又暗自希望对方不要“情绪化”。人类往往贪心地“既要又要”，而成熟的关系恰恰建立在理解这些复杂人性的基础之上。 --- ### [01:39:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5999s) 谈论性爱：性福指数的核心密码与应对分歧 史蒂文询问戈特曼夫妇：科学研究是否能证实，那些拥有最棒性生活的伴侣，也是谈论性爱最频繁的伴侣？约翰给出了斩钉截铁的肯定回答：“是的，公开谈论性爱的伴侣拥有好得多的性生活。” 然而，关键在于**如何谈论**。约翰指出，谈论性爱必须建立在包容与充满爱的氛围中，多肯定彼此在亲密关系中令人享受的部分、赞美对方身上让自己觉得性感的地方，并温和地沟通彼此更多的渴望。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 戈特曼亲密性对话结构模型 accDescr: 展示戈特曼结构化性爱沟通的核心环节与偏好探索 subgraph PREP ["性沟通的基础姿态"] A["包容与肯定<br/>(赞美与欣赏彼此的性感)"] end subgraph DIALOGUE ["Got Sex? 七大结构化对话维度"] B["具体喜好与偏好"] C["如何与何时发起亲密"] D["如何拒绝亲密<br/>(避免重伤彼此自尊)"] E["亲密行为的收尾模式"] end subgraph MAPS ["爱意地图 (Love Maps)"] F["男性欲望世界 100 问"] G["女性欲望世界 100 问"] end A --> B A --> C A --> D A --> E DIALOGUE -.-> MAPS ``` 为了帮助伴侣迈出这一步，戈特曼夫妇研发了一套名为“Got Sex?”（拥有性爱？）的沟通工具包，涵盖了七个维度的结构化对话，旨在帮助情侣协商具体喜好、发起方式、如何在不刺伤对方自尊的前提下拒绝亲密，以及亲密过程的收尾仪式。此外，在“爱意地图”（Love Maps）体系中，他们针对男女各自的欲望世界设计了各 100 个截然不同的问题，帮助双方探索对方隐秘的性幻想世界。 当遇到一方渴望尝试某种性幻想，而另一方心理无法接受时，该如何化解？ - **言语替代体验**：不能接受身体实操的一方，可以通过充满魅力的耳语，在亲密过程中用语言把该幻想描述出来。 - **床第间的语言魔力**：数据表明，在性爱过程中言语沟通较多的伴侣，性满意度显著更高。哪怕仅仅是通过语言进行角色扮演设定（例如情境假设），也能极大地满足对方的性渴望，同时又守住了另一方的心理边界。 --- ### [01:44:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6270s) 摧毁关系的根本诱因：背叛的多重形态 在话题切入关系的深层裂痕时，史蒂文引用了戈特曼夫妇在经典著作《幸福的婚姻》（The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work）中的核心发现：**背叛（betrayal）往往是一切破裂关系的核心元凶**。 朱莉指出，人们通常将背叛狭隘地理解为身体出轨（cheating），但现实中背叛有诸多更加隐蔽且日常的形式。任何打破同盟与信任的行为都属于背叛，并且必须在关系中得到深度疗愈。例如，在家庭冲突中选择与原生家庭成员联手孤立或指责自己的伴侣，对于另一半而言就是一种深层的背叛体验。 ### [01:45:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6303s) 失败情侣与成功情侣的互动现场演绎 主持人请约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）和朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）现场即兴模拟：如果一对注定会走向破裂的情侣走进“爱情实验室”（Love Lab），并在其中生活24小时，他们的日常言行会是怎样的？两位专家当即以“做填字游戏（crossword puzzles）”为引子展开模拟。在失败版本的演绎中，朱莉满怀怨气地指责约翰整天沉迷于“愚蠢的填字游戏”，纯粹是浪费时间；约翰则立刻反击，讽刺朱莉是因为智力不够才不敢挑战，甚至进一步进行人格攻击，斥责朱莉“一辈子都在逃避挑战、走轻松的路”；朱莉随即尖锐回呛：“你觉得跟你结婚是选了一条轻松的路吗？你在开玩笑吗？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 破坏性冲突与建设性回应对比 accDescr: 对比展现了贬低防御的恶性循环与好奇接纳的良性互动两种情侣沟通模式 subgraph DestructivePattern["走向破裂的互动模式"] A["批评与轻蔑<br/>（'这太愚蠢了、浪费时间'）"] --> B["防卫与反击<br/>（'你智商不够、总在逃避挑战'）"] B --> C["人格攻击与升级<br/>（情感信任瓦解、性与亲密感丧失）"] end subgraph ConstructivePattern["大师级的连接模式"] D["表达兴趣与共情<br/>（'遇到难题了吗？听起来真不容易'）"] --> E["分享自我脆弱<br/>（'我在做数独也很卡壳'）"] E --> F["欣赏与相互支持<br/>（肯定对方对挑战的喜爱）"] end ``` 随后，他们角色扮演了与之相反的“关系大师”版本：约翰叹息有些填字题太难，朱莉立刻温和且好奇地询问他卡在哪一道题上；约翰提到题目要求填写一种从未听过的恐龙名字，朱莉感同身受地表示“那听起来几乎不可能完成”，接着坦承自己正在死磕数独（Sudoku）也是错误百出。双方不仅分享了彼此面对挑战的难处，朱莉还赞赏约翰喜欢迎难而上的特质，气氛既温馨又彼此滋养。 - **隐蔽的毒药与轻蔑的杀伤力**：朱莉指出，在第一个反面例子中，她短短几句对话就用了三次“愚蠢（stupid）”，伴随着贬低、批评与轻蔑；而约翰的回应则是经典的自我防卫与人身反击（Personality attacks）。当一个人感到被伴侣蔑视、厌恶并视为愚蠢时，亲密感、信任和性欲都会被彻底摧毁，让人本能地想要退缩逃离。 - **微小的讽刺同样危险**：轻蔑往往以极其隐晦的形式渗入生活，例如带着讥讽的腔调催促做家务：“我都叫你洗碗了，但你这种人怎么可能愿意把手弄湿去洗碗呢？”这种看似微不足道的讽刺，本质上依然是居高临下的轻蔑。 --- ### [01:48:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6530s) 恐惧未知与了解彼此的内心梦想 主持人提到自己31岁、恋爱4年，面对结婚37年的戈特曼夫妇，请教如何才能让关系走得长远。约翰听完主持人打算“带着笔记本在吵架时记笔记”的打趣后，突然提出一个核心问题：“你知道她的梦想是什么吗？”主持人坦白自己从未正式、直接地向伴侣询问过梦想，甚至有些不敢去问，因为害怕坦白之后发现两人的梦想根本不在一条轨道上。 主持人剖析了自己的内心冲突：伴侣极具雄心、渴望组建家庭并在阳光充足的地方生活；他自己同样渴望家庭，但热爱的播客事业只能在极少数城市运作，且目前只有洛杉矶符合“阳光明媚且利于事业”的条件，可女方可能出于各种原因不喜欢这里。一旦有了孩子，更不可能像现在这样四处飞来飞去。出于对分歧的恐惧，主持人一直采取“走一步看一步、船到桥头自然直（cross that bridge when we come to it）”的态度。朱莉与约翰回应表示，这种回避心态可以理解，但并非最佳解法。戈特曼夫妇合著的《八次约会》（*Eight Dates*）就是为了帮助建立长期关系的情侣提供对话框架。只要彼此拥有深厚的爱，即使梦想存在巨大差异，情侣也几乎总能找到兼顾两人的调和之道，无需因害怕冲突而将梦想深埋心底。 --- ### [01:51:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6688s) 维系幸福亲密关系的四条核心法则 针对主持人的求教，戈特曼夫妇系统梳理了实验室数十年研究所沉淀出的最关键实践法则： - **86% 的“转向对方”（Turning Towards）**：朱莉首先强调要尽可能响应伴侣发出的“连接邀请（Bids for connection）”。例如当伴侣在厨房喊道“快来看看这个”，即便手头有事，也要尽量起身走过去。约翰立刻精准纠正朱莉口中的“85%”，指出数据精确为 86%（朱莉打趣约翰是“永远值得信任的数据狂”）。幸福长久的伴侣在日常中回应对方连接邀请的概率高达 86%，而走向破裂的伴侣该数据仅为 33% 左右。 - **温和开场，表达积极需求而非指责**：在谈论棘手矛盾时，全力克制指责和挑刺的冲动。只描述自己的主观感受以及引发情绪的具体情境，并清晰表达“积极的正面需求”（即你希望对方做什么），而不是“消极需求”（即攻击对方哪里做得不好）。 - **借助工具定期同步需求**：约翰推荐了戈特曼研究所的卡牌应用（Gottman Card Decks App）中的“表达你的需求（Expressing Your Needs）”卡牌包。建议情侣每周坐下来，各自挑出“本周最需要对方支持的2件事”。把需求讲清楚，让对方明确知道怎么做能让自己感到快乐，而不是依赖毫无根据的猜测。 - **接受伴侣的影响（Accepting Influence）**：作为深爱数学模型的学者，约翰指出爱情实验室得出的最惊人、最反直觉的结论是——**在亲密关系中获得力量的唯一方式，就是愿意接受对方的影响**。这意味着保持弹性、愿意被对方说动，认真倾听伴侣的声音并让自己的立场发生迁移，而不是寸步不让地硬碰硬。 --- ### [01:54:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6855s) 23年皮划艇蜜月与白头偕老的告白 为了让亲密感在几十年间不被日常消耗，戈特曼夫妇分享了他们持续践行了23年的独特仪式：他们每年都会安排一次为期两周的“皮划艇蜜月之旅”。在远离尘嚣的划船度假期间，他们会在两周内深入探讨三个固定问题： 1. **今年有哪些糟糕透顶的事情（What sucked about this year）？** 2. **今年有哪些让你感到喜欢和感激的事情（What did you like about this year）？** 3. **你希望新的一年过成什么样子（What do you want next year to be like）？** 此外，朱莉强调每周都要问对方一次：“下周我做点什么能让你感觉更被爱？”朱莉坦言，尽管他们一起工作、频繁表达感激和爱意，但随着年纪渐长、精力下降以及繁忙的日程和疫情干扰，像普通情侣一样外出约会的次数也变少了。当主持人深情询问约翰“朱莉对你而言意味着什么”时，约翰动情地回答：朱莉是他生命中绝对最重要的人。每天早晨醒来看到朱莉躺在身旁、和她以及狗狗挤在一起依偎，是他最大的幸福。如今两人更迎来了两岁的孙子，一同沉浸在三代同堂的喜悦之中。 ### [01:56:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6975s) 彼此眼中的意义与深厚依恋 谈及妻子朱莉（Julie Schwartz Gottman）对自己的意义，约翰（John Gottman）深情地表示，看着女儿成长并成为一位母亲，是他人生中最美好的体验，而朱莉赋予他最棒的礼物就是让他成为了一名父亲；如果生命中没有朱莉，他将失去整个人生的一切（"Everything"）。随后，主持人询问朱莉，约翰在她心中究竟意味着什么。朱莉动容地形容约翰是她一生中遇到过最可爱、最美好、最值得爱的人。 朱莉分享了约翰带给她的治愈与改变。在遇见约翰之前，她经历了许多过去的创伤，生活沉重到根本不知道该如何笑，是约翰一直逗她发笑，彻底治愈了她。约翰也是唯一一个全心全意倾听并全力支持她所有梦想的人——哪怕是像“独自一人前往南极”这样疯狂的念头，约翰也全力鼓励支持。朱莉打趣道，约翰极其聪明博学，阅读量是自己的无数倍，跟着他永远不会无聊，他就像是一个无尽的知识宝库、阳光与笑声的源泉，更带来了优秀的女儿、女婿与外孙。最后朱莉还不忘幽默调侃，约翰拥有全世界最美丽的眼睛，而且过去四十年来永远戴着同一顶皮帽，让他看起来宛如一位“犹太知识分子布尔什维克”（Jewish intellectual Bolshevik），模样可爱极了。 --- ### [01:58:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=7113s) 为何撰写新书《Fight Right》：从家庭走向社会的和平涟漪 当被问及为何在出版了数十本书之后，选择将重点放在冲突与争吵、出版新书《Fight Right: How Successful Couples Turn Conflict into Connection》（正确吵架）时，朱莉指出当今世界的严峻现实：尤其在美国，社会正经历着前所未有的两极分化，仇恨甚至被公然默许为表达政治立场的手段，人与人之间完全失去了倾听对方的能力。 朱莉强调，作为心理学家，他们无法直接改变整个政治制度或庞大的社会架构，但他们能够从自己最擅长的领域切入——教导伴侣在家庭中学会如何真正倾听彼此与爱护彼此。家庭是社会的基石，如果能够在一个个家庭中化解冲突、缔造和平（"Making Peace one family at a time"），这种善意与爱就会形成涟漪效应，向外扩散至整个社会，为极度渴求温情的世界带来更多爱与包容。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 涟漪效应示意图 accDescr: 展示从家庭层面的有效沟通与化解冲突，如何扩散并改善更广泛的社会两极化与仇恨氛围。 subgraph Micro ["家庭微观层面"] A["学习在家庭中倾听与相爱<br>（运用《Fight Right》冲突化解法）"] B["伴侣间以合力化解矛盾<br>替代对立攻击"] A --> B end subgraph Macro ["社会宏观层面"] C["家庭关系稳定与情绪疗愈"] D["向外产生爱与理解的涟漪效应"] E["缓解社会两极分化与仇恨氛围"] B --> C C --> D D --> E end ``` --- ### [01:59:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=7193s) 前任嘉宾的提问：若能回到出生时，你想对父母说什么？ 根据播客的惯例，主持人翻开上一位嘉宾留下的神秘提问：“如果你能回到自己出生那一刻，对你的父母说一句话，你会说什么？” 朱莉率先坦诚作答，她会恳切地对父亲说：“请你至少每周抽一天待在家里，而不是每周七天都在抛下母亲。”她的父亲是一名心脏科医生，终日忙于在医院抢救生命，休假时则去打高尔夫球，完全符合20世纪50年代典型的父亲角色——只负责赚钱养家，完全不参与育儿和家庭生活。而对母亲，朱莉想说：“请停止挑剔与轻蔑，试着去发现我们做对的事情并表达出来，而不是只揪着我们的错误不放。”朱莉披露，母亲因早年在原生家庭中目睹严重的暴力、强奸甚至遭遇近亲性侵，内心深处遭受极度创伤，除了自己的美貌之外毫无自我价值感；由于没有配得感，母亲根本不懂得如何正常提出自己的诉求，而只能用尖锐的批判和蔑视来发泄。 随后约翰回答了这一问题。他表示首先想对父母表达由衷的爱与感激，感谢他们真实的样子，因为他觉得自己生前做得不够多，尤其是对父亲。其次，他想恳求父母能成为自己妹妹更好的父母。约翰坦言，自己和妹妹仿佛生活在“两个完全不同的家庭”：约翰性格随和、深得母亲喜爱；而妹妹脾气敏感执拗，拥有极高的音乐天赋，却始终未曾得到父母应有的支持与关爱。这种家庭差异导致妹妹至今仍深陷于感到未被母亲关爱的痛苦之中。 - **原生家庭对两人的塑造**：主持人和两位学者都指出，每个人在爱与亲密关系上的态度，都根植于自己的“起源故事”（origin story）。正是童年所见证的创伤、忽视或差异对待，驱动了他们毕生致力于解开亲密关系的奥秘。 --- ### [02:04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=7440s) 总结致谢：将冲突化为连接的艺术 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）向约翰与朱莉表达了崇高的敬意。他回顾道，无论是众多来到节目的顶尖科学家、神经学家，还是他早年在全英巡演面对成千上万名观众时，大家都在反复引用 Gottman 实验室（Love Lab）的研究成果。两人的工作照亮了人类健康与幸福的核心命题。 朱莉回应并感谢史蒂芬利用其庞大的平台影响力来歌颂爱、传播爱的重要价值。史蒂芬在结语中向听众真诚推荐新书《Fight Right》，强调掌握冲突解决的技巧并非为了争夺输赢，而是为了学会成为更好的伴侣，将“你与我争吵”转变为“我们携手对抗问题”，这是所有人追寻长久幸福与稳固爱情的基石。 ## Notable quotes > [20:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=1230s) 一旦伴侣感到心烦或沮丧，你就必须放下手头正在做的所有事情，全神贯注地倾听。 — John Gottman > [38:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=2328s) 梦想不需要保持一致，这是史上最大的误区之一。 — Julie Gottman > [40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=2445s) 一旦你选择了一个伴侣，你就自动继承了未来 50 年里你们将反复面对的那批特定问题。 — John Gottman > [59:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=3599s) 不可含怒到日落。 — St. Paul > [01:24:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5089s) 女人做爱需要理由，男人做爱只需要一个地方。 — Chevy Chase > [01:39:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=5999s) 公开谈论性爱的伴侣拥有好得多的性生活。 — John Gottman > [01:51:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6688s) 在亲密关系中获得力量的唯一方式，就是愿意接受对方的影响。 — John Gottman > [01:54:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6855s) 做点什么能让你感觉更被爱？ — Julie Gottman > [01:56:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88&t=6975s) 如果生命中没有朱莉，我将失去整个人生的一切。 — John Gottman ## Mentioned John Gottman, Julie Gottman, Steven Bartlett, Robert Levenson, Leonard Syme, Lisa Berkman, Nancy Dreyfus, Chrisanna Northrup, Emily Nagoski, Chevy Chase, The Diary Of A CEO, The Gottman Institute, Love Lab, BBC, Fight Right: How Successful Couples Turn Conflict into Connection, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, Eight Dates, The Man's Guide to Women, Talk to Me Like I'm Someone You Love, The Normal Bar, Come as You Are, Gottman Card Decks App ## Video description Drs. John and Julie Gottman are world leading relationship researchers that have been studying couples for over 40 years, publishing over 200 academic journal articles and 46 books. They are the co-founders of The Gottman Institute and Love Lab. 0:00 Intro 02:43 What mission are you on & Why study love? 07:06 Studying traits of successful couples 09:03 Link between relationships & our health 12:51 What is the love lab? 15:41 The misconceptions about relationships 17:52 How to connect with your partner 27:44 What is the 'attuned' framework? 32:46 Why does typical couples therapy often fail? 35:17 The 7 Principles of a successful marriage 38:45 Do partners' dreams need to be aligned? 40:45 69% of our problems are not solvable 48:41 What to do when your partner wants to change you 51:19 The four horsemen 58:21 What is flooding? 01:03:31 What's a 'caretaker' in a relationship 01:06:31 Conflict misunderstandings 01:08:34 How to become a master at conflict resolution 01:11:41 How to repair/fix relationship issues 01:19:22 What have you learnt about the role of kissing 01:22:25 The role of sex in a relationship 01:29:58 Our society is becoming more sexless 01:32:18 Men struggling to figure out where they fit into society 01:37:50 What do women really want in a man? 01:39:59 Talking about sex makes your sex life better 01:44:30 Betrayal in a relationship 01:45:14 The traits that show a failing relationship 01:49:20 Asking your partner their dreams 01:51:28 Advice to give a relationship its best shot 01:53:21 The most interesting conclusions from the love lab 01:55:39 What does Julie mean to you, John 01:56:36 What does John mean to you, Julie 01:58:38 Why did you write this book 01:59:54 The Last Guest's question YouTube: You can purchase the Gottman’s new book, ‘Fight Right: How Successful Couples Turn Conflict into Connection’, here: https://amzn.to/3IUWpix Follow the Gottman’s: Twitter - https://bit.ly/3xcZA2z Instagram - https://bit.ly/4cC2UVl YouTube - https://bit.ly/4awssRS Follow me: https://beacons.ai/diaryofaceo Shop the Conversation Cards: https://thediary.com/products/the-cards Sponsors: ZOE: http://joinzoe.com with an exclusive code CEO2024 for 10% off Linkedin Ads: https://www.linkedin.com/doac24 This episode of The Diary Of A CEO was filmed at Gold Tree Studios, located in the heart of the Sunset Strip, West Hollywood, California [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3bfCt0K88)

[20:30] John Gottman: 一旦伴侣感到心烦或沮丧，你就必须放下手头正在做的所有事情，全神贯注地倾听。 [38:48] Julie Gottman: 梦想不需要保持一致，这是史上最大的误区之一。 [40:45] John Gottman: 一旦你选择了一个伴侣，你就自动继承了未来 50 年里你们将反复面对的那批特定问题。 [59:59] St. Paul: 不可含怒到日落。 [84:49] Chevy Chase: 女人做爱需要理由，男人做爱只需要一个地方。 [99:59] John Gottman: 公开谈论性爱的伴侣拥有好得多的性生活。 [111:28] John Gottman: 在亲密关系中获得力量的唯一方式，就是愿意接受对方的影响。 [114:15] Julie Gottman: 做点什么能让你感觉更被爱？ [116:15] John Gottman: 如果生命中没有朱莉，我将失去整个人生的一切。

[6:08] Julie Gottman: Honey, let's take this stuff out of the Ivory Tower. Let's form theory and interventions based on what these successful couples are doing to really sustain their love. [17:52] John Gottman: Julie said, 'I go into the living room and sit down and you don't even look up... and then I get up and leave and you haven't even noticed that I was there.' So I was guilty of it too. [19:52] John Gottman: Honey, I would really love to listen to you right now, but I really am feeling pressured to finish this. Can you just wait 30 minutes, and then I'll be able to give you my full attention? [81:55] Julie Gottman: Oxytocin gets secreted with a 20-second hug or a 6-second kiss. You're both secreting oxytocin, and that creates a sense of psychological safety and connection. [84:49] Jeffery Chase: Women need a reason for sex, men need a place. [87:50] Julie Gottman: Men who do housework get a lot more sex... specifically, honey, they have to do the vacuuming and get the books off the bed! [105:14] Julie Gottman: I'm sick and tired of you always paying attention to your stupid crossword puzzles! [105:14] John Gottman: I think they're too challenging for you intellectually... You always take the easy road. [105:14] Julie Gottman: You think that marrying you was the easy road? Are you kidding? [105:14] John Gottman: Boy, some of these crossword puzzles are really hard. [105:14] Julie Gottman: Oh wow, that sounds impossible... I like that you really love challenges. [113:21] What is something I can do next week to make you feel more loved? [119:53] Steven Bartlett: If you could go back and tell your parents any one thing at the time you were born, what would it be?

[0:00] women tend to be more Unhappily Married [0:02] than men and 80% of the time women bring [0:06] up problems in a relationship but 69% of [0:09] all problems are not solvable so if you [0:12] rely on problems getting solved as an [0:15] indicator of the success of the [0:17] relationship it's not going to look good [0:19] Dr Jong and Dr Julie gotman [0:21] world-renowned researchers and clinical [0:23] psychologists who've been married 36 [0:26] years and have spent the last 50 years [0:28] studying love you made something called [0:30] love lab what is that we followed 3,000 [0:32] couples it taught us the difference [0:35] between what masters of relationship do [0:37] and what disasters do what advice would [0:40] you give to me then cuddle 96% of non- [0:43] cuddlers had an awful sex life anything [0:45] else yes the hookup culture is thriving [0:48] is that a problem yes why okay so let me [0:51] point out something that everybody needs [0:54] to hear so and also kissing is very [0:57] powerful men who kiss their wives [0:59] goodbye women they leave for work live [1:01] four years longer than men who don't in [1:04] your research you found that during [1:05] conflict couples who show four key [1:07] behaviors mean that an argument is [1:09] doomed yes and they are criticism [1:12] defensiveness the third one was the [1:14] worst and that was that was the best [1:17] predictor of relationship breakup and [1:19] the fourth [1:20] was John Julie can you role play the [1:24] behavior that a couple who are destined [1:26] to fail would exhibit oh yes [1:31] so it's absolutely crazy to me that so [1:34] many of you have decided to watch our [1:36] show um and so many of you have decided [1:38] to subscribe to our show we now have [1:39] five million subscribers on YouTube [1:41] which is a number that I just can't [1:43] comprehend and it's a dream that I [1:45] absolutely never could have had we [1:47] started the dire of a CO just over three [1:49] years ago now and in my wildest [1:51] expectations we might have had 100,000 [1:53] subscribers by now so you can imagine [1:55] how shocked I am that so many of you [1:57] have chosen to tune into these [1:59] conversations every week um and spend [2:02] some time with us so thank you and I [2:04] made a deal with you I made a deal that [2:06] if you subscribe to this show that we [2:08] would continue to raise the bar and in [2:10] 2024 we're going to raise the bar like [2:12] never before I've been working for the [2:14] last 9 months on a surprise for all of [2:17] you that have subscribed to the show and [2:19] I'm very excited to deliver that for you [2:21] the production's going to change we're [2:23] going to go even further with our guests [2:25] and we're going to tell even more Global [2:27] stories so as always if you appreciate [2:29] what we doing here the simple free favor [2:32] I'll ask from you is to hit the [2:33] Subscribe button let's get on with the [2:37] [Music] [2:42] episode John Julie you've both been [2:45] studying the subject of love for more [2:47] than 50 [2:49] years you've written books you've done a [2:52] lot of primary research you run [2:54] something called The Love lab I'm going [2:55] to start with you Julie [2:58] M what is the mission [3:00] that you're on and why love that is the [3:05] most wonderful question in the universe [3:07] here's why we have a world as we all [3:12] know that is full of conflict is full of [3:18] uh antipathy is full of violence [3:23] domestic [3:24] violence all kinds of clashes between [3:28] people and we wanted to focus on love [3:33] because love is the great healer right [3:36] it heals people's hearts it heals [3:39] people's Souls it brings people together [3:42] it unifies people but nobody has taken [3:47] relationships [3:48] 101 nobody knows how to have productive [3:53] relationships that are calm and gentle [3:56] and [3:57] compassionate and at the beginning of [3:59] the research we had no idea of what [4:03] successful couples did to really [4:05] solidify their relationship and sustain [4:08] it so John and his wonderful colleague [4:12] Robert levenson did some of that [4:14] earliest research that taught us the [4:18] difference between what masters of [4:20] relationship do and what disasters do so [4:23] we could help as many people as possible [4:26] and John the same question for you with [4:28] all the work that you've done in your [4:29] life life what is it that you're seeking [4:31] to deliver to the person that consumes [4:35] that work what is it you're seeking to [4:37] do for them well Bob and I started [4:39] studying relationships because we were [4:41] so incompetent at it and we we're just [4:45] too clueless guys going from one [4:47] relationship disaster to another and we [4:50] were really curious about whether there [4:52] were people out there who could do it [4:54] well and we found they were and you know [4:58] and then we thought how are they [5:00] different from people you know who like [5:03] us really went from one disaster to [5:06] another and we had no idea we really had [5:09] very few hypotheses when we started so [5:12] it was just curiosity uh and we weren't [5:15] interested in helping anybody at all we [5:17] were just curious about finding out what [5:20] the differences were and then 26 years [5:23] ago Julia and I decided to work together [5:25] and she's a clinical psychologist she [5:28] wants to help people and and I thought [5:30] it was impossible to change [5:33] relationships because if you can predict [5:35] with such high accuracy that a [5:37] relationship is doomed or it works how [5:40] can you change it you know it seemed [5:42] seemed impossible but Julie's really an [5:45] optimist and really cares about people [5:48] and so we got together and we thought [5:50] well we need a theory if we're going to [5:52] help people cuz every relationship is [5:54] different and so first we built a theory [5:58] and then we tested it so that's how I [6:01] got into it really I didn't have a [6:03] mission so how did you both come to [6:05] study and work together on the subject [6:08] of love in [6:09] particular well John had already been [6:13] studying it right right so uh we met [6:17] what almost 38 years ago and what [6:21] happened is that I'd be coming home [6:23] talking about my clinical cases over [6:25] dinner John would come home from the lab [6:29] and be sharing the statistics and the [6:32] findings he had that were really [6:35] thrilling and after a while um he was he [6:40] was garnering such incredible [6:43] information such great knowledge that [6:45] one day we were out in the middle of the [6:47] sea [6:48] canoeing and I said honey let's take [6:51] this stuff out of the Ivory Tower let's [6:55] let's form Theory and interventions [6:57] based on what these successful couples [6:59] are doing doing to really sustain their [7:01] love it's such a beautiful thing we see [7:04] and he said sure why not and we did and [7:08] joh what was that research well you know [7:10] Bob and I found that there really were [7:12] masters of relationships and we spent a [7:16] Dozen Years studying gay and lesbian [7:17] couples too same thing there there were [7:20] people who knew how to have [7:21] relationships and they were very [7:23] different from the couples who are [7:25] struggling and most of the clinical [7:28] books have been written by therapist IST [7:29] who never saw the good relationships and [7:32] so we had information that was very new [7:35] and it was pretty fascinating um but the [7:39] question was could we actually turn a [7:42] disaster into a master could we prevent [7:45] relationship disaster we didn't know so [7:48] it was kind of a question you know was [7:51] it just correlation or were the findings [7:54] causal and so it was really uh curiosity [7:58] that continued and how many research [8:00] papers have you published now uh couple [8:03] hundred I think and how many books [8:06] between you have you written Julie I [8:07] think we're on 52 maybe how many couples [8:12] have you studied John well a latest [8:15] study involved over 40,000 couples [8:19] looking at their questionnaires and [8:21] couples about to start therapy but [8:24] following couples in the lab that the [8:27] kind of lab that Bob levenson and I [8:29] created [8:30] uh about 3,000 couples and Bob studied a [8:33] group of couples for 20 years the same [8:36] group of couples in their 40s or in [8:38] their 60s when they started the study [8:41] and he actually was able to get funding [8:43] for 20 years so the group of couples in [8:46] the 40s were now in their 60s and you [8:49] can compare them to the couples 20 years [8:51] ago who were in their 60s so wound up [8:54] being you know a 40-year longitudinal [8:56] study has anyone ever studied couples [8:58] for that l length of time no not really [9:02] it really was a first when people think [9:04] about the subject of [9:06] love I don't think they necessarily hold [9:08] it in such high importance in their life [9:10] they think about other thing especially [9:12] as it correlates to our health outcomes [9:15] so like you know my physical health [9:17] outcomes are they right in [9:19] deprioritizing love as a path to having [9:22] good physical health or does our love [9:24] and relationships correlate to our our [9:27] physical health our chance of disease [9:29] these kinds of things there's a new [9:31] field that started kind of when I [9:33] started doing my research and it's [9:35] called social epidemiology a guy named [9:38] Leonard Sim started at Berkeley with his [9:40] student Lisa burkeman and they did this [9:44] uh study called the Alam County study [9:46] where they studied 9,000 people and S [9:50] was interested in diet he was interested [9:52] in cholesterol and he found that Chinese [9:56] American immigrants just lived a lot [9:59] longer and were a lot healthier than [10:00] Americans were even Chinese American [10:03] immigrants so he was kind of curious [10:05] about you know what really was the [10:07] difference was it the diet was it and he [10:10] found it was really Community it was [10:12] really that these people moved with [10:14] their friends and he found in general [10:17] that the quality of people's closest [10:20] relationships really predicted longevity [10:23] very strong prediction too so it's [10:25] become a whole field called social [10:28] epidemology and people have studied the [10:30] immune system and you know found that [10:33] all over the planet people who are [10:35] socially isolated who have bad [10:37] relationships don't live as long they [10:40] get sick and die a lot younger and that [10:43] people have great relationships they [10:45] live a lot longer and the quality of [10:47] their life is better they're a lot [10:49] happier and so it seems to make a real [10:52] big difference modern social psychology [10:55] has been finding the same thing with [10:57] people's relationship to [10:59] strangers that that affects health so if [11:02] you reach out to strangers and in in the [11:05] morning if you're commuting having a [11:07] conversation with the commuter next to [11:09] you then you're open to learning about [11:11] their lives that also affects your [11:14] Health and [11:15] Longevity so we're really a very social [11:18] species it's interesting because we [11:20] spend a lot of time you know going to [11:21] the gym or thinking about our diet or [11:24] something but what you were saying and I [11:26] think what a lot of your work has [11:27] uncovered is that we should be investing [11:28] in the same way in relationships in a [11:31] really intentional way and especially [11:32] when we consider the nature of the world [11:34] now where we're getting lonier and more [11:35] detached than ever before no one taught [11:38] me at any point in my life to think of [11:41] my relationships like the gym yeah right [11:45] what's your take on that Julie well uh [11:48] being a gym buff [11:51] myself I love going to the gym but um [11:55] one thing that I'm really remembering is [11:57] that uh people people whose parents [12:00] divorced typically they live four years [12:05] less on average than people who grew up [12:09] with an intact family people who grew up [12:14] with divorce and then ended up divorcing [12:16] them themselves their own relationships [12:19] divorcing lived eight years less so you [12:24] can see how important love is and we're [12:28] beginning to understand all of this by [12:31] looking at things like [12:34] oxytocin [12:35] serotonin versus things like adrenaline [12:38] and cortisol which are stress [12:42] hormones that will flood the body and [12:46] stress the body when we're in a bad [12:50] relationship you made something called [12:52] The Love [12:53] lab very curious name place I think I'd [12:56] like to go um what is the love lab [12:59] well it got named that by the BBC when [13:01] they did a a show on our newlywed study [13:05] but it was it was basically an apartment [13:08] like setting and couple spent 24 hours [13:11] there and the cameras were rolling the [13:14] whole time they were awake and and like [13:16] Bob and I did we synchronized [13:18] physiological data to the video time [13:21] code so we could you know see what was [13:24] what they were doing what they were [13:25] saying to one another and at the same [13:27] time be able to look at their heart [13:29] rates and their blood velocity and [13:31] things like that and and we measured [13:33] other physiological things and immune [13:36] variables as well so that was basically [13:39] the lab and we followed couples a couple [13:42] of months after the wedding many of them [13:44] uh as they got pregnant and had babies I [13:47] learned how to study parent infant [13:49] interaction from some of my friends who [13:51] were experts in that field and we [13:54] followed the children as they got older [13:56] so that was kind of the lab it was just [13:58] to see whether uh there was any [14:01] predictability in relationships if we [14:04] weren't telling people what to talk [14:06] about just watching them as they might [14:08] normally go about a typical day so let [14:11] me get this straight you you have these [14:12] people come to this sort of normal [14:14] setting kind of like an apartment but [14:16] it's really a laboratory where they're [14:17] being studied for their physiological [14:20] biomarkers of I don't know heart rate [14:22] things like that you just watch them [14:24] well they're being videotaped right and [14:28] that video tape then afterwards is [14:32] analyzed hundredth of a second by [14:34] hundredth of a second corresponding also [14:38] to their physiological [14:40] measures and we're analyzing all of that [14:44] tape in terms of the content of what [14:47] they're saying what their body movements [14:50] are what their facial expressions are [14:53] what emotions are they expressing how [14:55] are they expressing those emotions if [14:58] any are they responding to each other's [15:01] bids for connection we looked at so much [15:06] data and it was a gold mine it taught us [15:10] so much not only about the best way for [15:15] couples to manage conflict but even more [15:18] important how do couples create a deeper [15:21] friendship with one another and by then [15:25] we'd already known that friendship in a [15:28] relation ship also helps create more [15:31] passion and good sex in a longlasting [15:35] relationship so there was so much for us [15:38] to learn it was exciting going into that [15:41] study at the love lab what were the sort [15:44] of [15:45] big things that you discovered [15:47] afterwards that are misconceptions about [15:50] relationships so you know I can think of [15:53] a couple off the top of my head but [15:54] you'll know them better what are the big [15:56] misconceptions that you discovered from [15:58] that start with you Julie a lot of [16:00] people think that sustaining a good [16:03] relationship takes huge effort you know [16:07] takes really figuring out things like [16:11] active listening where if you say to me [16:13] Stephen you know I am really angry [16:17] because you keep leaving the lid off the [16:19] toothpaste what's the matter with you [16:22] and how do I respond to that well we [16:27] would learn that criticism for example [16:31] you always you never those are [16:33] criticisms didn't work to manage [16:36] conflict on the other hand what we also [16:39] saw is that when somebody made a little [16:43] tiny bid for connection for example [16:46] there was a big window in this apartment [16:49] looking out the window and saying oh my [16:51] God there's a beautiful bird in the tree [16:54] what does your partner do this proved to [16:58] be incred ibly important does your [17:01] partner either turn against you by [17:04] saying stop interrupting me I'm trying [17:06] to read or ignore you completely which [17:12] is silence not paying attention or look [17:16] out the window too and say huh [17:19] cool that's all it took to create a [17:24] better friendship for a couple and we [17:27] found that the couples who were [17:29] successful in the Long Haul turn towards [17:32] each other's little bits for connection [17:35] 85% of the time the couples who ended up [17:39] splitting up unhappy divorced [17:43] 33% of the time so listen to that [17:47] difference just between saying uhhuh and [17:51] saying nothing let's start there then I [17:54] am I think I am guilty of being very [17:59] very bad at responding positively to [18:02] bids for connection from my partner this [18:03] is actually one of the central issues [18:04] that we've struggled with over the last [18:06] couple of months is my partner will come [18:08] home like usually I'm coming home she's [18:10] already home just before me and I'm [18:12] still I've still got my work brain on [18:14] I'm thinking about work I rush into the [18:15] living room sometimes I'll like say [18:17] hello to her then I'll go on my laptop [18:19] and I start working and she comes over [18:21] and says something to me and because I'm [18:22] focused on my work I either acknowledge [18:26] her but without turning my head or [18:29] sometimes I'll just give one sec babee [18:31] I'm busy or say something words to that [18:33] effect right it's clearly causing a [18:35] problem I'm I'm guilty of the same [18:38] thing I was working on a on a book uh [18:41] and Julie said you know I go into the [18:44] living room and sit down and you don't [18:46] even look up and I sit there for a while [18:48] and then I get up and leave and you [18:50] haven't even noticed that I was there so [18:53] I was guilty of it too turning away and [18:56] we worked on it we did work on it the [18:58] other thing too though with John and [19:01] I've I've learned to accept this right [19:04] over time is that John grew up in a [19:07] little teeny weeny apartment as a [19:10] refugee in New York City and it was loud [19:15] and noisy and there were a lot of people [19:17] all around so he had to develop this [19:20] incredible sense of concentration and so [19:24] when I first met you it was so funny [19:26] John um I would be across the kitchen [19:30] counter from John he would be reading a [19:34] book he wouldn't even be on his computer [19:36] be reading a book and I would say [19:38] John uh [19:41] John hey John and I would wave my hand [19:46] and finally he would say oh yeah I [19:49] really didn't hear it he didn't hear it [19:52] I mean literally and I had [19:54] to understand that with that kind of [19:57] concentration he really didn't hear me [20:00] how did it make you feel how did it make [20:02] me feel at first it made me feel [20:06] invisible [20:08] unimportant um [20:10] unloved rejected alone you know it made [20:14] me feel all kinds of stuff until I [20:16] understood wait a minute there's [20:18] something in his [20:20] brain that's very different than my [20:23] brain because I'm always you know I have [20:26] no skin I'm like super aware of [20:28] everything around me okay so John give [20:30] me some advice then from your studies in [20:33] the love lab if my partner makes a bid [20:35] for connection yeah what are the ways [20:38] that people typically respond and how [20:39] should I respond when you looked at the [20:42] couples that were most successful over [20:43] the long term um how do they respond how [20:46] should I respond give me some advice [20:48] yeah I think I I think the really great [20:51] relationships have this motto that when [20:54] their partner is upset you just stop [20:57] everything you're doing and listen and I [21:00] I keep a notebook in my back pocket just [21:02] for that purpose so if Julie says we [21:05] need to talk I whip out my notebook my [21:09] pen and I say okay I'm taking notes so [21:12] I'm ready to listen to her and you know [21:15] it's true that sometimes I'm oblivious [21:17] to what's going on around me but you [21:20] know I I become much more aware so when [21:23] she comes into the living room now I I [21:26] stop what I'm doing close the computer [21:28] and say how you doing what's on your [21:31] mind my my issue is with that is I work [21:35] in the living room sometimes so what's [21:37] the balance between me being able to [21:39] work in the living room or work in like [21:41] a public home space without being [21:43] interrupted while also not rejecting my [21:46] partner accidentally or you know lowkey [21:48] intentionally I I think the solution is [21:50] to create a ritual around connection you [21:53] know so if she if she really needs to [21:56] talk to you she can you know give you a [21:59] signal that it's important for her to [22:01] connect with you and then it's not [22:03] always happening you know it's just [22:05] happening when it's important and [22:07] Julie's like that too so she'll you know [22:10] she'll come in and she won't sit there [22:12] and and just wait for me to respond [22:14] she'll actually go we need to talk and [22:17] then I know I get my notebook out but [22:19] let me point out something though honey [22:21] you're you're talking only about you [22:23] know if I'm upset about something so I [22:27] have to work in the living room also of [22:29] our house um or John may be working in [22:33] the living room and if he's working on [22:37] something and I want his [22:39] attention I may ask him can I have your [22:43] attention for a moment so I need to say [22:47] what I need to him and if it's something [22:52] that's trivial and he says just a minute [22:54] you know I'm working on an email or [22:56] whatever okay that's fine you know our [22:59] timing is not going to be identical he's [23:02] not going to be available necessarily [23:05] all the time I want to talk to him I [23:07] won't be either right and so we try to [23:13] inquire of one another is this a good [23:16] time for us to talk and there's [23:18] sometimes when it's not a good time for [23:19] you to talk John of course right of [23:22] course that's where I think I've [23:23] struggled because sometimes I feel like [23:25] this is not a good time to talk and I [23:27] express that and I think maybe the way [23:28] that I'm expressing it isn't soft enough [23:31] maybe I'm you know let me give you one [23:34] of my favorite things to say okay which [23:37] is honey I would really love to listen [23:40] to you right now but I really am feeling [23:43] pressured to finish this so can you just [23:47] wait however amount of time you know 30 [23:50] minutes or an hour and then I'll be able [23:53] to give you my full [23:55] attention see that I want to listen to [23:59] you that's the key phrase that tells [24:03] your partner I value you I love you but [24:09] there's pressure on me right now too so [24:13] please be understanding and I'll be [24:15] there for you as soon as I can be you [24:17] know in the in the love lab when you saw [24:19] these couples who were missing bids for [24:22] connection so for the example you gave [24:24] Julie of someone looking out the window [24:26] and saying babe come and look at this [24:27] and then the other person either ignores [24:29] it or kind of dismisses it was that [24:31] individual who dismissed it or ignored [24:32] it John were they doing that [24:35] intentionally did they was it a buildup [24:37] of something that's caused them to sort [24:39] of passively reject the person or was it [24:41] they were just oblivious yeah it's [24:43] really hard to know I mean the one thing [24:46] I can tell you was the person who got [24:48] turned away from kind of crumples a [24:51] little bit so regardless of the reason [24:54] for the turning away if it's really [24:57] habitual [24:58] that person making a bid really gets [25:01] hurt by the turning away [25:04] and and that I think leads people to [25:07] stop [25:08] bidding you know to think you know [25:11] what's the point and then what happens [25:13] well then they they just create this [25:15] emotional distance yeah uh and put up [25:18] walls and then what happens and then [25:21] what happens is that they become lonely [25:24] and then what happens quite often an [25:26] fair oh they cheat or okay yeah [25:29] eventually and it all starts with [25:32] missing a bid for connection potentially [25:33] and that becoming a habit many of them [25:36] yeah yeah you know I I like to use the [25:38] metaphor of a sea anemon you know what [25:42] that's like right it's a little sea [25:44] creature in a tile pool that that has [25:46] all these little fingers all these [25:48] little fingers so it may be relaxing [25:51] those fingers and opening up and [25:54] revealing its [25:56] underbelly but when somebody refuses a [26:01] bid for connection it's as if that [26:03] little C anomy has been poked right in [26:07] the stomach and so all the fingers close [26:10] up and shut down and lock down and it [26:14] takes a much longer time for that anemon [26:19] to unfold its fingers again and be open [26:23] yeah it's not safe mhm did you ever find [26:26] and I think this is something that I've [26:27] talked about before on my relationship [26:29] that sometimes when I miss a bid for [26:31] connection it increases the amounts of [26:33] bids for connection because I think I'm [26:37] guessing that I'm a bit of an avoidant [26:40] type based on my history in my childhood [26:42] she's a little bit more of an anxious [26:43] type so it seems to be the case that if [26:45] I say not now babe I'm working then the [26:48] amount of bids increase and they they [26:50] come they they start to become in my [26:53] opinion and I could be well wrong here [26:54] they they're not they're not actually [26:58] there's not actually something out the [26:59] window now it becomes more about trying [27:02] to confirm whether I it's a test right [27:04] it's a test yeah that's it feels like a [27:06] test yeah right right but also what it [27:10] is when especially when there isn't [27:12] something outside the window [27:16] is very pure and simple I need to [27:20] connect with you I need to feel that [27:24] connection sure I can imagine it I can [27:26] remember it from you know 3 hours ago [27:30] but right now I'm feeling that kind of [27:33] little stirring inside of me that need [27:36] and I want to connect with you I just [27:38] need that [27:39] connection so she's attempting to create [27:43] that what is this [27:45] attune framework John [27:49] attune awareness turning toward [27:51] tolerance understanding n defensive [27:52] empathetic what is this framework yeah [27:54] Attunement is really uh you know it's [27:57] like two Musical instruments that really [27:59] are tuned to one another and when one [28:02] plays the other resonates so uh creating [28:06] rituals of connection you know like we [28:09] have a ritual every morning you know [28:10] where you know I'll say I'll ask Julie [28:13] you know what's on your play today what [28:15] you know what's your day look like and [28:17] she'll say what what does your day look [28:18] like so we kind of check in with with [28:20] each other and then at dinner we have [28:22] another ritual connection and you know [28:25] how was your day you know what what [28:26] happened how did that how did that [28:29] session go and we kind of keep in touch [28:31] with each other with these structured [28:34] ways of attuning and in that way you [28:38] don't lose touch you don't make [28:40] assumptions you know we ask each other [28:42] questions like what can I do this week [28:44] to make you feel loved and you know when [28:47] you have that kind of ritual then you [28:50] know you know you're connecting and um [28:54] and you're like those two instruments [28:56] that are tuned to each other may I add a [28:58] little to that um empathy is super super [29:03] important and I I honestly believe that [29:06] empathy is probably the most powerful [29:10] tool we have to really create connection [29:13] with one another so if our partner is [29:17] saying to us I'm really upset right now [29:21] I'm really angry that I'm doing all the [29:26] housework can you attune to that can you [29:30] say first of all tell me more what what [29:34] is making that a burden for you so [29:36] you're pulling information out and then [29:40] your partner might be saying well you [29:42] know it's like the second shift for me [29:44] I'm at work all day and then I have to [29:46] come home and clean the house Etc so I [29:49] want to share that with you okay can you [29:53] empathize with her can you say ah no [29:56] wonder you're probably pretty tired when [29:58] you come home right so you really do [30:01] need my support is that what you're [30:03] trying to tell me mhm that's the [30:06] Attunement you see I was going to say [30:08] it's quite difficult isn't it because it [30:09] often sounds like blame here's the [30:12] difference there's a big difference and [30:15] this is what we saw in the lab also it [30:18] is blame when there's a lot of you in [30:23] what your partner is saying for example [30:26] you never clean up the kitchen you are [30:30] too lazy to do any housework at the end [30:33] of the day what about me you know Etc so [30:37] with that kind of blaming and criticism [30:41] nobody nobody is going to feel like oh [30:44] you're absolutely right you're really [30:47] mad at me because I've been a schmuck [30:49] and I haven't been helping you with the [30:51] housework and that's what you're telling [30:53] me no what people have to do when [30:57] they're unhappy about something is [30:59] describe [31:01] themselves I'm [31:03] upset that what's the situation describe [31:07] the situation I'm upset that the kitchen [31:10] is a mess okay that the kitchen is a [31:14] mess is a situation it's not saying [31:16] you're a bad person you see and then [31:20] step three they need to say what their [31:23] positive need is which means how can [31:27] your partner Shine for you don't tell [31:30] them what they they're not doing right [31:33] or what you resent flip that on its head [31:37] and say I would love it if you would [31:40] help me tonight with the dishes my [31:43] partner did that yesterday actually she [31:45] um and I I noticed that she did it so [31:48] basically she's in Costa Rica right now [31:49] doing a retreat and she sent me a text [31:51] saying babe I love it when you tell me [31:54] how the podcast went after you finished [31:56] recording it now there's several ways [31:59] that someone could have said that she [32:01] could have said I hate it when you don't [32:03] tell me for example that's right but she [32:06] said I love it when you tell me what [32:07] she's telling me is to do it more and it [32:10] I felt it to be really motivating that [32:13] I'll do it more so I started doing it [32:14] more I started telling her sending her [32:15] voice notes after the podcast but I've [32:17] also seen it in relationships where it's [32:18] fra framed the it's trying to get the [32:19] same outcome but it's framed in the [32:21] opposite way it's negative it's I [32:23] suddenly feel like I'm on the back foot [32:25] and I've done something wrong and I'm a [32:26] child being told off by my mother or [32:27] something right exactly and what is your [32:30] first response to that defensiveness uh [32:33] uh deny it throw it back on them exactly [32:38] yep and that's one of the predictors you [32:41] know a smaller predictor but still a [32:43] predictor of relationship [32:46] unhappiness why [32:47] does typical couple's therapy fail [32:51] John in your opinion well you know it's [32:55] not failing very much anymore there are [32:57] some very good approaches now some [32:59] behavioral approaches that are working [33:01] pretty well and emotionally focused [33:03] therapy is working much better so things [33:06] have improved um but I think typically [33:10] the reason that it fails is that the [33:12] therapist doesn't really have the proper [33:15] tools for either assessing a [33:18] relationship and most therapists don't [33:20] do any assessment when a couple comes in [33:22] they don't look for you know what are [33:25] the strengths in this relationship and [33:27] what do I not need to work on and what [33:29] are the challenges that I really need to [33:31] work on and not only don't they [33:34] typically assess but once once they [33:36] start working with a couple they don't [33:38] really have the tools as I heard with [33:40] therapy it's all about listening you [33:43] know and the stat I'm I'm citing here is [33:45] that um traditional couples therapy only [33:47] had a 35 to 50% success rate right and [33:50] you typically think of therapy like you [33:52] go there and your job is just to listen [33:54] to your partner as they tell you what's [33:56] wrong yeah why doesn't that work because [33:59] they're telling you typically what's [34:01] wrong with you and the therapist isn't [34:04] stopping them isn't saying that's [34:08] criticism that's not going to work that [34:11] is going to sabotage you getting [34:13] listened to so try this instead try [34:17] telling your partner what you feel and [34:19] what you need instead of describing your [34:22] partner and what's wrong with him I [34:24] actually saw at a conference I'm not [34:26] making this up somebody was training [34:28] therapists and this this therapist who [34:31] was doing the training played a [34:33] videotape in which a husband said to his [34:36] wife you know Sheila you're such a [34:40] you only think about yourself and the [34:42] therapist said Sheila can you summarize [34:46] and reflect back what Harry just said [34:49] and empathize with [34:51] him I [34:53] thought God you know what an idiot I [34:56] mean nobody can [34:58] empathize with insult and put Downs you [35:02] know why isn't she constraining the way [35:04] Harry's talking to Sheila not just [35:07] Sheila listening so I think a lot of [35:09] times therapists really don't know how [35:11] to use a tool they don't know what [35:14] really is appropriate what a good [35:16] relationship looks like what a good [35:18] relationship looks like I'm really Keen [35:20] to understand the principles of what [35:21] successful couples do from your research [35:24] you've highlighted a few of those things [35:25] I mean you've got the seven principles [35:27] of success marriage what are some of the [35:29] most important of those principles first [35:32] of all um we call the first principle [35:36] building love Maps you need to keep [35:39] asking your partner open-ended questions [35:42] to know who they are open-ended [35:45] questions are questions like [35:48] so what characteristic would you like to [35:52] pass down from your family to our child [35:56] or what would be your ideal way of [36:00] celebrating Ramadan or Christmas or [36:03] whatever holiday so you're asking your [36:06] partner questions with answers that have [36:09] paragraphs not a one-word answer in [36:12] order to keep in touch with who your [36:16] partner is what their values are what [36:20] their priorities are what their needs [36:22] are what their feelings are because [36:25] those change over time as you're [36:28] together turning toward we talked about [36:31] that was super important expressing [36:34] fondness and admiration is very [36:37] important so you can feel love and if [36:42] you don't tell your partner you love [36:45] them or express it with touch which is [36:47] incredibly [36:48] important then your partner may not be [36:51] all that sure that you still do love [36:54] them 5 years down the road of course [36:57] managing conflict is incredibly [36:59] important and that's where we've [37:01] probably done our most significant work [37:05] but in addition to that it's honoring [37:08] each other's [37:09] dreams dreams meaning what are your [37:12] hopes and aspirations for the future [37:14] they're not going to be compatible [37:16] they're not necessarily going to be [37:18] identical it doesn't matter can you [37:22] support your partner in realizing their [37:26] own dream and fulfilling that and [37:29] finally creating shared meaning which [37:33] means every one of us is a philosopher [37:37] we have our own ideas about what our [37:40] purpose in life is well do you tell your [37:44] partner what that is for you and you [37:47] hear that from your partner that's the [37:50] sharing that's [37:51] needed and the weightbearing walls and [37:55] trust and commitment of course so trust [37:59] builds over time and trust is [38:03] essentially answering the question will [38:05] you be there for me in all kinds of [38:08] different situations will you be there [38:11] for me when I'm sick when I'm depressed [38:14] when I want to celebrate a success when [38:17] I'm frustrated will you be there for me [38:20] and nobody will be perfectly but the [38:22] more the better so that's [38:25] trust and commit of course is are you [38:31] letting your partner know that this [38:34] relationship is your journey for life [38:37] you are here for life not for you know [38:42] the next three weeks and then you'll [38:43] think about it again why is [38:48] having expressed dreams so important [38:52] because I often think that about sort of [38:54] my relationship I think our dreams are [38:56] not the same they're very different and [38:58] sometimes I wonder and I've wondered and [39:00] I think we've both wondered in my [39:02] relationship whether that is a big big [39:04] issue if it matters but why is it so [39:07] important to express your dreams to your [39:08] partner and do do they have to be [39:10] aligned okay number one they don't have [39:12] to be aligned that's one of the big [39:15] myths of all time you have to be [39:17] compatible you have to have the same [39:19] dreams the same passions the same [39:21] interest wrong wrong wrong that's not [39:25] true in fact often times were attracted [39:27] to people who were different from us [39:30] what happens when the dreams are in [39:31] Conflict though so if one partner's [39:33] dreams is to live in Australia and the [39:34] other partner's dream is to live on on [39:36] America you know there are certain [39:39] situations where one person's dream is [39:42] the other person's Nightmare and they're [39:46] they really don't have a compromise [39:49] that's possible so the one you described [39:52] I had a couple like that where she lived [39:56] in Switzerland he lived in Uganda she [39:59] had an autistic son and that autistic [40:02] son needed desperately a very good [40:06] support system to help him cope with the [40:10] differences that he lived with every day [40:13] so she wanted to stay in Switzerland he [40:16] worked for the government in Uganda he [40:19] was making a contribution there he did [40:22] not want to move to Switzerland and she [40:25] knew she wouldn't get the support for [40:27] herself son in Uganda so they had [40:31] incompatible totally incompatible dreams [40:34] but there was no compromise here so they [40:38] ended up breaking up but they knew why [40:42] they were breaking up and it was for [40:44] good reason are some problems solvable [40:47] then and some problems not solvable yeah [40:50] it turns out 69% of all problems are not [40:53] solvable and just you know we're not [40:56] attracted to people who are like us and [41:00] then once we get together we find those [41:03] differences although initially very [41:05] Tractive pretty annoying you know so [41:08] it's really great that he's so [41:09] spontaneous but then why can't he ever [41:12] stick to a [41:14] plan you know and that becomes a source [41:16] of irritation and unless people can [41:19] really be enriched by those differences [41:22] and learn to accept the differences [41:24] they're going to be in a lot of trouble [41:25] so when we looked at over time at what [41:28] people fought about it was 69% of the [41:31] time it was the same issues and what you [41:34] you call these Perpetual problems [41:35] Perpetual problems yeah and once you [41:38] pick somebody to have a relationship [41:39] with you've automatically inherited the [41:42] problems you'll have for the next 50 [41:43] years these are problems you can't solve [41:46] really right but you can adapt to them [41:49] and laugh about them and compromise [41:51] around the edges okay so what's an [41:54] example of a Perpetual problem in your [41:55] relationship oh my my God okay so um [42:01] John first of all he's wearing you know [42:04] a a Jewish yam he thinks this is a Halo [42:07] right so you know he's [42:10] I he's always innocent okay so he calls [42:14] me obsessively compulsively neurotically [42:18] tidy and he is charmingly sloppy okay so [42:23] we have a huge [42:25] difference and so [42:27] um here's how we've coped with it [42:29] because environment is not it's just not [42:32] important for him and for me it's super [42:36] important it will disorganize my mind if [42:39] my environment is disorganized so when [42:43] things start to get to me there's too [42:44] much mess too many papers books I can't [42:47] make the bed because I'm trying to lean [42:50] over a 4ot tall pile of books and I may [42:54] break my neck if I try to make the bed [42:56] so it gets to that point and then I'll [42:59] say to him honey I really need you to [43:02] please clean up the books in the bedroom [43:05] he'll say okay then he won't do it then [43:08] I'll ask the next week I'll say honey [43:10] it's you know I'm I'm really wanting you [43:14] to clean this up please he said okay I [43:17] will but then he has to I don't know do [43:20] something else so it doesn't happen week [43:24] three I say to him [43:27] okay honey I've said this now twice I'm [43:31] starting to get annoyed he'll say oh [43:35] okay all right I'll think I I'll figure [43:39] out when I can do [43:40] it week [43:43] four we're counting down I say okay [43:47] we've crossed the threshold I'm now [43:49] Angry I really need you to clean up the [43:52] books now please and I become a pushy [43:56] Jewish Broad that's what happens and he [44:00] goes [44:02] oh and he says okay okay because I'm [44:06] bigger than he is and I had two older [44:08] brothers and I'm really good at [44:10] wrestling and stuff and so I clean it up [44:14] he cleans it up really fast it's [44:16] pristine it's beautiful I savor it then [44:20] it starts over again so how do we is [44:23] that the pathway to dealing with [44:24] Perpetual problems is you just have to [44:27] like accept them that it's going [44:30] to so here's the deal with Perpetual [44:33] problems we have a method for compromise [44:38] we call it the bagel method or maybe the [44:40] donut method depending on your culture [44:43] okay so in an inner circle you think [44:47] about or you write down what can you not [44:50] compromise on in terms of your position [44:54] your position on this issue what what [44:57] can you not it would be like giving up [44:59] the bones of your body or that core [45:02] dream you have that is so Central to [45:06] your identity that you got to hold on to [45:10] that then in an Outer Circle you write [45:13] down what you're more flexible about and [45:17] those are typically when something will [45:20] happen who will do it where it will [45:22] happen how much will it cost how long [45:24] will it last those nitty-gritty Det [45:27] details you share what you've written [45:29] down in both circles with your partner [45:33] and you look at the flexible areas [45:36] around each of your positions on the [45:38] issue and you try to reach a compromise [45:42] regarding those [45:44] flexible points of view while still [45:47] honoring each other's inner core dream [45:51] or core need but you must want to change [45:53] that about John right you must want to [45:55] change of course I want to change it but [45:58] you know what John wouldn't be John if [46:02] he was a tidy neat guy and after a time [46:07] it's just [46:09] adorable it's funny and we have such a [46:13] wonderful relationship that it's [46:15] hilarious and it's predictable you need [46:18] to talk about gridlocked Perpetual [46:20] problems that's a whole different story [46:22] that's a different story so gridlock is [46:24] when you cannot die dialogue about [46:28] something because you hold so fast to [46:32] your own position on the issue that you [46:35] really want to win this battle it's not [46:38] a matter of compromise you know you're [46:40] right you want to win and the other [46:43] person feels the same way then what you [46:47] try to talk without really listening to [46:49] one another and understanding at a much [46:53] deeper level which is part of our work [46:57] what really constitutes our partner's [47:00] position why they holding that position [47:03] so [47:04] strongly and with your understanding [47:08] comes more compassion if you don't have [47:11] that understanding if you're trying to [47:12] win you get gridlocked to the point [47:15] where every fight escalates to the [47:17] ceiling you end up yelling or you shut [47:21] down shove it under the rug but you can [47:24] feel it as you walk around the living [47:26] room this this is I mean this is one of [47:27] the big problems in relationships John [47:29] is that we often feel like our partner [47:30] is trying to change Us in ways that we [47:32] don't want to be changed that's right [47:33] and I often I've been in a relationship [47:35] before past relationship where my [47:39] partner would say things that were an [47:41] attempt to change me but in doing so she [47:46] was actually telling me that she didn't [47:47] think I was good enough right oh you see [47:50] what I'm saying sure well that's that's [47:52] the nature of gridlock conflict yeah and [47:55] and part of what what we've done is [47:58] invent six [47:59] questions that 87% of the time work to [48:02] get people out of gridlock where they [48:05] they're asking these questions about [48:07] what does this feel like what does this [48:10] conversation feel like to you what is it [48:13] that you think I'm trying to change [48:14] about you and that I don't think is good [48:17] enough tell me how that feels and what's [48:21] your ideal dream of how we should talk [48:23] about things you know and where does [48:26] that come from and you know where is it [48:28] that you feel unaccepted by me so if you [48:30] can have that conversation a lot of [48:33] times you develop the sense of [48:36] understanding and then you can [48:37] compromise about the gridlock this year [48:39] one of the recurring things I've had in [48:40] relationships is I'm very involved with [48:43] technology in my work so sometimes it's [48:46] felt in relationships that I've had that [48:48] the person is trying to take my work [48:50] away from me so because they're always [48:53] complaining that I'm on my phone or I'm [48:55] on my laptop or whatever thinking like [48:58] they they're trying to change me in a [49:00] way that I'm unwilling to change I'm not [49:02] I I love my work I want to I want that [49:04] to be a big part of my life right how [49:06] how do I go about solving for that so [49:09] and that person wants you to do away [49:12] with the technology some of the time [49:14] right that's how it feels yeah that's [49:16] how it feels okay so you need to have a [49:19] conversation where each of you [49:23] interviews the other person and asks [49:26] asks six questions let me go through [49:29] those just really quickly what are your [49:32] beliefs values and ethics that are part [49:35] of your position on this issue you know [49:37] wanting to stay with the technology do [49:39] you have some background or childhood [49:42] history that relates to your [49:44] position why is this so important to you [49:48] what do you feel about your position [49:51] here what is your ideal dream here what [49:54] do you really wish for if the world [49:56] could be just like you wanted it [49:58] regarding this issue what would it look [50:00] like and is there some life purpose or [50:03] goal in this for you that is really [50:07] important as you answer those questions [50:10] Stephen she's gaining an inside look [50:13] into what's deepest and most important [50:17] to you regarding this issue then then [50:21] you ask her the same questions exactly [50:25] the same ones to understand where she's [50:28] coming from right and what that creates [50:34] is much more understanding and [50:37] compassion for one another about why [50:40] each position is so important to that [50:43] particular [50:44] partner then you try to work on [50:48] compromise like I [50:50] described [50:51] interesting but those questions are [50:54] fundamental if you just just argue on [50:57] the surface you're not going to get [51:00] anywhere you're going to stay gridlocked [51:02] I love my work I want to do my work [51:04] period Well does she know why your work [51:07] is so important to you what life purpose [51:11] that is serving for you does she know [51:14] that way down at the core of who you are [51:18] in your research you discovered [51:19] something which has become pretty iconic [51:21] when we talk about relationships and [51:23] conflict which is this idea of the Four [51:25] Horsemen um you found that during [51:27] conflict couples who show four key [51:29] behaviors mean that an argument is [51:31] doomed and it's the worst way of arguing [51:34] I like really nothing can be gained [51:36] beyond that point John what are the four [51:38] horsemen and how was this discovered [51:41] yeah it you know Bob levenson and I uh [51:46] first looked at just the ratio of [51:48] positivity to negativity and a conflict [51:50] discussion and the first thing we [51:53] discovered was that among the Masters [51:56] that ra IO was 5 to1 or higher and among [51:59] the disaster couples it was 8 average 8 [52:02] to1 what does that mean sorry 5 to1 so [52:05] if you take the number of seconds that [52:06] they're show displaying interest [52:09] curiosity affection humor uh shared [52:13] humor validation listening to One [52:16] Another uh you know saying things like [52:19] no tell me more oh wow oh good point you [52:22] know things like that and you divide [52:25] that by the number of seconds that [52:26] they're angry upset you know [52:28] disappointed hurt critical defensive [52:32] belligerent you know all these negative [52:34] ways these hostile ways of interacting [52:37] that ratio of positivity to negativity [52:39] was 5 to one or higher among [52:42] relationships that work well during [52:44] conflict during the conflict yeah so but [52:47] the second thing we wanted to know is [52:49] well are all negatives equally corrosive [52:52] you know and the ones that were the most [52:54] corrosive really involved that person [52:57] starting off and saying you know as far [52:59] as I can tell I'm pretty much fine but [53:02] you're defective here's what's wrong [53:04] with you and they started with this [53:06] criticism that they thought was [53:08] constructive criticism you know and they [53:10] hoped their partner would respond by [53:11] saying you know God you're so insightful [53:14] you know tell me more about how I'm [53:17] failing but instead what they got was [53:19] defensiveness Counterattack or the [53:22] innocent victim posture and that was [53:25] that was the second Horsemen of the [53:27] Apocalypse the third one was contempt [53:30] and that was the worst that was the best [53:32] predictor of relationship breakup of all [53:35] that criticism from a place of [53:38] superiority I'm better than you you know [53:41] I you know I I correct your grammar even [53:44] when you're angry or you know I think [53:46] I'm more punctual and that's really [53:47] important or I'm tidier than you are or [53:51] I'm better informed than you are that [53:53] sort of snobbery that you know looking [53:57] down on their partner may I add [53:59] something go ahead with contempt also [54:02] you've got things like name calling you [54:04] know calling people bad [54:06] names sarcasm [54:09] mockery sarcasm can have a real Cutting [54:12] Edge it can be funny but then it crosses [54:15] over into hurt and the fourth Horseman [54:18] is stonewalling which was particularly a [54:21] guy thing to do 85% of the time guys [54:23] with Stonewall they just shut down and [54:26] they don't give these cues to the [54:29] speaker that they're listening they're [54:30] not nodding their heads or moving their [54:33] facial muscles or uttering these [54:35] vocalizations like oh you know not doing [54:38] that they're just kind of shut down and [54:41] look away and you know when we found [54:44] those people's physiology is really [54:47] elevated so it wasn't about whether [54:49] couples were arguing or not because we [54:50] typically think a relationship is doomed [54:52] if the couple are like screaming at each [54:54] other again it depends on your [54:55] definition [54:57] okay so screaming at each other is one [55:01] form of [55:02] argument and there are certain couples [55:05] that are volatile where both partners [55:08] are volatile they're very passionate [55:10] they're very intense they may raise [55:13] their [55:13] voices but depending on what's coming [55:16] out of their mouths is it criticism is [55:19] it contempt is it defensiveness if it's [55:23] any of those it's not going to work but [55:25] you can also scream I'm so Furious about [55:30] this still describing yourself that's [55:33] not going to be a bad thing why is it [55:36] men you said talked about stonewalling [55:38] there where you kind of shut down and [55:39] you you kind of go within yourself and [55:41] ignore why is it that men do that more [55:43] than women well what I think is that we [55:46] men are much more easily physiologically [55:50] aroused and the differences are that we [55:53] secrete phasal oppression and women [55:56] secrete oxytocin much more than [55:59] vasopressin and so for us we get once we [56:03] get physiologically aroused it takes us [56:05] a long time to calm down and most of [56:09] what we feel when we get physiologically [56:11] aroused is anger and aggression and we [56:14] want to shut our partner down we're much [56:16] more aggressive than women are and so we [56:20] shut ourselves down you know and when [56:23] you look at the dialogue that people [56:25] have in their minds when they're [56:27] stonewalling it's usually stuff like [56:29] just shut up and don't say anything you [56:32] know I you know you always make it worse [56:35] when you say something so just be quiet [56:38] endure this and that's kind of a male [56:41] response do men have more of a [56:42] physiological response to arguments are [56:45] you like the sweating palms and the [56:46] blood pressure you know through [56:49] Evolution women have been responsible [56:52] for nurturing an infant in order to do [56:55] that you have to have a milk letdown [56:59] response right through Evolution so [57:04] here's what I mean let's say you know [57:06] we're back 3,000 years right there's no [57:09] formula in a can so women are [57:12] breastfeeding their infants in order for [57:15] that breast milk to come down and in in [57:18] order to be released to the infant [57:22] oxytocin is really important oxytocin [57:26] calms you down it relaxes you if you're [57:30] very tense and uptight milk isn't going [57:33] to come down at all so women have the [57:40] physiology in which to relax more easily [57:44] men on the other hand through Evolution [57:47] have been the protectors right so if [57:50] there's a sabertooth tiger attacking a [57:53] group of people who's going to jump up [57:56] and defend against that tiger well the [57:59] men are [58:01] typically so men's bodies are really [58:05] built to stay vigilant and hypervigilant [58:10] especially for attack well that attack [58:13] doesn't have to be physical it can also [58:15] be mental emotional verbal and men will [58:20] have the same response we're talking [58:22] about flooding here aren't we the [58:23] concept talking about flooding yeah what [58:26] flooding John so flooding is really [58:29] going into fight or flight it's it's [58:32] when we start secreting cortisol and [58:34] adrenaline are two major stress hormones [58:37] and when we feel attacked when we feel [58:40] unsafe you know we start secreting these [58:42] stress hormones and there are [58:46] implications psychological implications [58:49] of being physiologically flooded you [58:51] can't take in new information you rely [58:54] on overlearned habits it's like [58:56] aggression or flight you know you you [59:00] can't listen very well you actually your [59:02] hearing is compromised your peripheral [59:04] vision is compromised you focus only on [59:08] the cues you need to survive the moment [59:11] and so it's you you don't wind up being [59:14] a very creative Problem Solver or a good [59:17] listener when you're flooded if men [59:19] flood more than women does this go to [59:21] explain why men tend to avoid arguments [59:24] more than women cuz I think that's a [59:26] stereotype at least that men are much [59:29] more avoidant in arguments I think I [59:30] mean it's a stereotype that holds true [59:32] to me I've never been sure whether it's [59:33] because we're not good at expressing our [59:35] emotions or if there's a physiological [59:38] reaction in me that's making me go 80% [59:41] of the time women are the ones bringing [59:43] up issues in a relationship now when [59:46] guys bring up the issues sometimes the [59:48] women get flooded too so it's not that [59:50] women don't get flooded you know yeah [59:53] they're a little better at self soothing [59:55] than we are are but you know during [59:58] during an argument if a woman gets [59:59] flooded she really can't listen also and [60:03] she repeats herself as well gets more [60:06] strident you know if I'm flooded then [60:10] typical advice tells me John it says [60:13] never fall asleep if you and your [60:14] partner have been arguing about [60:15] something yeah what is the best I get [60:17] flooded sometimes what is the best way [60:19] for me to deal with that if it's late at [60:22] night you should go to [60:23] sleep go to sleep angry I mean St Paul [60:26] was the one who started that and he [60:28] wasn't married you know so it's you know [60:31] it sounds like great advice but if it's [60:33] going to keep you up and you know you're [60:35] going to get a terrible night's sleep [60:38] you know shake hands and go to bed give [60:42] each other a quick kiss and go to bed [60:44] angry what did he start St Paul what did [60:47] St Paul start never go to bed wrathful I [60:51] think is what his advice was for couples [60:55] and that's wrong [60:56] yeah okay so if I if I'm in the middle [60:59] of an argument and I feel like I'm a [61:00] little bit flooded my maybe my Palms are [61:02] a little bit sweaty I should take a time [61:04] out is what you're saying Julie yeah [61:06] let's talk about that um so if you're [61:09] feeling flooded um you really need to [61:14] take a break but there's specific steps [61:17] to do that [61:19] one uh if you're flooded you say I need [61:22] to take a break you don't say you do I [61:25] need to take a break and say when you'll [61:28] come back to continue the [61:30] conversation if you do that then your [61:33] partner is not going to feel abandoned [61:35] and rejected you go apart for maybe 30 [61:39] minutes an hour however long maximum 24 [61:44] hours and you don't think about the [61:46] fight don't plan your [61:49] rebuttal because that'll keep you [61:51] flooded as long as you keep thinking [61:53] about the fight so do something s [61:56] soothing like reading a book reading a [61:59] magazine working out maybe going for a [62:02] run get on your computer get on your [62:04] computer do your email don't watch [62:07] murder mysteries that's not a good thing [62:09] to do so come back at the designated [62:13] time when hopefully your body is a lot [62:16] calmer and continue the [62:19] conversation but you know a [62:22] generally consistent result is that [62:25] women tend to be more Unhappily Married [62:28] than [62:28] men [62:30] guys often think everything's fine oh my [62:34] God so [62:36] true I actually had this conversation [62:38] with a former partner where I said and I [62:40] shouldn't have said it but I just going [62:41] to be honest I said to her in our [62:45] relationship I think if you never raised [62:46] an issue I think there'd never be an [62:48] issue because I just felt like [62:49] everything was always fine and every [62:51] week she was coming to me with a problem [62:55] and had she not come to me with that [62:56] problem I think and I might be bsing [62:59] myself here I think the relationship [63:01] would have just been great right that's [63:02] how it felt and and you know women have [63:05] have a lot more depression than men do [63:07] as well you know so I I think in a lot [63:11] of ways the world is harder for women [63:14] the world's a more dangerous place for [63:16] women for example the probability that a [63:19] woman will be physically or sexually [63:21] assaulted in her lifetime is 40% it's 9% [63:25] from men in the United States I think [63:27] it's harder to be a woman than it is to [63:30] be a man I've sometimes rebutted myself [63:32] Julie when I talk when I say what I just [63:33] said about our relationship would be [63:35] fine if she never brought issues up [63:39] because when I zoom out and I go the [63:41] issues she's brought up have they made [63:43] our relationship better and had she not [63:45] brought them up would we have drifted [63:48] and I say probably M see what I'm saying [63:50] like I feel like my partner has always [63:53] played a role in keeping our [63:54] relationship close the caretaker yeah [63:57] yes is that a real thing yeah that [64:00] totally is a real thing what we saw in [64:02] the research is that 80% of the time [64:05] women bring up the problems in a [64:08] relationship 80% you know vast majority [64:12] and I think it's because again women you [64:16] know we talked about how men are raised [64:18] in society well women are raised in [64:21] society to nurture to create connection [64:25] contion to maintain the family unit [64:29] right to create relationship and make [64:31] sure the relationship is good and solid [64:34] and secure so we were raised with [64:38] feeling that responsibility for the [64:41] relationship being good and when we [64:43] detect something isn't so good we're [64:45] going to bring it up and that's what [64:47] causes a lot of the frustration is that [64:49] we we don't realize we don't have [64:51] empathy for how the other person is [64:54] playing a role in creating whole almost [64:57] that make sense because I I understand [64:59] as I said my relationship wouldn't be as [65:01] good if my partner didn't bring up [65:03] issues but when she brings up issues I'm [65:06] like why are you bringing up issues you [65:07] know what I mean and it's that having [65:09] that empathy sure but again um is she [65:13] bringing up issues in a way that doesn't [65:16] feel blaming or [65:18] critical to be honest to her she is [65:24] she's bringing them up pretty well great [65:27] it's the way that I'm kind of [65:28] interpreting it yeah yeah I think much [65:30] of the problem well easy you know that [65:33] happens easily to all of us because you [65:36] know we've got these this baggage in our [65:39] background that has created filters in [65:42] how we hear things how we perceive [65:45] things I have a hero on one of these [65:48] videotapes there was a lawyer and this [65:51] videotape he's helping his wife identify [65:54] what in his person personality really [65:57] makes her the most angry and he's [65:59] helping her do that he's saying well is [66:01] it is it the way I talk is that it and [66:03] she says yeah it's the way you talk but [66:05] what what is it about the way you talk I [66:07] mean is it what you know do I sound what [66:09] authoritarian or yes like the King has [66:13] spoken and he says yeah well you know I [66:15] can I guess I am like that sometimes [66:18] works in the courtroom and she says well [66:20] it doesn't work with me you know and he [66:21] says well that makes sense he's my hero [66:24] he just never gets defensive he's saying [66:27] tell me more tell me more wow what a guy [66:32] Julie what do we misunderstand about [66:33] conflict because you know I've come to [66:35] believe that the key to understanding if [66:37] a relationship will be successful over [66:38] the long term is how well the the pair [66:41] resolve conflict is that right wrong [66:45] well clearly uh as we said because 69% [66:50] of all problems are Perpetual they are [66:52] not going to be solved so if you rely on [66:56] seeing problems getting solved as an [66:59] indicator of the success of the [67:00] relationship it's not going to look good [67:03] right so you know what I think what we [67:07] need to understand about [67:10] conflict that we've written about in our [67:13] last book is that if we apply the dictum [67:19] of really understanding our partner and [67:23] their point of view before before we [67:26] work on trying to resolve the problem [67:29] we're going to do much [67:30] better conflict also gets a really bad [67:34] WP you know conflict you're not supposed [67:37] to have conflicts it means if you have a [67:40] relationship with a lot of conflict that [67:42] means it's a bad relationship total myth [67:45] that is not true what we've seen is that [67:50] couples who do fight but they fight [67:53] right as we wrote about with the tools [67:57] that are [67:59] describing their own feelings and needs [68:02] rather than blaming the partner then [68:05] they're going to really understand each [68:08] other so much better as the underlying [68:12] dreams within the conflict come out the [68:15] underlying family history comes out the [68:19] life purpose comes out think about those [68:23] big questions in the heart of a [68:26] conflict that if they are understood oh [68:30] my God you know so much more about your [68:32] partner than you did before conflict how [68:36] do I become great at conflict and is [68:38] that really what I should be aiming at [68:39] should I be aiming at getting becoming a [68:41] master of conflict resolution I think so [68:44] you know it's not conflict resolution as [68:46] much as it is conflict management and my [68:49] secret is that notebook in my back [68:51] pocket you know so I get it out you know [68:54] when we have to talk about something [68:56] important and I listen to what you're [68:59] saying write it down is it in your [69:01] pocket now it's in my pocket now I'm [69:04] thinking of getting one here it is I'm [69:07] thinking of getting one yeah it's really [69:10] great you know and so like if I say to [69:12] her she's upset you know or she wants to [69:14] talk about something important you know [69:17] I'm listening I'm taking notes so you [69:18] know and as I'm writing stuff down it [69:21] calms me down and I I'm writing it down [69:24] first first I'm saying why does she keep [69:26] bringing up issues you know I didn't [69:29] want to spend my evening this way but [69:31] then I go oh that's a good point that's [69:34] that's interesting you know and I start [69:37] realizing that she makes a lot of sense [69:40] is part of that moving the issue from [69:41] your amydala to your prefrontal cortex [69:43] I.E it's moving it from your emotional [69:44] Center to your logical Center yeah yeah [69:47] I really am CU that's that when you were [69:49] saying it I was like that would be you [69:51] use the word it calms me down calms me [69:53] down that would help calm me down as [69:55] well yeah sure when you're taking notes [69:58] you know it's more an intellectual [70:00] process as opposed to an emotional [70:02] process right so it takes you out of [70:05] that emotionally getting stirred up by [70:08] what your partner is saying and into [70:10] just processing the words the language [70:14] writing it down which keeps you calm I [70:17] one time I filled up an entire yellow [70:20] pad wow she said I want to talk to you [70:23] and this I haven't talked to about this [70:26] ever and but I need you to really be [70:29] quiet and listen and I just kept writing [70:32] stuff down did he listen Julie when on [70:34] that occasion he really did it was [70:38] phenomenal and the wonderful thing that [70:40] you will discover if you take notes to [70:43] is that it it makes your partner feel [70:46] valued feel important feel like whatever [70:50] they're saying is worth noting down [70:53] right it blew my mind I had no idea she [70:56] felt that those things it's important to [70:58] you it's important to you it's so [71:01] important that you're going to take [71:02] notes on it my partner often says to me [71:05] halfway through an argument she says do [71:08] you understand what I'm [71:09] saying you know and she and I and that's [71:12] quite a curious question because I guess [71:14] they're checking to see if yeah you've [71:15] heard and understood them which clearly [71:17] is so important and that's a good way of [71:20] indicating that you do understand or at [71:22] least you're you know you're hearing and [71:24] understanding mhm then you can say well [71:26] here's what I understand and then you [71:29] know sometimes I'll do that Julie said [71:32] no that's not [71:34] it what what is it I thought I was [71:36] hearing you oh you know and oh I missed [71:39] that repair attempts you write about [71:42] repair attempts in your books what is a [71:44] repair attempt John you know here's the [71:46] interesting thing is that most people [71:49] don't repair very effectively the way an [71:52] argument starts is the way it'll go 96% [71:55] % of the time so uh I had this woman [71:58] named Nancy draus who came to my lab and [72:01] she had written a book of things you can [72:04] say when you're starting to get flooded [72:06] in an argument it was brilliant book [72:08] it's called talk to me like I'm someone [72:10] you love and it was really interesting [72:13] but she had written these things down [72:15] when she was very calm and she wrote the [72:18] book that way but we actually went to [72:20] the lab and looked at how do couples [72:22] actually repair when they try to repair [72:25] and what we found was that any thing [72:29] that you would do in a business meeting [72:31] will fail in a love relationship let's [72:34] take a look at our options and evaluate [72:37] them what are our priorities here what's [72:40] our fundamental goal let's be rational [72:43] about this let's be rational about this [72:45] let's evaluate the costs of one option [72:48] versus another [72:50] doomed and the only thing that worked [72:52] with somebody would say you know God you [72:55] know I'm sorry I I said that you know [72:58] let let me try again or they would say [73:01] you know um I'm really starting to feel [73:04] defensive could you could you say that a [73:06] gentler way and those kinds of repairs [73:09] that focused on emotion they worked and [73:11] the earlier they made them in the [73:14] conversation the more effective they [73:15] were so these are attempts to repair the [73:18] relationship or the argument from one [73:20] side of the argument jul right yes in [73:22] the middle of the conversation so if one [73:25] one person senses it's getting off track [73:28] to get it back on track they may say one [73:32] of these repair phrases but if the [73:36] repair is going to be successful the [73:38] other person has to accept the repair so [73:41] if John is saying to me hey I'm starting [73:44] to feel defensive can you say that you [73:47] know in a gentler [73:49] way I could either say no way forget it [73:53] you deserve all the criticism [73:55] which is rejecting the repair or I could [73:59] say ah you're right let me let me try [74:02] again and say it a different way that's [74:05] accepting it but there's also repair [74:09] after an argument that has felt horrible [74:13] and then how do you process and repair [74:17] that terrible communication you had [74:19] that's a whole another that's what I was [74:22] to say of course it was here [74:26] right we're telepathic yeah so that [74:28] coming back to it we have a method for [74:31] doing that a five-step method for [74:35] revisiting a really regrettable incident [74:38] that may have happened in the [74:39] relationship when you're calmer and and [74:43] that's very effective what is that fight [74:46] please give it to me yeah let me that [74:48] okay so it we actually have a little [74:51] booklet that has all this structured out [74:55] that a lot of people keep in their glove [74:57] compartment because some for some reason [75:00] arguments happen when you're going 70 M [75:02] an hour down the freeway right never [75:04] fails so pull out the book okay in the [75:07] booklet the first step is each person [75:11] addresses a list of emotions that we've [75:14] printed out and says out loud which [75:17] emotion they had during this regrettable [75:21] incident first of all and they can name [75:24] as many as they want and there are [75:25] things like hurt angry abandoned [75:28] rejected and so on secondly each person [75:32] has a chance to describe their point of [75:36] view about what happened from beginning [75:38] to end of this incident while the other [75:42] person here we go again takes [75:45] notes so at the end of the person's [75:50] narration they then summarize what they [75:52] heard that person say to make sure they [75:54] got all the good points and then says [75:57] something validating like okay from your [76:01] point of view I can see why you felt [76:03] that way the way it's narrated is [76:08] crucial it it sounds like I felt that [76:12] you were angry at me I saw this angry [76:15] look at your face I heard you say leave [76:19] me alone and get out of here I heard I [76:22] saw I felt mhm I [76:25] imagined so it's all about I it's not [76:29] saying you said this mean thing to me [76:32] which is critical all right so each [76:35] person has a chance to share their [76:38] perception that way and their partner [76:41] summarizes and validates what they heard [76:44] third people look at did I have any [76:47] feelings during this that were actual [76:50] triggers that were feelings that got [76:52] started long before this [76:55] relationship in another relationship [76:58] maybe or even at home with my caretakers [77:00] or my family if those feelings got [77:04] triggered again here and now then you [77:08] share what feeling got triggered which [77:11] we call an enduring [77:13] vulnerability and say where it may have [77:15] gotten started before this [77:17] relationship that's step three step four [77:21] you're finally taking responsibility for [77:25] what you contributed to this regrettable [77:28] incident by saying what was your state [77:30] of mind when it happened I was really [77:33] stressed I needed time alone you know [77:36] Etc and then specifically saying what [77:40] you regret saying or doing during the [77:43] incident and apologizing for it now note [77:46] how late the apology is coming you're [77:49] not aping right away because that [77:52] doesn't work you don't know what you're [77:54] apologizing for if you haven't first [77:58] heard the impact of that incident on [78:01] your partner so step four is apologizing [78:05] and then hopefully your partner accepts [78:07] your apology and finally step five is [78:10] saying one thing your partner can do [78:13] differently one thing you can do [78:15] differently to avoid something like this [78:18] from happening again then you're done [78:20] the repair attempts somewhat sounded [78:22] like I was going to say backing down but [78:25] it was more like taking an object one of [78:27] you taking an objective view on the [78:29] situation and kind of stepping outside [78:31] and saying I'm feeling like this it's [78:33] almost like you're like stepping out of [78:35] the video game grabbing the controller [78:37] versus being in the video game is that [78:39] kind of like an accurate description I [78:41] think so yeah yeah cuz sometimes that [78:43] does happen in my relationships where my [78:45] partner will almost take a meta analysis [78:47] on the situation and [78:48] go I'm not feeling this or I sorry [78:53] uh I like take a meta approach they [78:55] almost like step outside and give a [78:57] commentary and that diffuses it I don't [78:59] think you're listening to me something [79:00] like that yeah well they got to be [79:03] careful about that they have to be [79:05] careful they shouldn't be number one [79:07] analyzing you and where you're coming [79:09] from and they shouldn't be blaming [79:11] you're not listening to me shouldn't do [79:14] that but if they say I'm not feeling [79:17] listened to right now yeah let me try [79:20] again yeah that's great interesting what [79:23] about sex and Intimacy in these subjects [79:27] what have you learned about the role of [79:30] kissing in the love lab interesting yeah [79:34] I mean you know we haven't done a lot of [79:36] research on sex we we did some in that [79:39] newlywed study cuz sex had gone down [79:43] dramatically for most couples uh even [79:46] three years after the first baby was [79:48] born and so we're asking people how did [79:51] they cope how did they keep sex alive [79:53] but the biggest study done on this [79:55] question was done uh in a book that came [79:59] out called the normal bar uh Christiano [80:02] North is the first author of that and [80:06] they analyze 70,000 people in 24 [80:10] countries and try to discern what's [80:13] different about people who say they have [80:15] a great sex life and people who say they [80:17] have an awful sex life how are those two [80:19] groups of people different and they [80:21] discovered that it was the same across [80:22] the whole planet and and there are [80:25] really about a dozen things that people [80:27] do have a great sex life and saying I [80:31] love you every day and meaning it is one [80:33] of them giving [80:35] compliments uh romantic gifts having a [80:41] lot of touch cuddling so of the people [80:44] who don't cuddle only 4% of them said [80:47] they had a great sex life 96% of the [80:50] non- cuddlers had an awful sex life so [80:53] touch is very important important even [80:56] physical touch even in public affection [80:57] in public was a big thing and really you [81:01] know that kind of connection the [81:03] romantic date you know the Romantic [81:06] vacation that's what they did so nothing [81:09] involved kissing or what happened in the [81:12] bedroom so none of that is there but [81:15] there has been research on just kissing [81:18] and it turns out that not every culture [81:21] do humans kiss but in the ones they do [81:24] kiss is very powerful very erotic for [81:26] most most couples and it's a nice [81:29] Gateway into eroticism I found this [81:33] really interesting study um in your work [81:35] where it said a 10-year German study [81:37] that found that right said again you can [81:39] repeat the study better than I can men [81:41] who kiss their wives goodbye when they [81:43] leave for work live something like four [81:46] years longer than men who don't so and [81:49] that's a Priory kiss you know don't [81:51] forget Sten they're getting mured being [81:55] muted but the sixc kiss which we [81:59] recommend has much more potential than [82:01] that pick on the she cheek what is the [82:03] sixc kiss a kiss that lasts at least six [82:06] seconds why not five or four because uh [82:10] oxytocin gets secreted with a 20 second [82:13] hug or a 6C kiss you're both secreting [82:17] oxytocin and that creates a sense of [82:20] psychological safety and connection and [82:23] bonding and bonding what what do you [82:25] think about the subject of um sex Julie [82:28] and you know how important it is for a [82:30] relationship how much should we be [82:32] having sex does it really matter is it a [82:34] predictor of long-term success in [82:35] marriage great questions um that my [82:38] clients ask me a lot and there's huge [82:42] variability in sexual preference some [82:46] couples actually don't want to have sex [82:49] at all both people don't want to have [82:52] sex they'd rather have kind of a sibling [82:54] relationship ship almost if they're both [82:56] content with that then they can have a [82:59] very successful relationship some [83:02] couples really want to have sex a lot [83:05] you know all the time and it's a really [83:08] important component of the [83:10] relationship uh and everything in [83:13] between when you run into trouble is the [83:17] following and I've seen this so many [83:19] times the men who I guess I would say [83:23] are hyper master Uline they think that [83:27] cuddling is too infantile so they don't [83:31] want to cuddle and the only way they can [83:35] accept physical contact which they [83:37] desperately need is through sex period [83:41] penetrative sex penetrative sex that's [83:44] right and the woman has 17 children [83:48] she's trying to make dinner you know [83:50] she's [83:51] exhausted um she may not want to have [83:53] sex near nearly as much as he does so he [83:56] begins to feel deprived of touch but [84:00] instead of complaining about that he [84:02] says we're not having enough [84:04] sex and she says I'm not getting enough [84:08] affection and there you have you know [84:11] some conflict that has to get sorted out [84:15] it's like they're speaking two different [84:16] languages of intimacy you what I mean [84:19] basically in a sense they are they are [84:22] though typically the in these [84:26] relationships really basically need [84:29] touch and can they accept cuddling as [84:33] something that's just as masculine as [84:36] penetrative sex [84:39] well if they really think about it and [84:41] if they experience it then yeah you C [84:44] they can then things really will tend to [84:47] improve the research there John is [84:49] suggesting though as you said that life [84:51] is foreplay because if like the the [84:55] kissing on the way out the door and the [84:56] touching my partner's back and the [84:58] cuddle leads to a better sex life then [85:01] we should see life public displays of [85:03] affection all that kind of thing as an [85:05] investment in what happens tonight in [85:07] the bedroom right I think that's really [85:09] true every positive thing you do in a [85:12] relationship is foreplay and the couples [85:15] who a lot of times the couples who stop [85:17] having sex have also shut down high [85:20] conflict couples of stuff having sex [85:23] have shut down [85:24] other things other sensual parts of [85:27] their lives as well you know they're not [85:29] having much fun and you know 80% of the [85:33] 40,000 couples we studied said that fun [85:37] had come to die in the relationship [85:39] there was much play there wasn't much [85:41] Adventure it wasn't just sex everything [85:44] shut down all the things that were [85:46] really delightful you know exploring new [85:49] kinds of Cuisine you know traveling [85:53] uh playing games together you know [85:56] playing sports together how do we stop [85:58] that happening though you know because [85:59] I've often wondered people often said to [86:02] me that eroticism and attraction is [86:06] about novelty and spontaneousness and [86:08] doing all that kind of thing and then [86:10] they've said that love is about [86:12] familiarity and you know Comfort which [86:15] are these are two opposite things let me [86:18] answer that the person who said that [86:21] it's all about spontaneity and mystery [86:24] at so on has never done any research the [86:29] research shows that the [86:33] familiarity the emotional connection [86:37] really knowing your partner creates in [86:40] the long run much more passion what much [86:44] better sex actually than maintaining [86:50] mystery but not really connecting to one [86:54] another the way people need to there's a [86:57] wonderful book by Emily ngosi called [86:59] come as you are that reviews This [87:01] research and it shows that first of all [87:05] women have more prerequisites for [87:07] eroticism than men do Jeffy Chase once [87:10] said women need a reason for sex men [87:12] need a place that's all so you know but [87:16] it's true [87:18] men men don't need to feel safe to feel [87:23] sexual women do women need to feel [87:26] psychologically safe and that means [87:29] emotional connection it also means there [87:32] can't be a long to-do list of things [87:34] that they have to get done that's been [87:36] neglected the dog's been taken out you [87:39] know and has done his business and all [87:42] of that and then the situation feels [87:44] erotic to a woman and she's receptive [87:48] let me point out something in addition [87:50] to that that most men don't know at [87:53] least in the United States one out of [87:57] four women have been sexually molested [88:01] or sexually assaulted by the age of [88:05] 18 and that's only the women who report [88:08] it it's probably one out of three maybe [88:13] 40% including the ones who haven't [88:17] reported it so when women have that [88:22] history not not to mention thousands of [88:26] years in their bones of being seen only [88:29] as sex objects and being raped you know [88:32] every other [88:33] day you get to understand why women need [88:38] safety much more so than men yeah we [88:42] wrote a book called The Man's Guide to [88:44] women to convey all of these bits of [88:47] information that have been researched so [88:51] familiarity is the basis for AIC [88:55] not for the absence of a rism that's a [88:58] myth so I've heard a lot about [88:59] epigenetics recently which is this idea [89:01] that trauma can be passed on from one [89:04] one generation to the next and with that [89:06] in mind if women have been sort of sex [89:08] objects throughout history and have been [89:10] raped and those kinds of things it's [89:12] understandable that as you say Julie [89:13] that they have like an inbuilt need for [89:16] safety that men might not understand in [89:17] the same way exactly which what what [89:20] does that say for to a man what advice [89:22] do you then give to a man is is the [89:23] advice you have to make your partner [89:25] feel safe for them to be aroused or to [89:28] okay yes what else was in that book by [89:29] the way it's quite an interesting book I [89:30] feel like I need to read it yeah it's [89:32] well you know it's really that awareness [89:34] of emotional connection and [89:36] psychological safety being so important [89:38] to women and also realizing that men who [89:42] do housework get a lot more [89:46] sex is that something Julie told you or [89:48] is that no that is it's actually an [89:51] empirical result yeah but specifically [89:54] honey they have to do the vacuum in yeah [89:56] and get the books off the [89:59] bed interesting okay are you seeing a [90:02] difference in our relationship with sex [90:05] um as the world is changing because [90:08] there's some stats that suggest we're [90:09] getting more and more sexless as a as a [90:12] society have you seen any changes in [90:15] your 50 years studying love towards [90:17] attitudes about sex or you know gender [90:19] roles have changed in that time as well [90:21] in society so you know I wouldn't say [90:24] it's sexless but I would say it's [90:27] Loveless more Loveless in the sense uh [90:31] you know again I don't know what it's [90:32] like in England or in other countries so [90:35] much but in the United States the hookup [90:38] culture is a is you know alive and [90:40] thriving there's so many websites in [90:44] which um men and men women and women men [90:48] and women are just hooking up meaning [90:52] meeting up for the first time having sex [90:56] and departing the end is that a [90:59] problem yes you know why because in that [91:04] kind of sex there's no emotional [91:07] connection zero and I've heard this from [91:11] both men and women actually that when [91:15] they leave they feel more empty than [91:19] before they started having that sex what [91:22] do you think that is no emotional [91:23] connection it's impersonal sex they [91:27] don't know who they're having sex with [91:30] so you know it's almost like [91:32] masturbating practically so you know [91:36] there's a lot of couples who are doing [91:38] that but they're they're not committing [91:43] in long-term relationships as much as [91:47] they used to and I think there's several [91:51] factors involved in that one is they've [91:53] seen their parents divorce so they don't [91:56] believe in marriage or commitment as an [91:59] institution that they should live [92:02] to um secondly women have come into the [92:07] workforce again in the last 50 years and [92:11] career is equally important to many [92:15] women as it is to [92:17] Men on that point do you see issues with [92:20] women becoming more successful in that [92:22] emasculating men to some degree because [92:26] I read about a study that um said [92:29] there's an expectation in society for [92:32] men to provide more at home financially [92:35] and then a separate study showed that um [92:38] women and it women's sort of equality [92:41] with men in terms of their pay and [92:43] education has is getting closer and then [92:47] the third study says that men can feel [92:52] emasculated in the presence of a smarter [92:55] more successful women and they find it [92:56] less attractive so if you put all this [92:58] together and you go okay women are [92:59] getting richer and more intelligent um [93:01] men are emasculated by that but men [93:03] still have this ex social expectation [93:05] that they'll pay the bill in that [93:07] framework you go Jesus Christ this is [93:08] going to be difficult [93:10] for you know and you can look at it [93:12] another way and say there's less of a [93:14] pool for women who typically want to [93:17] date men that have a certain level of [93:18] education and a certain level of money [93:20] the pool is smaller than ever before so [93:22] is this you know this some of the issues [93:24] of the the mo some of the challenges of [93:26] the modern world you're right yeah [93:28] you're absolutely right about that the [93:31] roles are really changing and um you [93:36] know I remember this feeling myself [93:38] actually as I built my career and John [93:41] and I were together and I kept thinking [93:44] no no no I should be a housewife I [93:46] should just be a mom I should just be [93:48] taking care of the home I shouldn't be [93:51] devoting all this time to my career but [93:53] I love my career I want to work and so [93:56] there would be this turmoil inside about [94:00] who should I be and I think men are [94:02] feeling that too for example as I said [94:06] earlier men are really wanting to be [94:08] fathers more but how can you be an [94:11] involved father when you're working like [94:14] crazy extra overtime to make more money [94:17] right it's impossible also those old [94:22] myths have a hard time falling away that [94:26] men who make more money have more status [94:30] have more value as human beings are [94:33] better Partners that's so more male are [94:36] more male are more masculine it's so not [94:39] true another thing to keep in mind is [94:43] that women used to make 79 cents for [94:47] every [94:48] dollar that men made now they make 81 [94:53] cents for every dollar you think that's [94:56] a big change it is not so women are [95:00] still fighting for equality in terms of [95:06] career opportunities work opportunities [95:09] and so on and valuing their [95:13] career [95:16] men sometimes you know are struggling [95:19] who should I be now I used to be the [95:22] provider who should I be well that's [95:25] what we've learned right cuz we come [95:26] from a generation where like my father [95:28] might have been the provider and my [95:29] granddad was the provider so I've [95:31] modeled that and said well for me to be [95:33] a man like my father and I need to be [95:35] able to do this but that's right that's [95:37] right it's a good thing that we're [95:38] getting closer to equality of course and [95:40] I know the pay Gap is still there's [95:42] still a distance there between men and [95:43] women but it it kind of you can see [95:46] there being some kind of challenge for [95:49] men who now don't know their role but [95:52] Society still has an expectation that [95:54] they'll pick up the bill you bet it's a [95:57] difficult conundrum isn't it but it's [95:58] well it's really hard on men you know I [96:01] think men in many ways are having as [96:04] hard if not harder time now in figuring [96:09] out what their role is and who they want [96:12] to be compared with women I mean our [96:15] fight started earlier Right started in [96:18] the 70s with women's Liberation and Men [96:22] kind of sat back and went what what's [96:24] happening I think I think men are [96:26] discovering the importance of [96:28] relationships you know uh we typically [96:31] have had worse emotional support systems [96:34] you know uh many men don't don't have a [96:37] best friend don't have close friends and [96:40] their only con really close connection [96:43] is with the woman that they live with [96:46] and or married to and so I think men are [96:48] discovering how important social [96:51] connection is in their lives compareed [96:54] to achievement you know I mean there's [96:56] this lie that [96:58] got sold to women that if they really [97:01] are the caretakers of relationships [97:04] they'll be happy the lie to men is if [97:07] you are successful in your career you'll [97:09] be happy neither neither lie is really [97:13] useful because both men and women need [97:16] close connections they need we need [97:18] friends we need you know there's an [97:20] epidemic of loneliness you know in the [97:23] world right now and that's a killer we [97:26] really need to reach out more not only [97:29] to make good friends but also reach out [97:32] to strangers create community and that [97:36] needs to change you know what's really [97:38] interesting I mean just think about it [97:41] if you go on the internet and you look [97:44] at what women are looking for in a [97:47] partner what's the first word they say [97:51] they don't say rich they don't say [97:55] highly successful great [97:58] achievements typically they say [98:01] sensitive right sensitive emotionally [98:05] aware [98:08] caring so hopefully men can absorb that [98:14] is that it's interesting because they do [98:17] say that yeah and then they also say [98:20] strong and they say um can protect me [98:24] and and again it feels like a pole [98:26] because on one end it appears that that [98:28] sort of sensitive emotional openness at [98:31] somewhat sensing contrast to like [98:35] the it's like how do I very well you [98:38] have a very lucky part those people [98:41] probably listening don't even know what [98:42] I did but I was just flexing my guns it [98:43] was the gun show so like you see what [98:45] I'm saying it feels like a contradiction [98:46] it's like how you be the this and this [98:49] the testosterone filled beasts that's [98:50] going to save the day and then the true [98:53] but keep in mind that being strong [98:57] doesn't mean being [99:00] unemotional sometimes it takes more [99:02] strength and courage to voice emotion [99:06] than it does to shut them down and what [99:10] they're talking about you know let's not [99:12] forget that women are still getting [99:14] raped still getting assaulted still [99:17] getting attacked everywhere still [99:20] getting murdered right so they want a [99:24] man allegedly who can physically protect [99:28] them for sure that would feel great [99:31] because women still feel [99:35] unsafe [99:36] however that doesn't necessarily [99:39] correlate with being [99:40] unemotional I guess the contradiction [99:42] goes both ways because men also want a [99:44] woman that is you know compassionate and [99:47] soft but they also wanted to just be [99:49] like to not not be emotional and not [99:51] keep that so it's like a contradiction [99:52] both ways yeah yeah yeah we want [99:54] everything right all at once and that's [99:57] part of the problem just closing off on [99:59] this point about sex cuz I had one last [100:00] question which is does the research show [100:02] that couples that have the best sex life [100:04] talk about it the most yes I had this [100:07] debate with my friend and I was [100:07] wondering yes no question coupl who talk [100:10] about it have a better sex life and how [100:12] should they be talking about it give me [100:14] some advice on how to talk about sex [100:15] with my partner you need to talk about [100:17] it in a way that is uh accepting and [100:20] loving you know so you talk about what's [100:22] really great in the relationship what [100:24] you've enjoyed what you love about your [100:27] partner what you find sexy about your [100:29] partner what you wish for more of you [100:32] know and right we have we created what [100:36] we call got [100:38] sex it's isn't that a I we didn't think [100:41] of the title I promise so it's it's a [100:44] kit that includes seven different uh [100:49] structured conversations to have with [100:51] your partner about sex [100:53] that have to do with what do you prefer [100:58] specifically uh how would you like sex [101:01] to be initiated when would you like it [101:03] initiated how can we refuse sex without [101:06] massacring each other's [101:08] egos how should sex be completed Etc so [101:14] the couples who talk much more openly [101:16] and more comfortably about that do much [101:19] better sexually and for love Maps we [101:22] have 100 questions you can ask a man [101:25] about his erotic world and 100 questions [101:27] you can ask a woman about her erotic [101:30] world and they're not the same questions [101:32] men and women h of well just people [101:33] generally even in sort of homosexual [101:35] relationships and heterosexual [101:36] relationships have very different [101:38] fantasies yeah often linked to their [101:40] trauma where wherever they come from [101:41] whatever what happens in a relationship [101:43] when one partner isn't willing to do the [101:47] fantasy that the other partner is really [101:49] craving how how does one navigate that [101:52] well couple of ways one is the person [101:55] who's not willing to do it can maybe [101:59] describe it verbally because couples who [102:03] talk more during sex actually have [102:07] better sexual relationships too so if [102:11] the partner who doesn't want to do what [102:13] the other wants at least describes it [102:17] verbally Whispering it in some kind of [102:19] really cool tone well the guy can get [102:23] off on that or the woman can get off on [102:26] that right I'm imagining you're a [102:28] cheerleader right now and I'm the [102:31] football [102:32] player and I'm 6'4 not 5 foot s for all [102:37] the businesses and entrepreneurs out [102:39] there listening if I asked you which [102:40] platform you think gives you the highest [102:42] return for your paid ads what do you [102:44] think you'd say the answer might [102:46] surprise you and that is LinkedIn ads [102:48] who I'm happy to say are now a sponsor [102:50] of this podcast reaching the right [102:52] customers and clients can be complex and [102:54] trust me I know all about the struggles [102:56] of doing that LinkedIn ads makes the [102:58] process super easy and empowers [103:00] marketeers with solutions that fit you [103:03] your business needs and your customers [103:04] you'll be able to drive results with [103:06] targeting and measurement tools built [103:08] specifically for businesso business [103:10] marketing in fact 79% of B2B content [103:13] marketers said that LinkedIn produces [103:15] the best results for paid media and [103:17] that's because you'll have direct access [103:19] to a billion members 70 million decision [103:22] makers and 10 million C Level Executives [103:25] I highly recommend you check it out I'm [103:27] giving the doac community a $100 credit [103:29] for your first LinkedIn campaign just [103:32] head to linkedin.com [103:33] doac 24 to get started right now let's [103:38] talk about Zoe who you may know because [103:41] they're a sponsor of this podcast and [103:42] I'm an investor in the company you guys [103:44] know health is my number one priority [103:46] Zoe's growth story has been absolutely [103:48] incredible so far they're doing science [103:50] at a scale that I've never seen before [103:52] because of their members and recent [103:54] breakthroughs and research they can now [103:56] continue to offer the most [103:57] scientifically Advanced gut health test [103:59] on the market previously the test [104:02] allowed them to analyze 30 bacteria [104:04] types in your gut but now thanks to new [104:07] science they've identified 100 bacteria [104:10] types this is a huge step forward and [104:12] there's nothing else that's available [104:14] even close to it on the market at all so [104:17] to find out more and to get started on [104:18] your Zoe Journey visit zoe.com [104:21] stepen you can use my exclusive code [104:25] ceo1 for 10% off don't tell anybody [104:28] about that okay just for you guys the [104:30] love lab Research indicates that [104:31] betrayal lies at the heart of every [104:33] failed relationship this was in your [104:36] book the seven principles of of making [104:38] marriage work betrayal there are a lot [104:41] of ways to really betray a partner in a [104:45] relationship I mean you know cheating is [104:47] one way but any kind of betrayal is [104:51] something that needs to be healed in a [104:53] relationship for example if you've uh [104:56] teamed up with somebody in your family [104:58] against your partner uh at some point [105:01] that may feel like a betrayal um you [105:03] know and it doesn't have to be sexual [105:05] but it's something that needs to be [105:07] healed because trust and commitment are [105:09] so important as the Bedrock of every [105:12] relationship if I was to say tell me the [105:16] exact you know in your love lab two c a [105:18] couple walk in and they they're there [105:20] for 24 hours in your love lab and you're [105:22] studying them can you [105:24] roleplay the behavior that a couple who [105:27] are destined to fail would exhibit oh [105:32] yes how many ways can we do that okay [105:36] God these crossover puals are really [105:39] hard [105:41] H you know I'm really sick and tired of [105:46] you always paying attention to your [105:48] stupid crossw word puzzles they're just [105:51] they're such a waste of time I don't [105:53] know why you do that it's it's just [105:57] stupid yeah well I I I think they're too [106:00] challenging for you [106:01] intellectually that's why you avoid them [106:04] what are you talking about I could do [106:05] that with almost my eyes CL I never see [106:08] you do crossover puzzle because it's [106:09] stupid activity why would I want to do [106:11] it I think I think you're avoiding it [106:14] because you're avoiding challenges in [106:15] your life you do that in every phase of [106:18] your life avoid challenges you always [106:21] take the easy Road you think that [106:23] marrying you was the easy Road are you [106:27] kidding okay so that's kind of what it [106:30] looks [106:31] like I've seen that before have [106:35] you so have we what's the opposite then [106:38] using the cross word example again if [106:40] you role playay the opposite scenario [106:42] okay boy some of these Challenger cross [106:46] puzzles are really [106:48] hard really yeah oh did you find [106:51] something really hard in one you're [106:53] doing now yeah it's like you have to [106:54] know the names of these dinosaurs I've [106:58] never heard of in order to complete the [107:00] puzzle oh my God that sounds impossible [107:02] I know yeah it really does yikes yeah [107:05] what are you working on right now that's [107:06] so hard well I you know I'm trying to do [107:10] these seduko things oh no I'm having a [107:12] lot of trouble with those oh those are [107:14] impossible for me oh my God yeah I like [107:17] that you really love challenges good [107:20] luck with that I don't think I'll be [107:21] able to help you okay all right okay so [107:25] it kind of looks like that and what what [107:27] are the like fundamental differences [107:28] like CU is something being deposited in [107:31] that first example that's going to be [107:32] Insidious and and to result in the [107:34] relationship falling down think of the [107:36] word stupid I used it three times put [107:41] down criticism [107:43] contemptuous how does he respond [107:46] counterattacks you're not smart enough [107:48] to do these defensiveness these are like [107:51] personality attacks straight from the J [107:54] exactly exactly and how does that lead [107:57] to divorce how does it feel when [108:01] somebody looks down on us is disgusted [108:04] by us does think we're stupid do we want [108:09] to be close to that person M do we want [108:11] to have sex with that person mm do we [108:14] trust that person no we do not we pull [108:18] away from them it can be much more [108:20] subtle as well than you demonstrated [108:22] there what like the subtlest ways that [108:24] that contentment can show up in a in a [108:26] conversation so you wouldn't you know I [108:29] I've asked you to do the dishes you [108:31] wouldn't really think of getting your [108:33] hands wet to do the dishes would you so [108:36] that's I really hate getting my hands [108:38] wet okay so that was a little bit of [108:40] sarcastic it was sarcastic but getting [108:43] your hands wet I mean it's it's [108:46] like it's contempt again what would what [108:50] advice would you give to me then I'm 31 [108:52] years old I'm four years into my [108:54] relationship you're what 36 years into [108:55] your marriage 37 37 years into your [108:58] marriage what advice would you give to [109:00] me to make sure that I get 37 years deep [109:03] you know you've given me lots of advice [109:04] today about how to argue and how to [109:06] resolve conflict get this get this [109:08] notebook I'm going to get a notebook I'm [109:10] to get I'm going to carry around a [109:11] notebook and the minute we have an [109:13] argument I'm going to start taking notes [109:14] yeah that's my solution you know and do [109:18] you do you know her dreams this is a [109:20] really good question CU I think I know [109:23] her dreams but I've never really asked [109:25] directly oh which I probably should have [109:29] according to Julie's eyes yeah you might [109:30] be surprised by the answer yes sir and [109:33] does she know yours and why they're so [109:37] important to you beyond just yeah it's [109:40] fascinating I'm not even sure I know [109:42] mine which is a bit of an issue wonder [109:45] how does it relate to you being from [109:49] bwana yeah it's it's an interesting [109:51] thing because I think some sometimes [109:53] we're scared of voicing our dreams [109:54] because we think it might result in [109:57] figuring out that they're unaligned like [109:59] I think if I asked her what her dreams [110:01] were she's she's very ambitious she [110:03] wants to start a family think she wants [110:04] to live in the the sun somewhere my [110:07] dreams are probably more focused on I [110:10] want to start a family 2 but I want to I [110:12] love doing this podcast there's only a [110:14] couple of cities in the world where I [110:15] can do it um and there's only one city [110:19] in the world where I think I can do this [110:20] podcast and it's sunny and that's here [110:23] oh and she might not like being here but [110:25] for a variety of reasons so it's like [110:28] and then you when you have kids you [110:29] realize that you can't just fly around [110:30] like I do now I have we have to be [110:32] together and present and raise the kids [110:34] so I don't know in my head I've just [110:36] thought cross that bridge when we come [110:37] to it is that a good way to deal with [110:39] life [110:41] no well it's not a bad way it's not a [110:44] bad way you know it it depends on uh [110:48] your timing uh but the book we wrote [110:50] eight dates uh which gives you [110:54] conversations to have that are really [110:56] really important as you are establishing [111:00] a long-term relationship or if you're [111:03] already in one but you haven't had [111:06] conversations like these in a while then [111:10] those are great to have and you don't [111:12] have to be afraid you know that your [111:15] dreams [111:16] are very different from one another [111:20] because if there's a lot of love of you [111:23] know with maybe a couple of exceptions [111:25] out there you can figure out a way to [111:27] make it work what advice would you give [111:29] to me then I want all of the advice that [111:31] you haven't yet given me today okay so [111:34] one of them would be just remember that [111:37] 85% turning towards figure okay turn [111:42] towards her as much as you can you don't [111:44] mean physically you mean no yeah I mean [111:47] if she makes a little bit for [111:50] connection like Hey Stephen um come into [111:55] the kitchen I want to show you something [111:58] get up and go to the kitchen 85% of the [112:00] time at least try do your best it's not [112:03] going to be perfect it's 86% by the way [112:06] oh honey see here's my numbers man I can [112:10] always count on him to come up with the [112:13] okay so you got to work even harder [112:15] Stephen okay 86% of the time yeah so [112:19] that's a good one another one is when [112:22] and you are talking about an [112:26] issue work really hard to not blame and [112:29] not criticize yep describe [112:32] yourself your own [112:34] feelings what situation you're upset [112:37] about and what your positive need is not [112:40] the negative one anything else John we [112:43] have this great card deck called [112:45] expressing your needs I don't know if if [112:47] you got a copy of that one no no you can [112:51] download it on the on the App Store [112:53] gotman cardex have it on your phone and [112:56] once a week just sit down with her and [112:58] go through and say okay here's here's [113:02] two things I need this week why why [113:04] should I do that because then it's real [113:06] clear you know and she can tell you what [113:09] two things you you can do to make her [113:11] happy this week and you know rather than [113:15] leaving it a chance you know you're a [113:18] man that loves maths right yes give me [113:21] some of the most interesting [113:23] mathematical conclusions you've been [113:25] able to arrive at through your work [113:26] through the love lab I think the most [113:28] amazing one is [113:31] that the only way to be powerful in a [113:34] relationship is to accept [113:38] influence and it's so [113:41] counterintuitive but that turns out to [113:43] be really powerful that I I found that [113:45] very surprising the only way to be [113:48] powerful is basically to be [113:51] influenceable be flexible be movable [113:54] listen to your partner and try to accept [113:57] some influence from what they're [114:00] saying not perfectly of course anything [114:04] else say what you need don't expect your [114:08] partner to read your mind because they [114:10] never [114:11] can anything else yep one more this is [114:15] one of our favorite [114:16] questions ask your partner once a [114:20] week what is something can do next week [114:25] to make you feel more loved we have this [114:28] annual honeymoon that we do uh that [114:31] we've done for 23 years and we go away [114:34] and bring our kayak and we ask each [114:37] other three questions over two weeks [114:41] what sucked about this year what did you [114:43] like about this year and what do you [114:45] want next year to be like so we have [114:48] that once a year time when we can really [114:51] take a hard look at our lives and see [114:54] what needs to change here's the deal [114:57] we're talking to each other all the time [115:00] yeah because we work together and we're [115:03] expressing love and affection and [115:06] gratitude to one another all the time [115:10] and a lot of our work is [115:13] fun it would be great if we went out on [115:17] more [115:18] dates the pandemic kind of interfered [115:21] with that quite a [115:24] bit um but we loved it but we loved it [115:27] and we love going on dates it's just [115:30] we're so darn busy like everybody else [115:32] right and we're really old Stephen so [115:35] we're getting [115:38] tired John what does Julie mean to you [115:41] what does she mean to me what a question [115:44] W she's [115:47] really the most important thing in my [115:50] life absolutely the most important thing [115:53] waking up in the morning and having her [115:56] be next to me is such a joy and cuddling [116:00] with her and our dog is just wonderful [116:03] thing every morning and and now we get [116:07] to be grandparents together we have this [116:10] two-year-old little boy that we're both [116:12] in love with and we get to see our [116:15] daughter be a mom you know [116:20] it's it's the greatest gift that [116:23] anybody's ever given me is to become a [116:26] father she means everything to me she [116:29] wasn't in your life what would you be [116:31] missing [116:33] Everything [116:35] Everything Julie what does John mean to [116:39] you he's the most adorable wonderful [116:44] lovable [116:46] person I've ever had in my life what he [116:50] means to me is that he has healed me [116:54] from a lot of my own past [116:57] [Music] [116:58] trauma he makes me laugh all the time [117:02] and I didn't know how to laugh at all I [117:06] never laughed before I met [117:09] him he supports my [117:12] dreams nobody ever cared about my dreams [117:16] knew about my dreams before I met him [117:21] including crazy dreams like going to [117:24] Antarctica by myself he supported that [117:27] isn't that [117:28] amazing he is the most supportive [117:31] wonderful man and the other thing is [117:34] that he's so damn smart I knew I would [117:38] never be bored and he reads a million [117:43] times as much as I do I mean I read a [117:46] lot but he reads so much that I'm [117:49] constantly learning from him [117:52] so he's a source of knowledge source of [117:55] laughter source of sunshine source of a [118:00] fabulous fabulous fabulous daughter and [118:03] son-in-law and grandson and he's got the [118:06] most beautiful eyes in the whole wide [118:08] world that's what he means to me besides [118:11] that I love his hat he always wears the [118:15] same hat and he has for like 40 years [118:18] because it makes him look like a Jewish [118:21] intellectual B bik what could be better [118:24] she's talking about my leather hat oh [118:26] okay going to [118:29] say Fishman at fight right the book is [118:33] come out I think February 1st M January [118:36] 30th yeah ah okay why did you write this [118:39] book why was it so important there's so [118:41] many things that you could have written [118:42] about from one of your research but for [118:43] some reason you wrote a book called [118:45] fight right why did why take a look at [118:48] the [118:50] world fighting [118:52] especially in the United States has [118:54] become more polarized than [118:58] ever secondly hatred has become [119:04] sanctioned as uh a fine way to express [119:08] your own political points of view has [119:11] there been any listening to each other [119:15] zip none and so you know we can't we're [119:20] not politicians we're not going to w the [119:22] whole social system but if we can change [119:26] how people listen to one another and [119:28] love one another at home which is what [119:32] we know the most about then we can hope [119:35] and pray for a ripple effect to move out [119:39] into [119:40] society and create more love out in the [119:44] world too where we need it so much [119:47] Making Peace one family at a time oh I [119:50] love it nice [119:53] one we have a closing tradition on this [119:55] podcast where the last guest leaves a [119:56] question for the next guest not knowing [119:57] who they're leaving it for I'm going to [119:59] ask you both to answer the question I [120:01] don't get to see it until I open the [120:02] book here we [120:06] go oh interesting so I'm going to start [120:10] this with Julie um if you could go back [120:14] and tell your parents any one thing at [120:18] the time you were born what would it be [120:29] I would tell my [120:31] father would you please stay [120:35] home at [120:38] least one day a week instead of [120:42] abandoning my mother every single day [120:44] seven days a week I would tell my [120:48] mother stop being critical stop being [120:53] contemp [120:55] contemptuous try to look for what all of [120:59] us are doing [121:00] right and say that rather than only [121:04] pointing out what we're doing wrong why [121:07] wasn't [121:08] he he was a [121:10] cardiologist so he was constantly gone [121:14] saving lives [121:15] basically uh as a cardiologist and when [121:18] he wasn't he was playing golf classic [121:22] cardiologist and I think my mother may [121:25] have drove him a little [121:27] crazy cuz she was a very very disturbed [121:32] individual so he [121:34] escaped and he was a 50s 1950s father [121:39] right which meant all he had to do was [121:42] provide that was it no role with the [121:46] children and your mother I'm guessing [121:48] didn't know how to fight in the way that [121:50] you describe it in this book oh my God [121:53] no no no no no no no my my mother had [122:01] witnessed horrible violence and rape [122:05] within her home she was incested herself [122:09] in her own home growing up as a [122:13] child she didn't feel like she had any [122:16] value other than her beauty and she was [122:19] very very beautiful [122:22] so she didn't feel entitled to ask for [122:26] what she needed and you need to feel at [122:29] least some of that in order to fight for [122:33] what you want and what you need and J [122:37] same question yeah what would I tell my [122:39] parents yeah I I think [122:46] that I would tell my [122:50] parents first of all how much I love and [122:53] appreciate them for who they were and I [122:59] don't think I did that [123:01] enough um especially with my dad and I [123:07] would also tell my parents to be better [123:10] parents toward my [123:12] sister cuz we really lived in two [123:15] different [123:16] families and my sister didn't have an [123:21] easy going [123:22] temperament and um and she was extremely [123:27] talented musically and I wish they had [123:30] supported her music and loved her better [123:34] because she really needed it [123:38] and I think they could have done a much [123:40] better job being parents of her they did [123:43] a great job with me what was the cost to [123:46] your [123:46] sister I think she felt really [123:50] unloved still [123:53] especially by my [123:55] mom and I felt very loved by my [123:58] mom I think that's kind of served to [124:01] make sense of why you both do what you [124:03] you do in many respects you both have an [124:06] origin story which is sort of pertinent [124:08] and present in the work that you do and [124:10] the perspectives you both take on the [124:13] subject matter of love and relationships [124:15] comes from two very different places and [124:17] um we all have an origin story of love [124:19] and relationships and I think think we [124:22] often discount how important and [124:23] formative that is for us I mean I know [124:25] from myself personally my my life is [124:28] dominated by by love and relationships [124:30] and My Success my business everything [124:31] that I've done in my life is comes back [124:33] to the early relationships I had my [124:35] perspective on love and the lack of Love [124:38] or you know the love that I once needed [124:40] so thank you so much to both of you for [124:42] really being seen as the you know you [124:43] are seen as the Pioneers on this subject [124:46] and I said to you before we started [124:47] recording that so many of my guests have [124:48] come on this show and mentioned your [124:50] work they've quoted your work and these [124:51] are some of the most successful people [124:52] in the world they're scientists they're [124:54] neuroscientists Etc but even long before [124:57] I got to meet you many years ago I did a [124:58] live show across the UK and I was [125:00] quoting stuff that came out of your love [125:02] love lab and on stage in front of [125:04] thousands and thousands and thousands of [125:05] people so thank you for turning the [125:08] lights on to a subject that matters so [125:10] much to human happiness and health as [125:12] we've discovered because it's some of [125:14] the most important work that I think [125:15] anyone could do in for Humanity and you [125:17] guys have been leading the way in doing [125:18] it so thank you both so much thank you [125:20] stepen for having us on your podcast [125:23] thank you so much given that you have [125:26] interviewed some of the most successful [125:28] brilliant people on the [125:31] planet uh to be honoring love in the way [125:36] that you're doing because by doing that [125:39] you are really endorsing how important [125:42] love is and everybody needs to hear that [125:45] so thank you well said honey [125:49] indeedy everyone needs to go get your [125:51] books I mean there's quite a lot of them [125:52] but this particular one here I think [125:54] everyone should start with because [125:56] conflict resolution knowing how to um [125:58] take on conflict knowing how to address [125:59] it knowing how to be a better sparring [126:02] partner in relationships so that it can [126:04] be you and your partner versus the [126:05] problem versus instead of you versus [126:08] your partner I think is foundational to [126:10] us finding the love that most of us are [126:11] searching for but that feels so elusive [126:14] so I'd recommend everybody to go get the [126:15] book I'm going to link in the [126:16] description below thank you so much [126:18] we're [126:20] done [126:21] [Music] [126:41] oh