Gottman Research Shows Sexual Frequency Does Not Predict Marital Joy

戈特曼研究：性生活频率无法预示婚姻幸福 长期关系的成功取决于高比例的积极互动以及对日常联结意图的回应，而非性生活频率或寻觅唯一的灵魂伴侣。 John Gottman 博士与 Julie Gottman 博士深入剖析了数十年来关于人际吸引、亲密关系和冲突解决的实证研究。他们破除了诸如存在唯一灵魂伴侣等常见现代约会迷思，并概述了建立持久联结的可行行为，包括积极回应寻求关注的微小互动意图。讨论内容还涵盖了预示关系走向终结的“末日四骑士”等关键预警信号、煤气灯效应和家庭暴力的现实，以及用于疗愈出轨创伤的结构化三阶段模型（赎罪、调谐与依恋）。 寻找唯一的“真爱”或“灵魂伴侣”是极具破坏性的神话；研究显示，伴侣间约 69% 的冲突源于核心性格与生活习惯差异，属于无法彻底消除的“永久性问题”。 (16:13) 速配实验推翻了“男性只看外貌、女性只看财富”的刻板印象，数据显示双方在即时互动中体验到的趣味性与轻松氛围才是决定吸引力的核心因素。 (38:04) 一项覆盖 24 个国家 7 万人的全球研究指出，高质量的性生活并不依赖追求新鲜感的“柯立芝效应”，而是建立在日常爱意表达、情感安全感和亲密仪式之上。 (53:40) 维持长期关系的稳定需要放下防御性倾听，并通过建立每周“国情咨文”会议等结构化仪式，在安全可预测的环境中表达感激并化解分歧。 (70:49)

Drs. John and Julie Gottman argue that enduring romantic relationships are sustained not by static compatibility checklists or mythic soulmates, but by observable behavioral habits, physiological self-regulation, and structured repair mechanisms during conflict. Decades of longitudinal laboratory research demonstrate that even severe crises like infidelity can catalyze deeper intimacy if partners dismantle dysfunctional patterns through rigorous emotional accountability. The Fallacy of Checklists and Soulmates (19:00) Dr. Julie Gottman characterizes the cultural search for a single pre-destined 'soulmate' as a destructive myth, estimating that within a population the size of the United States, an individual could realistically build a successful partnership with roughly 500,000 people. Research by relationship scientist Eli Finkel demonstrates that static trait preferences cannot predict mutual attraction; instead, speed-dating data reveals that chemistry is driven by how relaxed, engaging, and enjoyable an interaction feels in real time. Biological drivers also favor divergence rather than identical traits: Claus Wedekind's t-shirt study showed women are subconsciously attracted to the scent of men with divergent Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) immune genes, offering evolutionary advantages for offspring immunity. Because temperamental and lifestyle divergence is natural, the Gottmans' data indicates that roughly 69% of all relationship conflicts are 'perpetual problems'—unresolvable differences rooted in core personality traits and habits. Consequently, long-term success requires abandoning rigid evaluative checklists and coffee-date 'job interviews' in favor of assessing day-to-day behavioral markers, including reciprocal curiosity, mutual respect, and how a partner makes one feel about oneself. Micro-Interactions and Bids for Connection (123:34) Observational research conducted in the Gottmans' apartment-style 'Love Lab' revealed that relationship longevity depends heavily on how partners respond to subtle, everyday 'bids for connection.' In follow-up assessments six years later, couples who remained married had 'turned toward' their partner's bids 86% of the time, compared to only 33% among couples who divorced. Consistent micro-acknowledgments create emotional safety, whereas habitually ignoring ('turning away') or snapping at ('turning against') a partner depletes the relationship's emotional reserves. This daily emotional attunement also underpins sexual vitality. Challenging the 'Coolidge Effect'—the theory that erotic desire inherently requires novel partners—a study of 70,000 individuals across 24 countries revealed that the highest sexual satisfaction correlates with ongoing affection, daily physical touch, and emotional security. To counteract the perceptual bias documented in clinical studies, where unhappy couples overlook 50% of their partner's positive behaviors, the Gottmans recommend structural rituals such as weekly 'State of the Union' meetings focused on explicit appreciations. Physiological Conflict and the Four Horsemen (78:52) By synchronizing video coding with physiological sensors tracking heart rate, skin conductance, and movement, the Gottmans isolated specific negative behaviors that predict relationship breakdown. The primary hazards are the 'Four Horsemen': criticism (attacking character), contempt (criticism coupled with moral superiority and disgust, which Julie terms 'sulfuric acid'), defensiveness (counterattacking or playing the innocent victim), and stonewalling (complete emotional withdrawal). In contrast to troubled pairings, stable couples maintain high ratios of positive-to-negative interactions during disagreements. Escalated conflict often triggers 'flooding,' an involuntary state in which a person's heart rate spikes past 100 beats per minute, activating a fight-or-flight response that takes the prefrontal cortex offline and eliminates the capacity for creative problem-solving. In clinical contexts, Julie distinguishes between Situational Domestic Violence (80% of cases), which is bidirectional, driven by physiological flooding, and potentially treatable with de-escalation protocols, and Characterological Domestic Violence (20%), which involves unilateral control, high lethality risk, and requires immediate, secretive safety planning rather than couples therapy. Infidelity Trauma and the A-A-A Model (105:01) John Gottman estimates that approximately 30% of committed relationships experience infidelity, with rates among women catching up to men due to workforce participation and financial independence since the 1970s. The primary damage of an affair stems from deceit and shattered trust, which frequently inflicts genuine Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the hurt partner. Because traumatic flashpoints can be involuntarily reactivated by mundane triggers months or years later, recovery demands sustained transparency and non-defensive apologies rather than premature demands for forgiveness. Despite this trauma, the Gottmans report a 75% clinical recovery rate when couples complete their three-stage framework: Atonement (total transparency, genuine remorse, and answering questions without graphic sexual details), Attunement (analyzing pre-existing relationship vulnerabilities, loneliness, and conflict avoidance), and Attachment (re-establishing trust and shared rituals). The Gottmans assert that post-infidelity therapy often results in deeper intimacy and stronger communication than existed before the breach, as it forces couples to confront and rebuild broken structural dynamics. The Gottmans emphasize that high-quality interpersonal relationships represent one of the single most influential determinants of physical health and longevity in social epidemiology. However, therapeutic repair remains viable only when a baseline of mutual fondness and respect persists; once emotional goodwill is entirely replaced by pervasive contempt or characterological control, walking away becomes the necessary outcome.

婚姻与亲密关系研究专家 John Gottman 与 Julie Gottman 博士基于数十年对数万对伴侣的实验室生理监测与长期追踪研究指出，长期关系的维系并不依赖于寻找不可替代的“宿命伴侣”，而取决于对日常情感微观互动的回应能力、冲突期间的积极互动比例，以及应对严重背叛与创伤的系统性修复机制。 择偶神话与吸引力的生物学本质 (19:00) Julie Gottman 明确指出，文化中过分渲染的“唯一灵魂伴侣”观念极具误导性。研究表明，在类似美国这样庞大的人口基数中，潜在适合的伴侣可达数十万人；更为关键的是，伴侣间约69%的冲突属于源自性格与生活习惯差异的“永久性问题”，无法被彻底消除。关于吸引力，John Gottman 引用心理学家 Eli Finkel 的速配约会实验证实，静态的个人条件或清单式标准无法准确预测二人相遇时的化学反应；男女双方在互动中的好感度，主要取决于当下交流是否轻松有趣，而非相貌或财富等预设指标。 此外，生理与进化机制在吸引力中扮演着深层角色。Claus Wedekind 的“出汗T恤实验”揭示，女性往往对主要组织相容性复合体（MHC）基因与自身差异最大的男性体味产生强烈吸引力，这一机制在进化上能赋予后代更宽广的免疫系统。相比之下，在约会中过分焦虑、试图伪装完美形象或过快推进关系，往往源于深层不安全感；带着好奇心与自我充实的心态面对交往，反而更容易促成真实且长久的联结。 微观互动尝试与末日四骑士指标 (78:52) Gottman 实验室通过生理监测设备（包括心率、皮肤电导、呼吸与微动作记录）对伴侣展开长达数年至数十年的纵向追踪，证实冲突时的互动模式直接决定关系存亡。健康伴侣与破裂伴侣最根本的区别之一在于对“情感联结尝试”（Bids for connection）的回应：追踪6年后的数据显示，最终离婚的伴侣在日常中仅有33%的次数会转向并回应对方微小的互动信号，而持续维系婚姻的伴侣回应率则高达86%。 研究进一步提炼出预示关系走向瓦解的“末日四骑士”行为：直接针对伴侣人格而非具体行为进行攻击的“批评”（Criticism）；伴随道德优越感、讽刺与冷嘲热讽的“蔑视”（Contempt，被视作破坏力极强的关系硫酸）；以扮演无辜受害者或反戈一击为特征的“防御”（Defensiveness，常诱发于脆弱自尊崩溃时的本能自卫）；以及彻底切断沟通、情感关闭的“筑墙”（Stonewalling）。当双方的积极与消极互动比例严重失衡，甚至相互尊重被持续贬低取代时，关系将面临极高的破裂风险。 冲突调节机制与家庭暴力类型识别 (101:24) 为阻断破坏性争吵的恶性循环，Gottmans 建议建立结构化的关系仪式，例如每周举行“国情会议”（State of the Union），其固定流程包括表达5个具体的赞赏、探讨需改进的问题，并以“本周如何让你感到被爱”作为结语。此外，Julie Gottman 澄清了大众对“煤气灯效应”一词的滥用，强调因人类记忆局限而产生的各执一词属于常规分歧，真正的煤气灯操纵则是恶意的系统性现实篡改，旨在摧毁受害者的心智信任以施加绝对控制。 在临床干预家庭暴力时，必须严格区分两类性质迥异的暴力模式。占约80%的“情境性家庭暴力”（Situational Domestic Violence）通常是非特质性的双向冲突，主要诱因是争吵中伴侣心率超过每分钟100次引发的生理“淹没”（flooding），导致前额叶皮层功能受抑并误判威胁，此类冲突可通过情绪降温技巧与沟通训练进行干预。与之相对，占约20%的“特质性家庭暴力”（Characterological Domestic Violence）存在绝对的施害者与受害者，伴随极端控制与高致命风险；夫妻治疗无法解决此类暴力，临床上的唯一首要任务是秘密且安全地协助受害者脱离险境。 出轨创伤修复与亲密关系重构 (105:01) John Gottman 估计约有30%的伴侣曾经历不同形式的出轨，且随着女性进入职场并实现经济独立，出轨比例在性别间已趋于持平。出轨的核心伤害并非仅局限于性背叛，而是欺瞒带来的信任崩塌，这会导致受害方产生强烈的创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）症状，日常微小的触发事件便可能引发皮质醇激增与痛苦闪回。因此，单纯劝诫受害者过早原谅往往适得其反，背叛方必须做好准备，不带防御地倾听受害者的痛苦并真诚致歉上千次。 针对出轨创伤，Gottmans 提出了“赎罪、协调与依恋”（AAA模型），该疗法在临床实践中取得了约75%的成功率。第一阶段“赎罪”（Atonement）要求背叛者保持绝对透明，回答疑问并回避易诱发PTSD的性细节；第二阶段“协调”（Attunement）是在赎罪完成后，共同排查出轨前双方长期回避的矛盾与疏离根源；第三阶段“依恋”（Attachment）则重塑信任契约。Gottmans 认为，出轨往往能“拯救”处于功能失调中的关系，是因为伴侣在寻求专业帮助的过程中被动拆除了原本破损的互动系统，从而有机会建立比出轨前更深沉、真实的亲密连接。 两位学者指出，高质量的人际与亲密关系是促进生理健康与延年益寿的核心决定因素之一。尽管科学研究为化解冲突和修复背叛提供了明确路径，但在面对特质性虐待或伴侣间相互尊重彻底丧失的极端情况时，及时的专业介入与理性退出仍是不可逾越的底线。

## Background 本期节目由知名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2024 年 9 月 16 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目简介指出，本期专访了全球著名亲密关系专家戈特曼夫妇（John & Julie Gottman），深入探讨了出轨后的科学修复路径、约会软件为何失效、糟糕性生活背后的实证规律，以及为什么应当彻底破除寻找“唯一真命天子/天女”的执念。 ## TL;DR 戈特曼夫妇结合长达数十年、涵盖数万对伴侣的临床实证与生理指标追踪，系统拆解了现代亲密关系的成败法则。他们破除了“高度契合”与“唯一”的择偶神话，指出真正的吸引力建立在真诚好奇而非虚假人设之上，而决定关系寿命的核心在于 5:1 的正负情绪黄金比例以及对“联结尝试”的及时回应。面对致命的“末日四骑士”（批评、蔑视、防御、筑墙冷战）与外遇背叛，他们提出了包含生理降温、非防御性倾听及“赎罪、协调、依恋（AAA）”三阶段模型，证明即便遭遇出轨重创，只要接受专业干预仍有高达 75% 的修复治愈率。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话洋溢着严谨科学与深厚同理心交织的温暖张力。约翰·戈特曼带着数学家的笃定与风趣幽默，用量化数据和实验拆解人性规律；朱莉·戈特曼则以资深临床医生的细腻敏锐直击灵魂，在剖析背叛创伤与脆弱感时令人动容。主持人史蒂芬坦诚展露自身在亲密关系中的恐惧与笨拙，三人互动松弛而充满智性共鸣，让观众在直面残酷亲密创伤的同时，感受到被深层理解与治愈的希望。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=0s) 基于数十年覆盖4万对伴侣的研究与跨国数据，戈特曼夫妇指出现实中不存在命中注定的“唯一”，伴侣间69%的冲突属于无法彻底解决的永久性差异。 - [01:45:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=6301s) 在遭遇外遇背叛的关系中，通过戈特曼机构的“赎罪、协调、依恋”（AAA）临床治疗模型介入，伴侣的关系修复成功率可达75%。 - [01:19:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4764s) 冲突中的情绪互动比例对婚姻走向具极高预测性：幸福伴侣的积极与消极互动比达到5:1，走向破裂的伴侣则骤降至0.8:1。 - [01:41:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=6084s) 家庭暴力中约80%属于因生理过载（心率突破100次/分使前额叶失灵）引发的情境型暴力，可通过针对性情绪降温干预获得改善。 - [02:03:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7416s) 长期追踪显示，“联结尝试”的迎向率是预测关系长久的核心指标：六年依然恩爱的夫妻迎向率达86%，而最终离婚者的迎向率仅有33%。 ## Key takeaways - [11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=696s) 现代约会执着于“完全匹配”和预设清单是一大误区，科学研究表明随机配对的好感率稳定达到22%，且女性在生理上更倾向于被免疫基因差异显著的男性吸引。 - [24:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1492s) 真正的吸引力依赖于互动时的真诚好奇心而非刻意伪装的自信，过早推进关系和急迫表白往往源于内心不安全感与匮乏心态。 - [38:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=2293s) 初次约会中男女双方被吸引的核心在于当下互动的趣味与愉悦感，过于苛刻的评估面试心态与过度依赖酒精会严重阻碍真实连接的建立。 - [56:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3407s) 对全球7万人性生活质量的研究表明，性生活满意度的决定性因素不是外界刺激或频率，而是日常生活中的持续情感联结与日常微亲密表达。 - [01:03:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3802s) 男性在父权文化规训下往往被压抑了表达脆弱情感的权利，导致性接触有时成为他们获取身体抚慰与拥抱的唯一被社会许可的渠道。 - [01:02:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3728s) 推行“每周国情咨文会议”等制度化沟通仪式并以非防御性倾听（如随身记笔记）应对争议，能有效消除伴侣间对冲突谈话的恐惧与防御机制。 - [01:11:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4264s) 感恩思维习惯能打破消极滤镜：不幸福的伴侣往往只能感知到对方50%的积极付出，而时刻关注生活积极面能维持长久的喜爱与赞赏系统。 - [01:22:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4938s) 破坏亲密关系的“末日四骑士”分别为批评、蔑视、防御与筑墙冷战，其中伴随优越感与嘲弄的蔑视是预测离婚最强烈的单一指标。 - [01:27:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5220s) 筑墙冷战的外在木讷本质上是交感神经系统生理过载（心率超过100 bpm）导致的全面应激关闭，通常源于过往展露脆弱时曾遭遇惩罚性打击。 - [01:33:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5625s) 大众文化严重误用了“煤气灯效应”，不能将人类主观记忆差异混同于恶意的精神操控；真正的煤气灯效应是蓄意摧毁对方理智与现实感知能力的极端控制手段。 - [01:49:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=6565s) 外遇本质是信任基石的毁灭，必然会引发伴侣的PTSD创伤；治疗必须经历“赎罪、协调、依恋”三阶段，且背叛方道歉时受害方应避免探究具体性细节以防闪回加剧。 - [02:00:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7242s) 出轨若能辅以专业治疗，往往能成为打破长期冲突回避、促成前所未有深度沟通的契机，但面对无法挽回的关系应立足当下现实并勇敢接纳终局。 - [02:06:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7617s) 在繁忙无暇分身时应对伴侣的“联结尝试”，可通过温和“打书签”明确传达倾听意愿与推迟期限，避免冷漠无视或粗暴搪塞伤害亲密关系。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=0s) 破除亲密关系迷思：契合度、唯一与出轨疗愈 在开场提要中，针对现代人在亲密关系中的诸多困惑，约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）博士与茱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）博士提出了颠覆常识的实证发现。性生活一旦出现裂痕，往往会演变成严重的危机；而在涉及 24 个国家、7 万名受访者的全球最大规模性生活质量研究中，研究人员清晰地揭示了性生活美满与糟糕之间的核心分水岭。作为研究过超过 4 万对伴侣、合著逾 50 本著作并在过去 50 年中帮助数百万人维系爱情的知名心理学权威，他们直言当前多数人都陷入了约会误区。最普遍的谬论便是“两个人必须高度契合（compatible）”，但科学实验表明事实恰恰相反——在著名的“汗湿 T 恤实验”中，女性通过闻男性连续穿了两天以上的 T 恤来挑选气味最佳者，结果她们选中的往往是与自己基因差异最大的男性，因为人类在生理上并不会被“另一个自己”所唤醒。 两位学者还指出，现实中根本不存在所谓命中注定的“唯一（The One）”，苦苦寻觅那个完美对象从一开始就是个巨大的错误。此外，针对主持人提出的尖锐问题——出轨是否可能反而挽救一段感情，两位专家给出了肯定的回答，指出这在伴侣成功完成修复的情况下“非常普遍”。数据显示，在戈特曼夫妇研发的专业出轨疗愈模型介入下，伴侣的修复成功率目前可达 75%。在正片开始前，主持人 Steven 庆祝频道订阅量突破 700 万大关，向幕后近 50 人的制作团队及广大观众表达由衷谢意，并介绍了常态化的抽奖福利机制。 - **性生活质量研究样本**：覆盖 24 个国家，调研人数达 70,000 人。 - **基因互补实验**：女性倾向于选择体味与自身基因差异最大（而非相似）的异性。 - **出轨修复成功率**：戈特曼临床疗愈模型支持下的关系恢复率约为 75%。 --- ### [02:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=148s) 科学解码爱的谜题：戈特曼夫妇的初心与海量数据研究 谈到终身投入这项事业的底层动力，茱莉·戈特曼将自己定义为一名临床心理学家。她透露自己从 8 岁起就出于某种直觉开始帮助他人，她热爱写作，但内心深处最执着的追求始终是与他人建立深度联结，并“在人们深陷痛苦时陪伴并爱着他们”。对她而言，临床治疗是一份充满温情与共情的天职。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Gottman Research Methodology accDescr: Diagram showing the two tiers of Gottman relationship research. subgraph Macro["大规模问卷调研 (宏观普查)"] A["40,000+ 对伴侣"] --> B["即将进入伴侣治疗的临床样本"] end subgraph Micro["深度纵向追踪 (微观生理与行为)"] C["约 3,000 对伴侣"] --> D["生理指标实时监测 (心率/皮电等)"] C --> E["客观情绪行为编码系统"] D & E --> F["长达 20 年的纵向随访"] end Macro --> G["揭示关系成败的数学与统计模型"] Micro --> G ``` 相比之下，约翰·戈特曼则将亲密关系视作一个极其迷人且待破解的复杂谜题。他长年探究的是人类行为的底层逻辑：究竟是什么让人类走向合作而不是走向竞争、自私与刻薄？是什么激发了利他与共情？又是什么决定了一段关系会成为长寿健康的源泉，还是沦为疾病、孤独与绝望的深渊？约翰解释道，他的日常工作就是“精确而可靠地测量事物”，随后顺应真实数据的分布走向，将严谨的数学、统计学与测量方法引入人际互动过程。驱动他的完全是对人性最崇高合作与最恶劣自私之间界限的纯粹好奇心。在数十年积累中，他们通过问卷系统研究了超过 4 万对即将进入关系咨询的伴侣，并对约 3,000 对伴侣进行了结合生理测量与客观情绪行为编码的长达 20 年的深度追踪，迄今两人已共同撰写了 51 本专业著作。 - **临床研究规模**：40,000 对伴侣问卷评估，3,000 对高精度生理与行为长程追踪。 - **随访研究跨度**：最长追踪时间达 20 年。 - **学术与科普著作**：目前累计出版约 51 本书。 --- ### [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=308s) 现代约会的困局：虚假人设与“完全匹配”的错误执念 Steven 指出，尽管心理学研究成果斐然，但当代社会的人际脱单与维系状况却前所未有地脆弱，孤独与疏离感达历史峰值。本以为能够拉近人际距离的社交科技未能兑现承诺。独立统计数据显示，美国当前有近半数人口处于单身状态；皮尤研究中心 2023 年的数据表明，33% 的男性与 28% 的女性自报单身；初婚年龄不断推迟（男性平均 30 岁，女性平均 28 岁）；性行为频率降至新低；离婚率仍徘徊在近 50%；虽然近半数成年人使用交友软件，但几乎所有用户都在抱怨糟糕的约会体验。面对这一现状，Steven 提出了关键疑问：找寻真爱到底应当把精力放在积极向外推销自己上，还是应当做足内在功课，把自己变成一块“磁铁”而非四处敲门的“推销员”？ ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: The Cycle of Insecurity and Rejection in Modern Dating accDescr: How presenting an idealized persona leads to perceived rejection in dating. A["童年批评/社会压力导致内心自卑与羞耻"] --> B["隐藏真实自我"] B --> C["展示好莱坞式完美虚假人设"] C --> D["对方对虚假形象产生高期待"] D --> E["真实互动中无法维持假象"] E --> F["对方期待落空并选择离开"] F --> G["误以为是自身被拒绝，加剧自卑"] G --> A ``` 茱莉·戈特曼极为赞同向内探索的核心思路。她直言约会软件生态之所以恶化，根本原因在于许多人内在充斥着严重的“不安全感（insecurity）与羞耻感（shame）”。由于童年或职场中遭受过过多苛责，人们习惯于把自己封闭隐藏起来，在交友软件或派对上端出一个全然虚假的理想化化身。这些模板大多盲目照搬自电视、好莱坞所灌输的虚幻英雄形象。更致命的是，人们被“契合度神话”所绑架，误以为伴侣双方必须拥有相同的兴趣、完全一致的价值观、相似的家庭背景与相同的社会阶层。茱莉强调，向内建设意味着“信任你自己的直觉，信任你原本的模样”。当你展现出真实的自我，契合的人自会被你吸引；而一旦你戴上面具，对方爱上的不过是一个虚幻的模型，当你不可避免地露出真实破绽时，对方所谓的“拒绝”其实根本不是针对你本人，而是针对那个虚假的幻象。面对公众普遍存在的“如果展现真实的自己就没人会爱我”的深层恐惧，茱莉痛心地表示，社会中无孔不入的评判让大众误以为自己必须成为好莱坞硬汉布鲁斯·威利斯（Bruce Willis）那样的人才配得到爱，这彻底走入了反面。 - **单身人口比例**：美国人口普查局显示近 50% 处于单身；皮尤研究中心显示男性单身率 33%，女性 28%。 - **初婚中位年龄**：男性上升至约 30 岁，女性约为 28 岁。 - **虚假人设的本质**：投射被影视文化规训的完美符号，导致期待幻灭与虚假拒绝。 --- ### [09:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=595s) 走出孤独的前提：跨越陌生人恐惧与友谊网络的建立 约翰·戈特曼接续探讨了寻找真爱的底层路径。他明确指出，现代人寻爱困局的根源之一在于严重的孤独感，而许多人甚至在开启寻爱前完全忽视了最关键的基石——建立坚实的“友谊网络（friendship network）”。健康的友谊支持系统是寻找终身伴侣不可或缺的前置条件。 约翰援引针对陌生人社交的实证心理学研究说明，人们在社交直觉上存在惊人的偏差：大众普遍悲观地预设，如果在公共场合主动与陌生人搭话，有高达 97% 的概率会被对方冷酷拒绝，甚至会被当成侵犯隐私的骚扰者；然而严谨的实验数据却证明事实截然相反——在接近 97% 的情况下，陌生人在被主动搭讪时表现出的是欣喜、兴趣与由衷的热情。约翰强调，学习“与陌生人交谈”是一项极其重要的情感基础技能。一个人唯有先学会把陌生人转化为朋友，把疏离冷漠的社交环境转变为能享受人类温情的良性生态圈，彻底化解自身孤立无援的处境，才不会在踏入约会市场时陷入病态的“饥不择食与绝望感（desperation）”，从而以从容健康的心态吸引到真正的伴侣。 - **陌生人搭讪心理偏差**：人们主观预测被拒率为 97%，而实证数据显示近 97% 的陌生人会表现出积极、欣喜与开放的回应。 - **约会前置核心法则**：先构筑无条件的友谊网络，消除个人的生存孤独感，避免因匮乏与绝望心态进入亲密关系。 ### [11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=696s) 到底什么才让一个人极具吸引力？ 对话承接上一环节关于“不孤独便不绝望”的探讨，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺势抛出了核心疑问：对于正在寻找另一半的人而言，最迷人、最展现自身吸引力的状态究竟是什么？显然，一个充满匮乏感与绝望感（desperate）的自己绝无吸引力可言。他向约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）请教，从科学与心理学层面来看，到底是什么决定了两个人之间的相互吸引。 约翰给出了一个打破常规的论断：几乎每个人本质上都非常有趣且充满魅力，前提是他们必须处于一个“对其抱有真诚好奇心”的人面前。若与自负、傲慢或居高临下的人相处，任何人都无法展现出最棒的一面；相反，一旦对方带着浓厚兴趣倾听，一个人的思想独特性、独特的人生背景、奋斗历程与内心目标便会自然流淌而出。吸引力并不是孤立个体的静态属性，很大程度上取决于彼此互动的“社交语境”（social context）。约翰直言，现代约会机制的症结正在于此——它人为构建了一种极为苛刻的评估考核环境。人们在软件上不断左滑淘汰，挑剔着“这个不太对、那个差一点”。他引用了知名学者伊莱·芬克尔（Eli Finkel）的里程碑式研究：科学界根本无法在两个独立个体身上测量出任何能够预测他们是否会彼此喜欢的特征。即便让单身人士列出详尽的择偶清单，并从庞大的数据库中精准匹配到完全符合标准的真人，两人在线下见面时看对眼的概率依然极低；反之，若在陌生人群中进行纯随机配对，初次见面便彼此心生好感的人却能稳定达到 22%。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 约会吸引力生成机制对比 accDescr: 对比传统指标评估与真实好奇互动两种语境下吸引力的产生过程 subgraph EvaluationContext["人工评估语境 (如约会软件)"] A["设定严苛指标与预设清单"] --> B["不断评估考核与左滑筛选"] B --> C["双方感到被审视、充满戒心与紧绷"] C --> D["丧失吸引力 / 极低好感转化率"] end subgraph CuriosityContext["真实好奇互动语境"] E["抛下预设目标与考核心态"] --> F["对眼前人的经历与想法抱有好奇"] F --> G["个体放松并展现出独特故事与特质"] G --> H["自然涌现吸引力 (随机匹配好感率达 22%)"] end ``` --- ### [13:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=831s) 自尊心的隐形引力与“真命天子/天女”的神话 针对吸引力的本质，史蒂芬进一步探讨了自尊心（self-esteem）和自我认知的作用。他观察到生活中有朋友去健身房锻炼后，仅仅因为开始投资自己，整个人就仿佛“拔高了 15 厘米”一样容光焕发。与其盲目花钱做发型、添置昂贵服饰，内在层面的心理建设究竟有多重要？约翰高度认可这一点，指出如果一个人拥有一个真正接纳并喜欢自己的朋友圈，他就更容易在外界舒展自我。然而在当今虚假的约会场景下，人们初次相遇时往往陷入极度的惶恐与自我审视（self-conscious），生怕自己表现不够好、无法留下好印象，从而完全忘记了把好奇心投射到对方身上。如果能把约会当成两个灵魂之间的纯粹探索，不抱功利目的，约会过程就会重获乐趣。 约翰幽默地分享了自己的亲身经历：在遇见妻子朱莉（Julie Gottman）之前，他曾与多达 60 位女性约会，朱莉是第 61 位；作为一个喜欢数据分析的学者，他甚至建立了一个数据库，因此当朱莉出现时，他立刻意识到她是一个绝无仅有的“离群值”（outlier），与她相处充满快乐，水准远超以往认识的所有人。但朱莉随即澄清了这种观念可能带来的巨大误区——绝不能误以为寻爱必须像约翰那样去建数据库等待那个命中注定的“唯一”（The One）。这种对“真命天子/天女”的浪漫执念，恰恰是许多人在爱情道路上拖延与痛苦的根源。戈特曼夫妇的研究揭示出一个残酷而真实的规律：无论伴侣之间多么恩爱契合，两个人之间永远存在“恒久冲突”（perpetual problems）。 - **恒久冲突的占比**：戈特曼实验室的数据表明，伴侣之间多达 69% 的冲突属于无法彻底解决的永久性问题，其根源在于两人深层的生活方式偏好与人格特质差异。 - **关于“唯一”的统计学视角**：全美有约 3.5 亿人口，理论上至少有 50 万人能够成为你眼中极具吸引力的绝佳伴侣，不存在宇宙中独一无二的专属配对。 - **不完美之美**：任何现实伴侣都会有令人发疯的小习惯（例如打鼾、吃东西张着嘴），真正的亲密关系不是找到完美无瑕的人，而是承认彼此都有裂痕并彼此拥抱。 --- ### [18:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1110s) 为什么我们会被与自己截然不同的人吸引？ 史蒂芬顺着这一论点提出追问：书中提到人们往往会被与自己差异巨大的人强烈吸引，而差异本身又注定了日后的摩擦，这在演化上如何讲得通？直觉上，一个和自己喜好完全一致（比如支持同一个球队曼联、口味爱好分毫不差）的人，理应更容易打得火热。约翰随即解释了背后的生物学与演化机制，并引用了瑞士生物学家克劳斯·韦德金德（Claus Wedekind）著名的“汗湿 T 恤实验”。 在该实验中，女性被要求嗅闻不同男性连续穿了两天的 T 恤，并评选出自己认为最好闻的气味。研究发现，女性本能觉得最有吸引力的气味，恰恰来自那些主要组织相容性复合体（MHC）基因与自身差异最大的男性。换言之，免疫系统基因分歧越显著，信息素在生物层面上就越具诱惑力；后续追踪也证实，女性确实更青睐这些与自己基因差异巨大的男性。从演化生物学的繁衍角度来看，我们绝不会对自己完全相同的“克隆体”产生性冲动；两组高度互补、差异显著的免疫系统基因结合，能使下一代拥有基底更广阔、抵抗力更强的免疫屏障，避免狭隘基因库带来的脆弱性。 约翰与朱莉用自身做了生动印证：朱莉是一位狂热的户外探险家，热爱穿梭于森林山野间徒步登山；而约翰则自称是彻头彻尾的“室内生物”（consummate indoorsman），平生最爱坐在舒适的扶手椅里钻研数学、量子力学和广义相对论。尽管两人的兴趣爱好大相径庭，却在彼此身上找到了独特的互补与吸引。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 择偶行为观察维度 accDescr: 戈特曼提出的择偶评估框架，重点关注具体互动行为而非抽象条件 subgraph BehaviorObservation["核心行为考察维度"] direction TB Q["互动交流方式"] --> Q1["广播式炫耀\n(只谈晋升、荣誉与自我)"] Q --> Q2["好奇式倾听\n(主动提问并全神贯注接收)"] S["对待低阶层群体"] --> S1["轻慢鄙夷\n(对服务人员冷漠傲慢)"] S --> S2["谦逊尊重\n(体恤社会地位较低者)"] end Q2 & S2 --> Valid["健康伴侣的积极信号"] Q1 & S1 --> RedFlag["潜在性格缺陷警讯"] ``` --- ### [21:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1271s) 择偶时别看抽象“条件”，看具体“行为” 面对史蒂芬关于“单身人士寻找伴侣时是否该列愿望清单、是否该降低期望”的困惑，朱莉斩钉截铁地指出：寻爱成功的关键不在于对方拥有什么抽象特质或客观条件，而在于他们在现实生活中的具体“行为”（Behavior）。针对许多在离婚后重回约会市场的咨询者，朱莉始终强调两个必须在早期约会中留心观察的核心行为维度： 1. **是主动提问并聆听，还是单向“广播”自我**：留意对方面对你时，是在不断炫耀自己的老板刚给了晋升、自己有多酷、刚刚赢得了哪项体育赛事，还是带着真诚的好奇询问你的故事？更重要的是，当你在回答时，他们是否真正停下来倾听、吸收你的回答，并真诚地感叹“那真有意思”，而非仅仅等待下一个自己开口说话的机会。 2. **如何对待社会地位较低的人**：社会充满了阶层分化，观察一个人最真实的品格，就看他如何对待服务员、清洁工等社会地位或阶层暂时不如他的人。是表现出不屑、傲慢与轻蔑，还是发自内心地给予尊重与温和，这是看清一个人本质的致命细节。 ### [23:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1380s) 约会中的红旗指标：可靠性与过快推进关系的危险 Julie Gottman 指出，在约会中观察一个人如何对待服务人员只是第一步，第二点是看他们是否平等地尊重所有人，还是只对特定群体客气而对他人蔑视。第三点则是核心指标——“可靠性”（Reliability）：对方是否言出必行？如果承诺会打电话，是否真打？约好 8 点来接，是否准时出现？当然现实中总有意外（如突发交通拥堵），但一个可靠且体贴的人会主动提前沟通，告知对方“我遇到大堵车，会迟到 20 分钟”，这体现了对他人时间和精力的尊重。 此外，Julie 强调必须高度警惕初次约会中展现出的急躁心态。在如今极其普遍的孤独感笼罩下，有些人第一次见面就会激动地表白：“天哪，你就是我的命中注定！你就是我要的答案！我觉得我已经爱上你了！”这种迫不及待想要进入极度亲密甚至谈婚论嫁的举动是巨大的危险信号。健康的关系需要双方慢慢剥开彼此的心防、建立信任，而不是一蹴而就。 - **平等尊重**：观察对方是否只尊重有利益关系或特定阶层的人，对待弱势群体或服务人员的态度最能暴露真实人品。 - **时间与精力的考量**：偶发迟到在所难免，但主动告知并表达对对方时间的体贴是成熟关系的基石。 - **慢下来剥开心防**：过早表白“你就是我的全部”往往不是深情，而是由于内在极端匮乏而产生的投射。 --- ### [24:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1492s) 急迫感背后的匮乏：“有你很好，没你也行”的气场 Steven 提问这种迫切推进关系的冲动是否源自更深层的内核问题，例如极度缺乏安全感。Julie 证实了这一点，但她并不偏好使用“粘人/需索无度”（Needy）这个词，因为人类本质上是群居动物，彼此依赖是正常的天性；关键在于一个人是否具备“自我容纳”（contain themselves）的能力。这正是前面提到的“有你很好，没你也行”（With or without you energy）——一个人必须先完成内在的心灵建设，而不是把对方当作解决自身一切人生难题的万灵丹。 John Gottman 从男性约会的角度分享了自己的经历。在他离婚大约七年、建立自己的约会数据库时期，他的心态纯粹是保持好奇、享受过程。他曾遇到一位荒野求生主义者（Survivalist），床头放着一支.38 麦格农手枪，却舍得花数千美元买昂贵礼服去听歌剧。John 坐在她家里时心想：“虽然我不知道自己喜不喜欢她，但她真迷人，了解她很有意思。”直到他遇见 Julie，整个世界仿佛瞬间豁然开朗，心胸被彻底打开，那是一种不仅觉得对方有趣、更感受到了无限可能的心动体验。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 约会心态对比 accDescr: 对比匮乏急迫心态与从容自信心态在约会互动中的表现与结果 subgraph MindsetA ["匮乏与急迫心态"] A1["内心不安全感与空虚"] --> A2["急于寻找救命稻草"] A2 --> A3["过快表白、步步紧逼"] A3 --> A4["给对方带来沉重压迫感"] end subgraph MindsetB ["从容自信心态 (With or Without You)"] B1["完成内在心理建设"] --> B2["带着好奇心与探索欲约会"] B2 --> B3["自然互动、平等倾听"] B3 --> B4["展现真正吸引力与长久契机"] end ``` --- ### [26:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1610s) 商业投资与爱情择偶：匮乏者令人退缩，从容者极具吸引力 Steven 提出了一个假设性研究：一类人带着极强的目的性急于找对象（如因生理时钟或人生规划而必须在 6 个月内结婚），另一类人则抱持随缘和开放的心态，哪类人成功率更高、更具吸引力？John 认为只要带着好奇与惊叹的态度，两种方式都有可能奏效，但 Julie 指出，自身充满自信与好奇，远胜过怀着“我必须马上抓住一个好对象”的饥渴感。 Steven 将此与自己的商业天使投资经验做了精彩的类比：投资人能清晰敏锐地从创业者身上感知到这种能量——对方是视你为唯一的救命稻草，还是仅仅把你视为众多选择之一？越是表现得极度渴求投资、邮件咄咄逼人甚至失礼的创始人，越容易让人觉得其业务千疮百孔；反之，那些从容、耐心、自身业务繁忙的创始人，往往散发出“有你参与很好，没有你我也能成”的气场，反而会让投资人觉得能够参与注资是一种荣幸。在爱情中亦然，因为决定接纳一个人是一项巨大的长期投资，尊重自我的人会审慎地花时间考察这笔投资是否真正值得。 --- ### [29:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1746s) 伪装自信的反噬与心理投射 谈到自信时，Steven 询问 Julie 是否能“伪装自信”（Fake confidence）。Julie 明确表示这绝不可行，因为强行伪装自信往往会导致用力过猛，演变成令人反感的自吹自擂。她回忆起高中时的一位男同学，总是无休止地夸大炫耀自己，令人难以忍受。但后来 Julie 深刻反思，意识到自己当年对那位男同学的极度排斥，实际上是一种心理投射——她在他身上看到了自己内在同样隐藏着的不安全感，看到了自己同样渴望向外界呈现一个完美假象的脆弱面。 - **伪装自信的陷阱**：假装自信极易滑向过度补偿，表现为无止境的吹嘘与自大，暴露出强烈的做作感。 - **排斥即镜像**：当我们对某个人的虚荣与自夸产生强烈的生理性厌恶时，往往是因为对方触碰了我们自身尚未解决的自卑与不安。 --- ### [30:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1848s) 实验室的预测力：身体语言、情感比例与对话互惠 John Gottman 透露，虽然单凭测试个人的独立特质无法预测两个人能否擦出火花，但只要两人坐在一起互动，他们的实验室就能通过客观指标精准测出这段互动是否具备走向成功的潜力。实验室能够测量互动的开放度、情绪连接、紧张与放松的生理状态，以及彼此的好奇程度。 成功的互动在录像分析中呈现出极高的积极情绪互动：双方笑声不断、镜像模仿对方的动作、微笑、眼神开放、对未知充满探索欲。在健康长久的关系中，正向情绪与负向情绪的比例通常维持在 3:1 甚至 5:1；而在前景堪忧的组合中，正负比例远低于 1:1，充斥着冷嘲热讽、紧绷防御、不断吹嘘自己，且语言中充斥着“我、我的”等自我中心词汇。 | 评估维度 | 前景堪忧的互动 (低成功率) | 充满潜力的互动 (高成功率) | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **正负情绪比率** | 远低于 1:1 (消极情绪占主导) | 3:1 至 5:1 (积极情绪占绝对优势) | | **身体语言** | 仰靠躺平、手臂霸占旁座 (傲慢)；或耸肩缩脖 (抑郁/自卑) | 身体适度前倾、肩膀自然下沉放松、真诚眼神接触 | | **语言指代重心** | 充斥“我、我的、我自己” (I, Me, Mine) | 聚焦于“你、我们、咱们” (You, Us, We) | | **对话互动模式** | 单向索取关注，只享受被提问和聊自己 | 保持良好的提问互惠（Reciprocity），往复探索 | Julie 现场示范了身体语言的巨大差异：自命不凡、假装自信的人会把手臂搭在旁边的椅子上仰面瘫坐，摆出一副“唯我独尊、你来迎合我”的傲慢姿态；过度自卑焦虑的人则会肩膀内缩、耸到耳边，试图将自己隐藏起来；而真正投入的人身体会自然前倾，眼神放松，思考时移开视线、回答时真诚注视。此外，语言的“互惠性”（Reciprocity）至关重要——当对方提出一个问题后，回答者在作答完毕后会主动回抛问题，而不是坐在原地只顾享受被关注的快感。真正的连接是在彼此的好奇与探寻中往复流淌的。 ### [35:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=2115s) 如何建立自信与打破容貌焦虑 肢体语言往往只是内心真实状态的外在投射。如果一个人自幼生活在挑剔、轻蔑的家庭或照顾者环境中——正如朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Schwartz Gottman）坦陈自己的成长经历那样——这种被视作“毫无价值”的待遇会逐渐内化为根深蒂固的自卑感。要打破这种心理枷锁并建立真正的自信，既可以通过专业的心理治疗，也可以尝试每天站在镜子前凝视自己，接纳并反复确认：“这就是真实的我。” 朱莉指出，女性几乎无可避免地生活在自我审判的阴影中，无论外表多么美丽，总会觉得自己不如别人。据统计，女性在满18岁前就已经看过了大约600万张经过过度美化的女性形象。对此，朱莉给出了一个非常切合实际的建议：走进公共更衣室，观察现实中女性脱下衣物后的真实身材。现实中的躯体有胖有瘦、形态各异，完全不同于媒体制造的滤镜幻象。 现代约会软件进一步恶化了这种外貌焦虑，许多人沉迷于修图，甚至使用三十年前头发尚存的旧照来伪装自己。戈特曼夫妇强调，真正长久的吸引力从来无关外貌、智商或学历，关键在于“内心”——对方是否善良、懂得关心照顾他人、富有同理心且尊重平等待人。 - 外部美化对女性的塑造：女性在18岁之前平均接触过多达600万张被高度理想化、概念化的女性图像。 - 建立身体自信的实操方法：打破社交媒体与影视滤镜，在现实更衣室等自然场景中去观察真实且具有多样性的普通人体型。 - 吸引力的核心本质：比起修图呈现的假象与表面硬件条件，富有同情心、待人平等的善良内心才是决定性的品质。 --- ### [38:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=2293s) 吸引力的性别差异与约会场景的选择 当斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及初次相识时男女被吸引的特质是否存在本质差异时，约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）援引了心理学家伊莱·芬克尔（Eli Finkel）的著名速配实验。传统约会研究通常声称男性追求容貌身材、女性看重职业能力与财富积累；然而在真实的五分钟速配约会互动中，这些预设标准全部失效。男女双方给出的偏好驚人一致：唯一真正起决定性作用的，是这短短五分钟的面对面交流是否充满乐趣、让人感到愉悦。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 约会氛围对恋爱吸引力机制的影响 accDescr: 对比评估型约会环境与轻松好奇型约会环境对双方互动体验和连接建立的截然不同影响。 subgraph Evaluative ["审判评估型场景（如夜店/高档酒局）"] A["预设硬性条件与求职面试心态"] --> B["紧张、戒备与过度表现"] B --> C["借助酒精麻痹神经与直觉"] C --> D["缺乏深度共鸣，连接破裂"] end subgraph Relaxed ["探索好奇型场景（如咖啡馆）"] E["关注当下互动乐趣与对话感受"] --> F["神经放松，流露自然状态"] F --> G["敏锐感知对方性格与价值观"] G --> H["建立真实情感连接"] end ``` 这种发现揭示了约会场景对于亲密关系启动的巨大影响。斯蒂芬提到现代人习惯在酒吧、夜店依赖酒精进行社交，但戈特曼夫妇对此持明确反对态度。朱莉解释道，“中毒”（intoxicated）一词源自毒素（toxic），酒精会麻痹大脑的判断力、反应能力与直觉，让人误把荷尔蒙冲动当作心动，甚至无视对方佩戴着婚戒等显而易见的危险信号。约翰直言，将约会变成像“求职面试”般互相打分审判的评估型环境，恰恰是“爱情的解药（毒药）”；而像普通咖啡馆那样轻松、好奇且无审判压力的氛围，才是观察彼此能否合拍的最佳选择——这正是戈特曼夫妇当年初次相识的地方。 - 伊莱·芬克尔（Eli Finkel）速配实验结论：实际互动中，无论男女，决定吸引力的核心因素均是当下相处的趣味性和愉悦感，而非收入或长相。 - 酒精对约会的负面干扰：抑制大脑的直觉与理智判断，使人丧失对潜在危险与红线（如已婚状态）的敏感度。 - 评估型环境（Evaluative Context）与面试心态：当双方过度把精力放在“证明自己的优秀”与“打分评判对方”时，真正的亲密与兴趣便荡然无存。 --- ### [41:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=2507s) 年龄差距与人生发展阶段的契合 斯蒂芬分享了一个身边的真实案例：一位即将迈入40岁的纽约男性好友，正在与一名23岁的年轻女性交往；男方渴望安定成家生子，女方却仍在探索自我的人生方向。对于这种巨大年龄差带来的困惑，朱莉从临床治疗经验给出了深入剖析。年龄差距过大主要会带来两重天然屏障：一是成长历史背景的断层，二是个人心理发展阶段的脱节。 以戈特曼夫妇自身为例，两人虽然相差9岁，但同属一个时代阵营：他们共同经历过越战时期、美国多起政治暗杀事件以及民权运动的激荡岁月，朱莉甚至在当年的街头抗议中被捕过。这种共同的历史背景赋予了伴侣彼此心照不宣的情感基础。相反，40岁与23岁的人处于截然不同的人生心理周期，双方的成熟度、核心价值观、兴趣爱好乃至对承诺的重视程度往往大相径庭。朱莉强调，显著的年龄差通常在双方都步入成熟期（例如40岁与55岁）之后才更容易维系，因为届时彼此早已确立了自我认同、职业路线以及家庭生育的清晰抉择。 - 历史语境共鸣：伴侣间拥有相似的时代经历（如重大社会事件与文化运动），是建立深层共情与理解的关键基石。 - 心理发展阶段差异：20岁出头尚处在自我探索与角色试错期，而40岁通常进入寻求家庭稳固与人生定型的周期，两者的诉求冲突极易引发关系危机。 - 年龄差异的可行区间：当双方均已完成自我认同、事业规划等重要人生课题后再组建家庭，年龄跨度对关系的冲击会大幅减小。 --- ### [44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=2672s) “足够好”的关系与不可妥协的底线 谈及单身人群在寻找灵魂伴侣与妥协于“足够好”（Good Enough）之间的纠结，约翰认为追求“在每一个维度上都完美无瑕”的伴侣注定会导向失望。寻找一段“足够好”的关系完全可行，但每个人心中不可妥协的底线（Non-negotiables）截然不同。对于约翰而言，关系不可动摇的核心是深度的“信任”（Trust）与坚定的“承诺”（Commitment）；而在两人的结合过程中，朱莉的不可妥协项是“渴望要孩子”与“严格的排他性一夫一妻制（Monogamy）”，约翰则将“幽默感”视为极其重要的特质。 除了这些硬性底线，更关键的隐性指标在于伴侣带来的自我感受。朱莉强调，永远不要只看自己对对方有多着迷，而要观察“他们让你觉得自己是个怎样的人”。一段值得停留的关系，既不会让你感到自己愚蠢、刻薄或过于黏人，也不会用虚假的浮夸奉承将你捧上神坛；真正健康的伴侣能够看见并接纳你作为一个完整人类的真实全貌。约翰与朱莉感慨道，两人之所以能携手一生，是因为他们在相处之初就迅速意识到：无论在一起谈论什么话题，彼此之间永远不会感到无聊，对话始终既有趣又富有生机。 - 约翰·戈特曼的核心底线：在关系中建立坚如磐石的信任感与高度的相互承诺。 - 朱莉·戈特曼的非谈判条件：双方对于抚养子女的共同意愿，以及排他的一夫一妻制契约。 - 衡量关系的核心心理维度： - 智性与交流的耐受度：长久相处时能否持续激发彼此的兴趣而不感到乏味。 - 自我认同的投射：对方是否能够以平视且客观的视角接纳你真实、完整的立体人性，而非贬低或过度盲目神化。 ### [47:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=2865s) 性吸引力在择偶中的角色与不可妥协的底线 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）分享了自己早年在纽约的一段深刻经历：他曾遇到一位无论从哪方面看都堪称完美的伴侣，对方聪明、善良、风趣，两人自驾出行时无话不谈，相处极其融洽。然而，当关系推进到身体亲密阶段时，火花却荡然无存——他完全无法对其产生性吸引力。这种巨大的落差让他感到无比沮丧，但也彻底重塑了他的择偶标准，使他在自己原本只有两条的“不可妥协原则”（能够帮助自己成为更好的人、具备智力上的激发与深度沟通能力）之外，郑重加上了第三条：双方必须具备纯粹且强烈的性吸引与身体连接。 朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）对此指出，性在亲密关系中的重要程度因人而异，谱系极其宽泛。有些人几乎是无性恋者（asexual），对性的态度无所谓，“只想喝杯咖啡吃块点心”；而另一些人如果隔了四小时没有亲密接触，就会觉得度日如年。每个人都需要诚实界定性对自己的重要性，因为一旦性对其中一方哪怕只具有平均程度的重要性，它在维系长期关系中就会变得至关重要。 - **史蒂文的“三大不可妥协底线”**： 1. 伴侣能促使自己成为更好的人（无论具体如何定义）； 2. 智力激发与双向深度交流的渴望； 3. 真实的身体与性吸引力（非单纯看外表，而是纯粹的性连接）。 - **个体差异谱系**：从近乎无性恋到高频需求，关键在于自我认知与双方的适配度。 --- ### [50:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3017s) 长期关系中性欲的减退、激素变化与男性触碰需求 约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）补充道，许多伴侣初识时充满激情，但随着时间推移性生活逐渐褪去，而当一方对性的需求远大于另一方时，差异就会演变成严重的危机。朱莉解释了导致这种情况的两大常见根源：其一是生理层面的变化，例如在40岁以上的二次婚姻或长期关系中，女性经历围绝经期（perimenopause）和绝经期时，性激素水平会大幅下滑，主动发起性行为的意愿减退；但由于人类生理构造是“预先布线的”（hardwired），温和恰当的身体刺激往往仍能唤醒身体的兴奋与反应回路。 其二则是深层的情感创伤破坏了信任与心理联结，以及西方文化强加给男性的情感束缚。在传统文化塑造下，许多男性认为单纯渴望被拥抱和抚摸是“不够男子气概”（not masculine）的表现，无法像女性那样坦然表达“请抱抱我”的脆弱需求。对于许多深受这种观念影响的男性（甚至是刚从战场归来的军人）而言，性成了社会唯一认可他们获取身体抚慰与亲密触碰的合法渠道，从而使性在关系中承载了远超生理快感的复杂负担。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 长期关系中性欲减退的双重根源 accDescr: 展示生理因素与情感文化因素如何共同导致伴侣间性生活退化。 subgraph Bio["生理与身体机制"] B1["激素水平下降<br/>(如围绝经期与绝经)"] B2["主动性欲降低"] B3["但神经触感通路仍完好<br/>(可通过刺激重新唤起)"] B1 --> B2 --> B3 end subgraph Psycho["情感与文化心理"] P1["情感创伤破坏信任"] P2["男子气概文化禁锢<br/>(压抑渴望被拥抱的脆弱)"] P3["性成为获取身体触碰的<br/>唯一渠道与压力源"] P1 --> P3 P2 --> P3 end Bio --> Outcome["伴侣间性需求失衡与隔阂"] Psycho --> Outcome ``` --- ### [53:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3219s) 柯立芝效应与“安全感 vs. 新鲜感”的悖论 史蒂文提出，许多性治疗师常强调性唤起依赖于“不可预测性、新鲜感与刺激”，而爱与长期关系的核心恰恰相反，是“安全、信赖、可依靠与彻底了解”。这种矛盾让许多情侣陷入困境：既要像认识了十年的挚友那样彼此信任，又希望能像初次邂逅的陌生人那样欲火焚身。约翰随之借用著名的“柯立芝效应”（Coolidge effect）典故来进行剖析——美国前总统卡尔文·柯立芝（Calvin Coolidge）与夫人参观农场时，农场主向夫人炫耀公鸡每天能交配17次，夫人要求转告总统；而柯立芝总统反问“每次都是同一只母鸡吗”，得到否定答复后幽默回应“去把这个转告柯立芝太太”。这一效应常被用来佐证性刺激离不开新鲜感，而熟悉感会扼杀激情。 然而，约翰强调现实远非这种二元对立那般简单。情欲很大程度上源于伴侣共同营造情色氛围的能力；尤其对女性而言，世界充满潜在的危险，内心深处对安全感的门槛极高，因此“感到安全”和“情感深联”不仅不会扼杀情欲，反而是她们感到对方有吸引力并沉浸于情色氛围的绝对先决条件。 - **柯立芝效应的误区**：将“安全感与熟悉感”机械地视为“性兴奋”的敌人，忽略了情感安全本身的助燃作用。 - **女性的安全性心理**：女性对恐惧和安全有着不同于男性的感知机制，缺乏情感联结与信任，情欲便无从谈起。 --- ### [56:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3407s) 7万人跨国研究：高质量性生活的真正基石 为了彻底打破“感情越亲近、友谊越深厚，性生活就越糟糕”的伪概念，约翰引用了一项覆盖全球24个国家、涉及70,000名受访者的庞大跨国研究。该研究发现，自评拥有“极佳性生活”与“糟糕性生活”的人群之间，决定性的差异根本不在于寻求外部新鲜感，而在于日常生活中的**亲密表达与情感联结**。那些性生活美满的伴侣，绝大多数每天都由衷地说“我爱你”，会在没有具体缘由时深情激吻，频繁拥抱，在公共场合也自然流露爱意，并保持定期的浪漫约会。 对于人们普遍陷入的“频率焦虑”——即通过社交媒体或影视作品给自己设定“每周必须做三次才算健康”的虚假标准——朱莉明确澄清，在科学统计上，**性生活的数量与关系幸福感之间毫无关联，起决定性作用的是质量**。唯一的例外是极端错配的情形：如果一方性欲旺盛、频繁渴求，而另一方接近无性恋、一个月一次都勉强，这种悬殊的鸿沟往往会让关系难以维系。 | 比较维度 | 自评性生活糟糕的伴侣 | 自评性生活极佳的伴侣 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **日常言语表达** | 很少主动表达爱意，缺乏日常温存 | 每天发自内心地说“我爱你” | | **身体微互动** | 触碰通常只作为性行为的前奏 | 无缘由的深吻、随手拥抱、公共场合牵手与肢体依偎 | | **伴侣相处仪式** | 缺乏专注的双人互动时间 | 坚持专属的浪漫约会之夜（Romantic dates） | | **关系与性满意度** | 将性视为孤立的生理任务或压力源 | 情感亲密与情欲相互滋养，以高品质为核心 | --- ### [58:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3525s) 欲望管理：物理空间与距离产生的美感 史蒂文提出了一个他在同龄人中常讨论的观点：“欲望管理”（Desire management）。他认为如果两个人每天每秒都在同一个屋檐下朝夕相处，可能会逐渐扼杀对彼此的渴望；而他和伴侣经常各自出差工作、小别重逢的相处模式，反而让每次相聚都充满新鲜感与期待。他好奇这种对“个人空间”的需求是否与依恋类型有关，以及全天候黏在一起是否必然会削弱性吸引力。 朱莉对此分享了她与约翰数十年的婚姻经验：他们几乎整个婚姻阶段都是每周7天朝夕相处，但这种紧密并不会破坏吸引力。关键在于房屋要有足够的物理空间以维持“不必时刻处于视觉焦点中”的自由——例如一人在楼上、一人在楼下，彼此互不干扰，甚至听不见对方的声音。朱莉坦言自己本身就极度需要独处（solitude），因此在同一栋房子里建立物理边界、享受各自的精神孤岛，既能兼顾长相厮守，又能保留重聚时的喜悦。 ### [01:00:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3623s) 分离后的重聚与“每周90分钟”深度沟通 长久分别后的重新相聚本应充满甜蜜，但现实往往比想象更复杂。约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）提到伴侣小别胜新婚的重逢虽然令人期待，但斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）分享了他正在接触的一对伴侣的真实案例：两人都是艺术家，常年频繁出差，每当其中一人出差归来，两人重聚后的前两三天竟然“完全没有任何感觉”，必须经历数天的过渡与磨合，才能重新找回共同的生活节奏。 斯蒂芬借此谈到一位过往播客嘉宾给他的严厉告诫：伴侣之间每周必须留出整整90分钟进行专门的沟通；对方甚至毫不留情地直言：“要是你不能把这句话凿进你那愚钝的脑袋里，以后你就等着在离婚法庭上花更多时间陪她吧！”这句话虽然语气粗暴，却引发了斯蒂芬深刻的自我反思。他坦承，作为男性以及基于自身的依恋风格，他天生对冲突解决感到极度抗拒与焦虑。在斯蒂芬潜意识里，解决冲突等同于“被问责与指责”。每当伴侣严肃地说出“我们需要谈谈”时，他的第一反应就是崩溃：“我的天啊，我又做错什么了？”整个人仿佛缩成了一个犯了错、被校长训诫的学童，只能战战兢兢地坐着，等待对方数落自己的种种不称职。而“每周强制固定90分钟坐下来交谈”的规则反而解救了他——因为只要完成这项制度化的沟通，后续才能轻松无负担地享受伴侣生活。 ### [01:02:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3728s) 约翰的小笔记本法门与非防御性倾听 针对斯蒂芬对“我们需要谈谈”的恐惧，约翰·戈特曼分享了自己的私房发明：他的后口袋里始终随身装着一个小笔记本和一支笔。一旦妻子朱莉（Julie Schwartz Gottman）严肃地宣布“我们需要谈谈”，约翰就会从容掏出小本子和笔，平静而开放地回应：“好，你说吧，我正记着呢，我想弄清楚到底发生了什么。”无论是朱莉表达对他的失望还是愤怒，约翰都会认真记在纸上，再把对方的话复述确认，以确保自己完全理解了她的意思。 约翰指出，关键并不在于机械地坐满90分钟，而是在这90分钟里必须做到“非防御性倾听”（listening non-defensively）。这种不急于反驳、不自我辩护的姿态极其艰难，却正是健康亲密关系的核心基本功，也是他们撰写《正确争吵》（*Fight Right*）一书的初衷。在沟通中，双方需要彻底摒弃“你、你、你”的指责模式，把对话焦点从“你让我多么失望”转移到客观情境本身，强调“面对这种状况，我内心的感受是什么”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 非防御性沟通处理流程 accDescr: 展示从伴侣提出谈话到约翰拿出笔记本倾听并反馈的完整非防御沟通回路 subgraph Trigger["触发情境"] A["伴侣提出：'我们需要谈谈'"] end subgraph DefenseMechanism["常见错误应对（防御性）"] B["感到被问责与定罪<br/>（如犯错学童面对校长）"] C["产生抗拒、反驳或推卸责任"] end subgraph NonDefensiveWork["戈特曼应对法（非防御性）"] D["随身掏出笔记本与笔"] E["记录核心诉求与情绪感受"] F["复述并核实对方意图<br/>（聚焦于情境而非指责个人）"] end A --> B --> C A --> D --> E --> F ``` ### [01:03:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3802s) 性别社会化差异：为什么男性羞于表达脆弱？ 当斯蒂芬询问在伴侣互动中究竟是男性还是女性更倾向于使用“我感到……”这类情绪表达句式时，朱莉直言，虽然男性正在奋起直追，但这依然极为艰难。传统心理健康观念中对男性健全人格的界定，长期充斥着自主性、独立性、力量感和心理韧性；而赋予女性的特质则是脆弱性、敏感度、共情心与情感流露。 在主流文化的规训下，男性唯一被允许公开宣泄的情绪只有愤怒。至于恐惧（例如坦承“我对明天的难关感到害怕极了”）或悲伤等更深层脆弱的情感，则往往被扣上“女人气”（effeminate）的帽子，并被视为一种缺陷。朱莉尖锐地指出，这种偏见的根源在于父权社会长期将女性视为二等公民，因此“像女人一样展现脆弱”便成了男人极力逃避的耻辱。斯蒂芬提出疑问：女性难道不喜欢男性的坚强吗？朱莉解释道，女性固然欣赏力量，但她们更渴望在关系中给予伴侣关怀与情感滋养。如果一个男人永远戴着无坚不摧的坚强面具，伴侣就永远无法真正贴近他，这种面具实质上构成了深层情感联结的绝壁。 ### [01:05:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3928s) 操场上的心理学：男孩追求继续比赛，女孩渴望情感共鸣 约翰·戈特曼引用了一项针对学校操场上8岁儿童行为的观察研究，生动揭示了男女在情感社交机制上的早期分野： - **小男孩的游戏模式**：通常在开阔的大场地上进行长距离追逐或球类比赛。当发生情绪冲突时（例如一个小男孩布莱恩气愤地喊道：“我根本碰不到球！”），团队领袖的处理方式极其干脆利落——立刻喊道：“把球传给布莱恩！”布莱恩拿到球后，比赛便瞬间恢复，所有人继续奔跑。对男孩而言，维系比赛继续运转是最高准则，冲突只是阻碍，必须在几秒钟内迅速摆平。 - **小女孩的游戏模式**：通常两三成群聚集在靠近教学楼的安静角落。跳房子等游戏只是她们交流情感的借口，核心过程是没完没了地探讨感受：“你刚才说我是小屁孩，因为我戴了这个发夹，这真的让我很受伤。”“我以前小的时候才戴发夹，现在早就不戴了，但你说那句话确实让我难受。”“我其实不是故意要伤害你的感受……”她们在一次次的情绪倾诉与互相求证中建立联结。 约翰强调，男女自童年起所接受的社会化训练就截然不同。这也解释了为何在成年亲密关系中，许多男性总觉得伴侣在无休止地“找茬训话”——男性以为妻子又在宣泄不满，而实际上，妻子只是在遵循女性的本能方式，通过表达细微情感来维系彼此的亲密。 ### [01:07:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4036s) 男人真的简单吗？“亲密关系的管理者”与藏在音乐里的情绪 社会上流传着一句俗语：“妻子开心，日子舒心”（Happy wife, happy life）。斯蒂芬分析，这句话之所以流行，是因为很多男人将自己的核心责任窄化为“只要不让她找我的麻烦，我就万事大吉”。如果问一个男人感觉如何，他的答案通常简单粗暴：“我不饿、我没有性冲动，我挺好的。”但如果问一个女人感觉如何，她脑海中会立刻涌现出一整张交织着孩子、家务、工作和复杂思绪的庞大网络。斯蒂芬感叹，尽管冲突爆发的当下令人痛苦，但跳出微观视角就会明白：女性实则是“亲密关系的管理者”；若非她们主动挑起沟通，关系早就分崩离析。 斯蒂芬开玩笑说，他和男性朋友可以坐在一起沉默发呆整整八个小时，各自做自己的事，结束时彼此依然觉得“今晚太棒了”，感叹“男人在多数时候真是极度简单的生物”。然而，拥有50年临床经验的朱莉立刻反驳了这种观点：“你们根本一点都不简单，这是彻头彻尾的假象！”朱莉指出，男人内心的情感细腻度与女人别无二致，只不过由于社会禁忌，他们习惯于将情绪硬生生压抑在深处，一旦撕开一道微小的缝隙，情感就会喷涌而出。 - **酒精与男性友谊**：约翰引用人类学家莱昂内尔·泰格（Lionel Tiger）关于友谊的研究指出，在微醺状态下，男人们不仅会有很多肢体接触，更会异乎寻常地倾诉海量内心真实感受。 - **用音乐代述衷肠**：斯蒂芬分享了同事间的趣事，两位女性发现她们的伴侣都有一个共同习惯：不知如何用言语表达深情时，便会突兀地发来一首 Spotify 歌曲链接（往往是“我爱你，你是我的唯一”等浪漫情歌）并附言“听听这个”。这种以歌传情的方式，恰恰暴露了男性难以将脆弱情绪直接诉诸言语的集体困境。 针对沟通的时机把握，斯蒂芬提出必须建立某种仪式感（例如提前询问“现在聊聊合适吗？”或换一个环境）。对此，戈特曼夫妇表示高度认同，并指出在他们举办的伴侣工作坊尾声，一定会传授一套巩固关系改善成果的长效工具，而排在首位的就是被他们称为“每周国情咨文会议”（State of the Union）的定时沟通仪式。 ### [01:11:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4264s) 每周的“工会会议”与感恩的力量 夫妻双方可以建立一种类似“工会会议”（Union Meeting）的沟通机制。会议首先以相互表达五条赞赏开启——说出此前从未提及、但注意到伴侣做得很棒的事情，并由衷表达感激、感谢或钦佩；随后进入现实层面，讨论彼此需要做出哪些调整与改进；最后以一个充满温情的问题收尾：“这周我怎样做才能让你感到被爱？”（How can I make you feel loved this week?） 当主持人追问为何“感恩”（Gratitude）在亲密关系中如此关键时，约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）指出，感恩本质上代表了一种更深层的思维习惯（Habit of Mind）。这种思维习惯让人时刻关注生活中积极、运转良好的那一面，并心存感激。他分享了自己的亲身体验：每天早晨醒来躺在朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）身边时，他都会由衷觉得自己是个极其幸运的男人；他在脑海中梳理自己的清单——所爱的人都安好，伴侣在身边，还能去见女儿和小外孙，生活如此美好。 朱莉进一步补充，感恩能把人瞬间带回当下。心理学研究（例如 Christensen 与 Robinson 等人的实验）揭示了一个惊人的现象：不幸福的伴侣并不是没有为彼此付出，而是他们的感知出现了严重偏差——他们只能看到伴侣所表现出的积极行为的 50%，仿佛戴上了一副遮蔽善意的墨镜；而幸福的伴侣则能时时刻刻捕捉到对方的好。如果陷入消极的思维习惯，整个人就会处于易怒和暴躁的状态，满眼都是别人的违章驾驶、粗心大意和犯错；而感恩则能切换大脑的认知框架，让人看见所有正在发生的美好。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 感恩与消极思维习惯对亲密关系认知的影响对比 accDescr: 对比幸福伴侣在感恩框架下与不幸福伴侣在消极框架下的认知差异和滤镜效果 subgraph Happy["幸福伴侣（感恩思维习惯）"] H1["聚焦当下积极面"] --> H2["能识别 100% 的伴侣积极付出"] H2 --> H3["维持温情、欣赏与情绪稳定"] end subgraph Unhappy["不幸福伴侣（消极思维习惯）"] U1["过度挑错与苛责"] --> U2["仅能感知 50% 的积极付出（认知盲区）"] U2 --> U3["陷入暴躁、易怒与持续不满"] end ``` --- ### [01:13:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4437s) “如果生命只剩六个月”：关系的优先级重置 朱莉在她的私人临床心理治疗中长期接触癌症患者及其家属。她发现，面对死亡威胁时，应对得最好的患者往往会做出彻底的生命优先级重置：“我的生命不长了，我要在这最后的六个月里认真思考什么才是最重要的。” 朱莉将这一极具冲击力的提问引入到伴侣治疗中，专门应对那些像在“平行轨道”上各自狂奔、毫无情感交集的夫妻： - “如果你只剩下六个月的生命，你希望怎么度过？” - “谁是你最想靠近、最珍惜的人？谁不再那么重要？” - “你希望如何安排这仅剩的时间？” 在引导他们进入极度放松的状态后，伴侣们往往会迎来顿悟。这种提问并非单纯为了测试关系是否该终结，而是促成内心的清醒反思：“天哪，我竟然把生命全部浪费在拼命赚更多钱上！当我身边就坐着最爱的人时，我为什么还要这么做？到底赚更多钱重要，还是在我们之间建立更多的爱重要？” --- ### [01:15:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4555s) 怎么知道该不该分手？黑洞般的负面互动模式 主持人提出了一个许多人深陷其中的普遍困境：一段关系该如何判断何时该果断放手？关系本身具备强烈的诱惑力，常常用一种虚幻的熟悉舒适感将人拽回，让人极难抽身。主持人以自己的朋友为例：相恋七八年，关系反复分崩离析，已经历了六次分分合合；每当破裂时，男方第一反应就是急着去修复，但这种反复循环让人怀疑究竟是在追求习惯性的舒适，还是关系根本就不对。 朱莉指出，如果这对伴侣从未共同接受过优质的专业心理咨询（Couples Therapy），他们其实“并不真正知道”这段关系能否挽救。现实是，学校教育从来不会开设“亲密关系基础课”（Relationships 101）来教授如何应对冲突、如何敞开心扉向伴侣展露脆弱。当关系维系多年后，双方很容易形成如同“黑洞”一般的互动模式，具有极强的重力牵引，把人一次又一次拖入相同的泥潭中。解决问题的核心并不在于换掉伴侣，而在于学会并练习替代性的良性互动模式。 约翰补充了一个极为核心的底线判断标准：当彼此间的“喜爱与赞赏系统”（Fondness and Admiration System）彻底荡然无存，爱意与尊重被诋毁（Denigration）、贬低（Belittling）和轻蔑蔑视（Contempt）所取代时，这往往是关系不可逆转、该彻底离开的信号。 --- ### [01:19:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4764s) 爱情实验室与 5:1 的黄金情绪比例 当话题引向戈特曼最为人熟知的“末日四骑士”（The Four Horsemen）理论时，约翰回顾了他与罗伯特·利文森（Bob Levenson）合作开创的实验室研究历程。这项研究的核心切入点是测量对话中“积极情绪与消极情绪的比例”。 为了获取未经修饰的真实互动数据，他们搭建了著名的“爱情实验室”（Love Lab）： - **物理环境与设备**：夫妻双方相对而坐，多角度摄像机全天候精确对准两人的面部表情与身体动作； - **量化工具与生理指标**：椅子安装了微动计（Jiggle-ometer）以追踪坐立不安的身体摆动；生理传感器同步精确记录心率、脉搏波传导速度、呼吸频率以及皮肤电反应（Skin Conductance），所有数据均精确到百分之一秒进行时间戳对齐； - **观察流程**：伴侣们首先就当天的日常琐事交谈 15 分钟，随后被要求针对一个长期悬而未决的矛盾分歧进行讨论（激发真实的冲突反应），最后再以积极话题恢复平静；在“公寓实验室”中，伴侣们甚至会在监控镜头下度过 12 小时的真实生活，直至入睡。 在累计跟踪的 3,000 对伴侣（其中 130 对进行了长达 20 年的纵向追踪研究）中，戈特曼发现了一个决定婚姻命运的数学定律：在那些幸福且稳定的亲密关系中，无论是在日常聊天还是激烈的冲突场景中，**积极情绪与消极情绪的比例至少维持在 5:1 以上**。积极互动并不局限于语言夸赞，它包含大量微小却关键的线索：点头、微笑、提出探询性的问题、善意的幽默、共情认同（Validation）以及对伴侣表现出浓厚的情感兴趣。 ### [01:22:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4938s) 关系的「末日四骑士」：破坏亲密关系的四大杀手 在探讨伴侣互动的动态时，消极情绪包括愤怒、烦躁、失望、受伤、厌恶和蔑视，而共同的幽默感则是极具保护力的积极因素。约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）指出，在关系稳定且幸福的伴侣之间，发生冲突时的积极与消极互动比例平均为 5:1；而在走向破裂或彼此折磨的不幸关系中，这一比例骤降至 0.8:1。然而，并非所有负面互动造成的伤害都相同，研究发现有四种特定的消极行为对关系的瓦解具有极高的预测性，它们被称为亲密关系的“末日四骑士”（The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse）：批评（Criticism）、蔑视（Contempt）、防御（Defensiveness）以及筑墙冷战（Stonewalling）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 亲密关系冲突中的末日四骑士 accDescr: 展示从批评到蔑视、防御，最终走向筑墙冷战的关系恶化演变过程。 subgraph Phase1["言语指责阶段"] A["批评 (Criticism)<br/>将问题归咎于对方人格缺陷<br/>'你太懒了、太自私了'"] B["蔑视 (Contempt)<br/>自居优越感与厌恶嘲弄<br/>关系的'浓硫酸'"] end subgraph Phase2["应激应对阶段"] C["防御 (Defensiveness)<br/>扮演无辜受害者或反戈一击<br/>源于深层不安全感"] D["筑墙冷战 (Stonewalling)<br/>生理过载，心率突破100次/分<br/>情感撤离与彻底关机"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D ``` 戈特曼夫妇对这些行为进行了详尽拆解。首先是“批评”，其核心是将具体的问题直接上升为对伴侣人格缺陷的攻击，例如脱口而出“你太懒了，就从没想过收拾厨房，对吧？”或是“你真是不体贴，要晚回家连个电话都不打”。这种将过错归结为自私、散漫或缺乏道德的人格指责，会彻底切断就事论事的可能。而“蔑视”则是四骑士中杀伤力最致命的一种，被比喻为泼向亲密关系的“浓硫酸”（sulfuric acid）。蔑视不仅包含挑剔，更渗透着居高临下的优越感与彻底的嫌恶。蔑视的表现形式包括尖酸刻薄的讽刺、当众嘲弄，或者模仿对方的语调冷嘲热讽：“比如对方说‘我很在乎你的感受’，另一方却翻着白眼、捏着嗓子怪腔怪调地学舌：‘哎哟，你真在乎我的感受啊！’这种极度轻蔑与排斥会让伴侣的自尊遭受毁灭性打击。” - **冲突中的黄金比例**：幸福伴侣在争执期间的积极与消极互动比为 5:1，而破裂关系中该比例低至 0.8:1。 - **批评的特征**：攻击伴侣的性格与人格（如指责对方“自私”、“懒惰”、“没脑子”），而非客观陈述具体事件。 - **蔑视的本质**：高人一等的优越感与厌恶混合，常伴随冷嘲热讽、翻白眼和当众羞辱，是预测离婚最强烈的单一指标。 --- ### [01:24:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5073s) 防御心理与不安全感：地壳之下的滚烫岩浆 在四骑士中，“防御”是几乎每个人都难以摆脱且极难克服的本能反应。防御通常呈现为两种面孔：一种是“委屈 whine”并扮演无辜受害者，喋喋不休地辩解“我明明按时交账单了，你凭什么说我不体贴，我哪里不体贴了”；另一种则是迅速反戈一击（Counterattack），用攻击掩盖恐慌：“哦对，就你完美是吧？你什么时候打扫过厨房了？”主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）探讨了不安全感与防御之间的深层机制：那些自我认知脆弱、极度自卑的人，任何微小的批评都会像尖刺戳中未愈的创口一样引发剧痛；他们必须维持一种“我绝不可能做错任何事”的虚幻武装，因为承认错误实在太痛苦了，宛如一个“行走的重度烧伤患者”（walking burn victim）。 朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）对此给出了极为生动贴切的地质学比喻。她形容一个内在缺乏安全感的人，就像生活在一层极薄的地壳之上，地表之下翻滚着足以将人焚毁的滚烫岩浆。当伴侣轻声问一句“你为什么没按时交账单”时，这脆弱的地壳瞬间裂开一道深渊，当事人直接跌入自我厌恶（self-loathing）的炽热岩浆中，承受着被烧死的极度痛苦。正因承受不了这种直面自我缺陷的剧痛，他们根本无法退一步承认“天哪，你说得对，是我疏忽了”，而是必须依靠狂暴的防御机制自保，反唇相讥道：“家里所有账单平时都是我交的，你又干了些什么？”斯蒂芬与戈特曼夫妇一致认为，这种过度的剧烈反应本质上往往与童年创伤紧密相连——可能源于严厉父母的反复贬低、或童年遭受霸凌时被贴上“永远丢三落四”的羞辱标签，导致成年后面对最轻微的过失也如临大敌。 --- ### [01:27:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5220s) 筑墙冷战的生理风暴与沟通瘫痪 第四种致命杀手是“筑墙冷战”（Stonewalling），即情感上的彻底撤离与封锁。在实验室观察中，戈特曼夫妇发现冷战中的伴侣外表看似波澜不惊地坐着，但实际上整个人已经“关机”：眼神呆滞或移开视线，面无表情，身体紧绷，陷入长达数分钟甚至更久的死寂。然而，身体内部正在经历剧烈的生理风暴。约翰·戈特曼在实验中严密监测生理指标后指出，冷战者并不是冷漠无情，而是感受到了极其强烈的受攻击感，导致交感神经系统彻底过载（Flooding）——即便静坐不动，他们的心率也会飙升至每分钟 100 次以上，体内大量分泌皮质醇和肾上腺素。整个人已陷入全面的“战斗或逃跑”（fight-or-flight）应激状态，唯一的生存本能就是切断所有信息输入，彻底锁死沟通通道。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 筑墙冷战中的生理过载循环 accDescr: 展示当事人面对言语压力时，体内激素与心率飙升导致彻底情感闭锁的生理过程。 subgraph Stress["外界冲突刺激"] A["感受被言语猛烈攻击"] end subgraph BioOverload["生理风暴 (Flooding)"] B["心率飙升至 >100 bpm"] C["皮质醇与肾上腺素激增"] end subgraph Shutdown["行为闭锁 (Stonewalling)"] D["面部空白 / 眼神涣散"] E["情感彻底关闭拒绝互动"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E ``` 斯蒂芬分享了一个发生在他朋友身上的真实案例：这是一对男性同性伴侣，其中一方在长达数月的时间里陷入极端冷战。每当谈及关系中的挑战或询问关系进展时，对方就像一堵完全真空的墙壁，不表达需求，也不吐露情绪，独自在内心疯狂内耗螺旋，最后毫无征兆地提出分手，让另一方错愕不已。朱莉·戈特曼对此分析，这反映了双方在展现脆弱（vulnerability）方面的巨大障碍。通常在关系初期，某一方曾尝试袒露内心脆弱，却遭到了伴侣惩罚性的负面回应；这种受挫经历促使他们做出心理防御决策：“我绝不能再展示脆弱，否则我会被伤得体无完肤”，从而彻底退回到冷酷的孤岛之中。 - **冷战的生理指标**：伴侣在静坐不语时，心率已突破 100 bpm，伴随肾上腺素与皮质醇的大量分泌，属于典型的生理应激过载。 - **冷战的表现**：面部缺乏微表情互动，眼神呆滞，长时间拒绝言语回应，心理机制上属于防御性自我封闭。 - **深层成因**：历史上袒露脆弱曾遭致惩罚性打击，导致习得性沉默，宁愿独自螺旋内耗直至关系分崩离析。 --- ### [01:30:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5426s) 同性伴侣关系的优势与社群支持的力量 基于男性普遍不擅长表达情感的前提，斯蒂芬提出疑问：既然表达感受是建立深度连接的基础，那么两个男人组成的男同性恋关系又是如何维系的？是否有数据显示同性关系的持久度低于有女性作为“情感沟通发起者”的异性恋关系？约翰·戈特曼用长达数年的对比研究数据给出了出人意料的答案：在许多互动维度上，同性伴侣（包括男同性恋与女同性恋）的表现实际上优于异性伴侣。数据显示，同性伴侣在处理分歧时通常表现出更低的防御性、更优秀的幽默感，并且在提出冲突议题时的态度要温和得多。此外，他们展现出更少的占有欲和支配欲，关系中的平等意识（equality）显著更高。 针对忠诚度与性规范，戈特曼夫妇指出男同性恋与女同性恋群体之间存在明显差异： - **男同性恋伴侣**：在艾滋病（AIDS）流行之前，男同伴侣间往往给予彼此较高的婚外性自主权；随着疫情爆发这种现象曾大幅收缩，而如今再次显现——许多男同伴侣允许彼此享有身体上的性自由，前提是不发生深层的情感连接或爱上第三方。 - **女同性恋伴侣**：对非专一多边恋（Polyamory）或多配偶制往往感到极度不安，压倒性地倾向于一对一的情感与身体忠诚。 对于“同性伴侣关系是否比异性恋关系更持久”这一问题，戈特曼表示目前的数据并未显示出两者在维系时长上存在显著差异。朱莉·戈特曼补充了一个至关重要的社会学维度：历史上同性恋群体承受着巨大的社会污名与偏见，为了在异性恋主导的社会中生存，同性伴侣往往能融入一个极具凝聚力的社群（community）。研究有力地证实，当伴侣周围拥有一个能够提供稳定认同与持续支持的紧密社群时，亲密关系的稳固程度和健康度都会得到极大的提升与庇护。 ### [01:33:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5625s) 真正的“煤气灯效应”与社会滥用 史蒂文将话题引向当今流行文化中极其高频的词汇——“煤气灯效应”（Gaslighting），并询问戈特曼夫妇这一行为是否属于他们此前讨论的“末日四骑士”范畴，究竟该如何定义。约翰·戈特曼从其词源讲起，指出该词出自经典电影《煤气灯下》（*Gaslight*），片中英格丽·褒曼（Ingrid Bergman）饰演的妻子遭到丈夫处心积虑的精神操控。丈夫为了让她坚信自己患有精神疾病、现实感知彻底错乱，故意暗中调换墙上挂画的顺序、偷走送给她的传家珠宝，转头却质问她把东西丢到哪里，反唇相讥指责她“健忘”、“疯了”，甚至在撤走油灯后咬定什么都没发生。施害者的根本目的，是彻底击垮受害者的自主意识，迫使受害者只能依赖施害者来判定现实的真伪。 朱莉·戈特曼随即纠正了当代大众文化对该词的严重误用。在现实人际沟通中，当两个人发生争执、对刚刚发生的事情各执一词（例如一人指责“你明明说了那句话”，另一人坚决否认“我绝对没说”）时，人们动辄扣上“你在对我煤气灯”的帽子。朱莉明确强调：“那根本不是煤气灯效应。”人类的记忆并不完美，每个人都有自己独特的情感过滤网，这必然导致信息筛选、遗忘或认知失真。不存在所谓绝对客观的单一现实，冲突中的双方各自持有主观认知并陷入争辩是常态，绝不能将单纯的视角与记忆差异混同于恶意的精神操控。 --- ### [01:37:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5821s) 极度控制、心理摧残与“受害者为何不离开” 真正的煤气灯效应发生于一个人**蓄意**摧毁另一人的理智、使其不再信任自己的直觉与判断之时。在具有严重暴力倾向的关系中，施暴者可能刚刚一记耳光抽在伴侣脸上，下一秒却咬牙切齿地宣称：“我从来没碰过你，全是你臆想出来的。”史蒂文分享了一位家暴受害者向他讲述的经历：伴侣在前期进行疯狂的“爱情轰炸”（Love Bombing）倾泻爱意，确立关系后却开始暗中把她的车钥匙藏进冰箱，随后无辜质问“你为什么要把车钥匙放进冰箱”，以此坐实她“精神失常”并顺理成章没收车钥匙，剥夺其驾车出行的自由。戈特曼夫妇点头表示，这正是煤气灯操控的教科书式范例，其背后往往交织着极端的占有欲、病态嫉妒与社会性孤立手段。 约翰·戈特曼回忆起他们接诊过的一起极端案例：一名男子甚至在家中车库的轮胎和车道地面上划定严密对齐的标记，只要傍晚回家发现两条标记错位，哪怕妻子仅仅是去了一趟杂货店，也会遭到一顿毒打，并伴随着歇斯底里的盘问：“你今天跟谁鬼混去了？满嘴谎言的贱人！”史蒂文指出，旁观者听到这类惨剧时往往会天真地断言“换作我绝不会留下”。然而真实情况残酷得多：受害者承受的绝不仅是肉体创伤，更是长期的精神凌辱。施暴者日复一日用“你是个蠢货”、“除了我根本没人会要你”来摧毁对方的自尊，使受害者对自身生存能力产生根本怀疑；加之施暴者事后往往展现出痛哭流涕的悔恨（Remorseful），发誓改过自新，受害者便往往寄托于“他终究会变好”的虚妄幻想中难以脱身。 --- ### [01:39:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5980s) 区分日常自恋与病态自恋（NPD） 面对如此残忍的控制欲，史蒂文提问这类人是否属于“自恋者”（Narcissist），或者这个词也同样被大众过度泛化了。朱莉·戈特曼赞同并为自恋正名：广义上的自恋根植于人类的自我保护本能（Self-preservation），每个人都需要关注自我需求、思考如何满足自身利益。然而，公众口中的“自恋狂”在临床心理学中通常指的是**自恋型人格障碍（Narcissistic Personality Disorder, NPD）**，这是一种极端的病理状态。 患有自恋型人格障碍的个体具有以下残酷特征： - **同理心彻底缺失**：对伴侣的痛苦毫无体恤与感知能力。 - **毫无良知道德感**：能够实施毁灭性的伤害而内心毫无愧疚。 - **推诿责任与受害者归咎**：绝对不为自身错误承担责任，其标准话术是“我没有搞砸，是你害我失败的，是你设局陷害了我”。 - **二维化视角**：在他们眼中，周围所有人都不具备独立鲜活的人格，仅仅是折射自身优越感的工具或镜像。 --- ### [01:41:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=6084s) 两种截然不同的家庭暴力：性格型与情境型 谈及如何帮助遭受家庭暴力的个案时，朱莉与约翰深入阐述了戈特曼机构对家庭暴力的临床分类。家庭暴力在性质上有着本质区别，必须精确鉴别才能施以正确的干预方案： | 维度 | 性格型家庭暴力 (Characterological DV) | 情境型家庭暴力 (Situational DV) | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **发生比例** | 约占家暴总数的 **20%** | 约占家暴总数的 **80%** | | **角色划分** | 施暴者与受害者界限分明、不可逆转 | 双方通常均卷入暴力对抗中（互有推搡） | | **伤害程度** | 极度危险，伴随严重人身伤害甚至致命威胁 | 多为推搡、抓扯、摔掷物品，通常无重度躯体致残 | | **发生机制** | 一方出于病态控制欲单方面施虐与系统性压制 | 冲突升级引发双向**生理被淹没（Flooded State）** | | **干预方案** | **坚决终止关系**：受害者必须秘密、周密策划逃离 | **可接受心理治疗**：通过情绪降温技术进行行为矫正 | 朱莉解释道，在占八成的“情境型家庭暴力”中，施暴并非出于蓄谋压制，而是因为激烈的口角导致双方心率飙升超过每分钟 100 次，身体进入本能的“战或逃”（Fight or Flight）状态。此时人体的前额叶皮层（Prefrontal Cortex）功能下线，个体的理性思考、逻辑倾听和问题解决能力全面瘫痪。无论对方说什么，大脑接收到的全是“敌意攻击”信号，进而失控升级为推搡、限制身体活动或砸摔物品。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 冲突中的生理被淹没与情境型暴力机制 accDescr: 展示冲突升级时心率超标导致前额叶下线并触发情境型暴力的过程 subgraph Physiology ["生理激化阶段"] A["激烈言语冲突"] --> B["心率骤增 (>100 bpm)"] B --> C["陷入'生理被淹没'状态"] end subgraph BrainCrash ["认知失灵阶段"] C --> D["前额叶皮层功能下线"] D --> E["倾听与问题解决能力丧失"] D --> F["感官将所有信息扭曲为'敌对攻击'"] end subgraph Behavior ["失控行为阶段"] E --> G["情境型肢体冲突 (摔物/推搡)"] F --> G end ``` 戈特曼夫妇针对情境型家暴展开了严格的随机对照试验（RCT）。临床治疗的核心是帮助伴侣在生理指标失控前察觉信号并中断互动。长期追踪数据显示，即便在治疗结束一年半之后，受试伴侣在家庭环境中录制冲突讨论时，其生理激化指标仍能维持在平稳安全的低位。与对照组相比，针对性治疗展现出了显著且持久的干预成效。随着对话推进，史蒂文顺势询问，这种对创伤与冲突机制的深入探索，是否正是他们此次前往英国牛津开展演讲交流的议题，约翰与朱莉随即确认，此行正是为了系统分享有关创伤修复以及不忠（出轨）治疗的临床实证经验。 ### [01:45:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=6314s) 外遇的定义与背叛带来的毁灭性创伤 当主持人 Steven Bartlett 提到“治疗外遇”（Treating Affairs）这个说法时，他坦言自己从未听过外遇也可以像某种病症一样被“治疗”。John Gottman 与 Julie Gottman 指出，在他们的实证研究中，外遇治疗的治愈率高达 75%。关于“外遇”的具体范畴，Julie Gottman 解释道，外遇既包括没有肉体结合但产生深刻情感倾注的“情感出轨”（Emotional Affair），也包括与相爱对象发生的肉体结合，甚至包括在约定了一夫一妻制（Monogamy）的前提下、单纯缺乏情感连结的纯肉体出轨。 但无论形式如何，外遇的核心特征始终是“欺骗”（Deception）与信任的彻底破裂。外遇会彻底颠覆被背叛者的世界：他们过去深信不疑的伴侣形象完全崩塌，自以为共同拥有的价值观化为乌有。原本以为伴侣只是在公司加班，结果却去了第三者的公寓；受害者会陷入一种极度的认知失调与恐慌：“如果连这个都是谎言，那我眼前的人到底是谁？”在长期承诺的关系中，亲密关系往往是人们构筑整个人生的基石——家庭、职业选择、生活方式乃至人生的目标与意义，都建立在其上。一旦遭遇这样的背叛，整个人生的大厦就会轰然倒塌、碎落一地。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伴侣背叛对被伤害方心理认知与人生基石的破坏机制 accDescr: 展示从隐瞒与谎言到伴侣认知崩塌、产生PTSD创伤记忆的心理过程 subgraph Betrayal["背叛行为"] A["欺瞒与背叛<br/>(情感出轨 / 肉体出轨)"] end subgraph ShatteredReality["认知基石崩塌"] B["信念颠覆<br/>('我深爱的人究竟是谁？')"] C["人生基石碎裂<br/>(家庭、生活意义与信任瓦解)"] end subgraph Trauma["创伤后应激障碍 (PTSD)"] D["闪回与非自愿入侵记忆"] E["感官泛滥与强烈的生理应激反应"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E ``` ### [01:47:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=6465s) 出轨率的演变与女性出轨率的上升 当被问及到底有多少伴侣经历过上述定义的出轨行为时，Gottman 夫妇表示确切的统计数据很难精准掌握，但保守估计大约有 30% 的伴侣经历过外遇。虽然常有传言称男女出轨率大约各自在 15% 左右，但 Julie Gottman 强调，如今女性的外遇比例已经基本追平了男性。 Julie Gottman 深入剖析了这一社会现象背后的历史成因：在 20 世纪 70 年代妇女解放运动之前，女性大多被局限在家庭场域中，缺乏接触外部世界的机会；她们的日常社交圈仅限于厨房餐桌旁的邻居主妇，或者偶尔上门的送奶工、水管工和邮递员。而随着女性大举进入职场，她们面前展开了一个充满潜在社交对象的全新天地。Steven 也补充指出，走向职场带给女性全方位的独立性，尤其是经济上的自立——这意味着女性不再必须在不幸的婚姻中委曲求全，她们拥有了独自支撑生活的能力与底气。 ### [01:49:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=6565s) 治疗外遇的“赎罪、协调、依恋”（AAA）三阶段模型 针对遭遇外遇重创的伴侣，Gottman 夫妇基于长期研究建立了一套科学的临床干预路径——“AAA 模型”，即**赎罪（Atonement）**、**协调（Attunement）**与**依恋（Attachment）**。Julie Gottman 严肃提醒，这套流程极为激烈且痛苦，必须在专业治疗师的引导下进行，绝不能在家里私下尝试。 在第一阶段“赎罪”中，背叛方必须完全坦诚、毫无保留地回答受伤伴侣提出的每一个问题。然而，治疗师通常会强烈建议受伤害方**不要询问关于性细节的具体内容**。原因在于，遭遇背叛的伴侣几乎百分之百会出现创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）。与普通记忆仅有零星片段不同，创伤性记忆具有极强的侵入性，会以闪回的形式不请自来，伴随着图像、气味、声音以及飙升的肾上腺素和皮质醇一同爆发。如果受伤方知道了具体的性行为细节，那些逼真的画面就会在脑海中反复盘旋、折磨心神，加剧创伤。赎罪阶段的核心还包括： 1. **千百次真诚的道歉**：背叛方必须发自内心地说一千次“对不起”，并切实理解对方的痛苦。Julie Gottman 提到，在诊室里，即使是最坚强的男性，在真正看清伴侣所承受的撕裂般痛苦时，也会泣不成声。 2. **不带防御地倾听**：背叛方必须收起一切辩解和防御姿态，完全承载对方的情绪。 3. **治疗师的情感引导**：治疗师需要协助受伤方转化情绪表达方式，避免演变成毒化关系的“批评”与“蔑视”，而是准确倾诉自身最真实的感受（如“我感到自己被彻底摧毁了”、“我的世界瓦解了”、“我感到被彻底遗弃与空虚”）。 在完成深度的赎罪之后，才能进入第二阶段“协调”。此时伴侣双方开始审视婚姻原本存在的问题，探寻导致疏离的根源。在很多案例中，伴侣最初经历过激烈的冲突，为了逃避痛苦而选择回避冲突，结果导致情感日益疏远；背叛方感到极度孤独，转而向外寻求倾诉。因此，许多外遇的根源并非单纯贪图性快感，而是源于深入骨髓的孤独感。第三阶段则是“依恋”，重点在于重建信任、重新确立对关系的承诺，最终实现情感与肉体上的重新连结。Julie Gottman 观察到，受害者（尤其是女性）通常要等到第三阶段才会恢复性关系；不过也有少数个案中，受害女性会出于与第三者竞争的心态，反常地主动发起密集的性接触。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Gottman 外遇治疗 AAA 三阶段模型 accDescr: 展示从赎罪、协调到依恋的线性推进阶段与核心任务 subgraph Phase1["第一阶段: 赎罪 (Atonement)"] direction TB P1_A["透明回答疑问<br/>(回避性细节)"] P1_B["真诚道歉上千次"] P1_C["无防御倾听痛苦"] end subgraph Phase2["第二阶段: 协调 (Attunement)"] direction TB P2_A["剖析婚姻原本漏洞"] P2_B["解决冲突回避与孤独"] P2_C["逐步重建信任基础"] end subgraph Phase3["第三阶段: 依恋 (Attachment)"] direction TB P3_A["重新建立情感依恋"] P3_B["确立终身关系新承诺"] P3_C["恢复亲密性生活"] end Phase1 --> Phase2 Phase2 --> Phase3 ``` ### [01:54:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=6871s) PTSD 的持久性与探寻外遇动机的深层陷阱 Steven 针对流程提出疑问：背叛方到底需要道歉多少次？难道道歉不能在某个节点画上句号、让生活继续向前吗？Julie Gottman 结合自己 50 年的临床经验指出，许多咨询师或许不认同，但事实是外遇造成的 PTSD 永远不会彻底消失。随着时间推移，创伤被触发的频率可能会降低、强度可能会减弱，但它始终潜伏在神经记忆中。例如，夫妻在咨询室完成了治疗，关系看似大幅好转，但数月后的某一天，丈夫下班晚回家且没有提前打电话，妻子的 PTSD 瞬间就会被全面触发，脑海中警铃大作：“他又在骗我了！”正因如此，背叛方绝不能认为道歉过一次就可以把过去“抛在脑后”——因为你无法要求 PTSD 凭空消失，这就是出轨必须付出的沉重代价。 随后，Steven 探讨了被出轨者内心挥之不去的疑问：“你当初为什么背叛我？”他指出，这个问题往往会带来持久的不安全感，且很多出轨者自己根本讲不清动机。如果任由出轨者胡乱猜测，可能会随口说出“因为你长胖了”或“因为你身上有异味”等极其伤人且偏离本质的借口，从而对伴侣造成二次毁灭。Julie Gottman 证实了这一点，强调在没有专业引导的情况下私下质问只会演变成互相攻击（比如脱口而出“因为你是个混蛋”）。为了阐释外遇动机的复杂性与盲目性，Julie Gottman 举了一个极端的临床个案：她曾治疗过一对育有三名 10 岁以下孩子的夫妇，在并不算漫长的婚姻中，丈夫竟然有多达 57 次外遇，其中有 3 次他还陷入了真正的恋爱之中。这生动说明了外遇背后复杂的心理机制，必须在专业、安全的咨询环境中层层剖析。 ### [01:57:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7059s) 出轨背后的深层创伤与“赎罪”而非单纯宽恕 心理咨询中往往很容易把惯性出轨草率归咎于“性成瘾”，但朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Schwartz Gottman）指出，很多时候真正的动因远比表面复杂得多。她分享了一个真实的临床案例：一名男子不断出轨，人们第一反应可能会觉得他是性成瘾或沉迷女色，但真正的原因是他童年曾遭遇强奸。由于那段童年创伤，他内心深处极度恐惧自己是“潜在的同性恋”，而在他的文化背景中，同性恋被视为奇耻大辱。为了在心理上不断向自己证明“我是异性恋”，他强迫性地一次又一次去和女人发生婚外情。此前他几乎将这段童年遭遇完全压抑屏蔽了，当咨询师帮他把深埋的创伤拼图拼凑完整并直面真相后，“砰”的一声，他的婚外情立刻彻底停止了。 史蒂芬感叹这充分证明了人性的复杂性。朱莉进一步强调，在处理出轨问题时，核心关键是“赎罪”（Atonement）而非过早强求“宽恕”（Forgiveness）。这两者之间有着本质的区别：当传统的咨询师在出轨事件中一味强调宽恕时，往往会把压力转嫁到被背叛的那一方身上，反过来指责受害者“为什么不能大度原谅”。 ### [01:58:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7134s) 面对分手的“接纳”：立足现实与重燃余烬 史蒂芬随即提出疑问：“那‘接纳’（Acceptance）在关系中重要吗？是否需要接纳自己所处的境况？”朱莉起初警惕地纠正，认为如果“接纳”意味着去认同和承受伴侣对自己的伤害，那是绝对错误的。史蒂芬赶忙澄清自己的语境——他指的是身边一位正在经历分手的朋友，那位朋友之所以陷入极度的痛苦和痛苦反复中，是因为完全抗拒接受“对方已经提分手”的现实；朋友脑海里不断反刍，幻想如果当时做点别的能不能改变结果，甚至妄想穿越时空修补所有错误。 朱莉听后表示理解，并解释这其实是完全不同维度的“接纳”。她将这种状态定义为“立足于你眼前所拥有的现实”（Grounding in the reality of what you have right now）。面对现实意味着勇敢承认“是的，我确实犯了所有这些错误”。朱莉用极其形象的比喻补充道： - **微弱的余烬（Ember）**：如果双方之间哪怕还残留着一丝极其微小的火星，在专业心理治疗的吹拂下，这枚余烬依然可能被重新点燃，唤醒原本的激情与爱火。 - **冰冷的灰烬（Ashes）**：但正如约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）所指出的，有时当事人在这段过去的感情里只能感受到冰冷死寂的骨灰，连半点余温都没有，那就没有任何可以重建的基础了。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 面对感情危机的两种心理归宿 accDescr: 展示面对背叛与分手时从立足现实到不同情感走向的决策图 A["遭遇危机或分手事实"] --> B["立足当下现实<br/>停止无效反刍"] B --> C{"感情中是否仍有微弱火星？"} C -- "尚存余烬（Ember）" --> D["通过专业治疗吹拂火苗<br/>重燃信任与亲密"] C -- "仅剩灰烬（Ashes）" --> E["接受关系彻底终结<br/>告别过去重新启程"] ``` ### [02:00:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7242s) 出轨能否拯救一段关系？寻求专业帮助的疗愈契机 当史蒂芬抛出一个艰难甚至略显争议的问题：“你们是否见过出轨反而帮助了一段关系？”朱莉毫不犹豫地给出了肯定回答：“只要能够走向修复，这种情况非常非常普遍——前提是他们寻求了专业帮助。”如果不寻求帮助，出轨带来的只会是灾难和恶化；但当夫妻走进治疗室，专业的介入能打破并重塑整套恶性互动模式。 很多时候，伴侣出轨前根本不了解对方真正的需求、不知道彼此内心希望对方在生活中如何呈现自己。这场信任危机反而迫使双方脱下伪装，促成从未有过的深度沟通，建立起一种全然不同的信任与更深层次的亲密。约翰补充道，背叛的底层往往暗含着长期的“冲突回避”（Conflict avoidance）：出轨者不是选择坐下来向伴侣坦白关系中究竟出了什么问题，而是逃避沟通，转身向第三者去抱怨伴侣的过错。数据显示，在接受科学治疗的情况下，大约有 75% 的出轨关系是能够实现有效疗愈和修复的。 ### [02:02:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7334s) 关系与健康长寿：社会流行病学与情感联结 史蒂芬询问约翰，在他数十年的海量研究中，哪项发现最让他刻骨铭心、最颠覆认知？约翰回答，过去 50 年中兴起的“社会流行病学”（Social epidemiology）研究彻底证明了健康亲密关系的巨大价值： - **健康与长寿的源泉**：在现代医学应对慢性疾病的技术已经相当成熟的今天，真正决定人类寿命与整体健康水平的，往往是人际关系的质量。 - **育儿的最佳土壤**：稳定充满爱的伴侣关系为抚养孩子提供了无可替代的心理温床。 - **神奇的生命滋养力**：只要满足特定的相处原则，伴侣关系就能迸发出赋予生命活力与长寿的“神奇魔法”。 ### [02:03:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7416s) 联结尝试（Bids for Connection）：86% 与 33% 的预测法则 谈话随后转入戈特曼夫妇最著名、在社交媒体上引发无数讨论的发现——“联结尝试”（Bids for connection）。约翰回顾了当年在西雅图华盛顿大学建立“爱情实验室”（Apartment Lab）的细节。当时实验室安装了三台摄像机，受限于当时的技术，控制室只能将其中两路画面拼成分屏。技术人员很快发现了一个规律：经常是一方试图引起另一方的关注（例如突然说一句：“噢，看外面那艘路过的船多漂亮啊！”），镜头便立刻切给说话者，并用另一路镜头对准伴侣记录反应。 这种互动由两步构成：一人发起联结尝试，另一人做出回应。约翰将其归纳为三种核心回应模式： | 回应模式 | 具体表现 | 示例 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **迎向（Turning toward）** | 积极回应对方对注意力或兴趣的渴求（不一定非要身体转向） | “哇，真的好漂亮，那是什么船？” | | **背向（Turning away）** | 完全无视、毫无反应、保持冷漠 | 充耳不闻，继续盯着手机或屏幕 | | **反向对抗（Turning against）** | 表现出不耐烦、愤怒或攻击性打压 | “别打扰我，没看见我正工作吗！” | 约翰追踪研究发现了一个惊人的数据落差： - **离婚群体**：六年后最终走向分道扬镳的夫妻，在当年的实验中，对伴侣联结尝试的“迎向率”平均只有 **33%**。 - **稳定婚姻群体**：六年依然恩爱维系婚姻的夫妻，当年的“迎向率”高达 **86%**。 更奇妙的发现来自于约翰的研究生：在日常生活中频繁“迎向”伴侣的人，在爆发冲突时会自然而然地发展出一种“自嘲与幽默感”，这种幽默能显著降低争吵时的生理唤醒（如心率飙升与应激反应）。通过刻意训练提升对联结尝试的觉察，完全可以习得这项能力。 ### [02:06:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7617s) 忙碌时如何得体回应联结尝试：“打书签”的艺术 史蒂芬坦诚反思自己在过往关系中做得很差，每当伴侣抛出联结尝试时，他总觉得被打扰了，心想“你明知道我很忙”。不过通过播客与专家对话后，他现在学会在写邮件的中途把注意力从笔记本电脑上移开，停下来问一句：“嗨，怎么了？” 朱莉对此提供了一个极其关键的实用沟通技巧——“打书签”（Putting a bookmark in there）。每个人都会遇到截稿日或抽不开身的时刻，完全无法立刻全神贯注地迎向对方，此时切忌冷漠无视或粗暴搪塞（比如连键盘都不停地随口敷衍“等一秒，我忙着呢”），而应该带着温度说： > “亲爱的，我真的很想现在听你好好聊聊，但我必须把手头这个项目赶完。我再做一小时工作，弄完之后我们好好聊聊，好吗？” 这种表达方式清晰地传递了一个信号：“我想和你交流，但我眼下有一个必须完成的冲突目标，等我完成之后我们立刻聊。”史蒂芬深表赞同，感叹伴侣常说“重要的不是你说什么，而是你说话的态度”。如果真想了解更多关系知识，约翰与朱莉建议大家访问官方网站 gottman.com，或阅读他们的系列著作。 ### [02:08:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7739s) 戈特曼夫妇的资源与图书推荐 在探讨亲密关系的维护与修复时，约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）与朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）总结了他们为伴侣们准备的实用资源。约翰提到了他们关于冲突处理的新书《正确争吵》（*Fight Right: How Successful Couples Turn Conflict into Connection*），以及另一部广受欢迎的著作《八次约会》（*Eight Dates: Essential Conversations for a Lifetime of Love*），旨在为伴侣提供一生相爱所需的关键沟通指南。 除了书籍，戈特曼夫妇还创办了网站平台 Gottman Connect。伴侣们可以在家中私密地填写专业问卷，评估自身关系的优势与挑战。完成评估后，他们可以获取由约翰和朱莉共同研发的 37 个视频模块，内容涵盖如何改善冲突应对方式、加深情感亲密度以及提升性生活连接等多个维度。 - **推荐著作**：《Fight Right》（关于如何将冲突转化为连接）与《Eight Dates》（涵盖一生相爱的核心对话主题）。 - **Gottman Connect 平台**：提供在家即可完成的伴侣关系评估问卷，以及 37 个针对冲突、亲密感与性连接等主题的系统化视频辅导模块。 --- ### [02:09:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7779s) 朱莉的超自然体验：莫哈韦沙漠中的金色佛陀 节目进入尾声的标志性传统环节——前一位嘉宾为下一位留下一道问题。本期的问题是：“请讲述一次你亲身经历的超自然（paranormal）体验。”朱莉率先分享，她坦言自己偶尔会出现某种“灵视幻象（visions）”，而且出于某种奇特的原因，这些体验总是在她开车时发生。有一次，她独自驱车穿越莫哈韦沙漠（Mojave Desert），途中突然感受到一股强烈的直觉，催促她把车停到路边。 朱莉选择遵从这一直觉，停下车后徒步走进沙漠深处，来到一处感觉“对的地方”坐下冥想。在冥想中，她感到自己置身于一座散发着金色光芒的巍峨高山之中。这座金色大山随后化作了一尊巨大的金色佛陀（Golden Buddha），而自己就像一个微小如尘埃的生命体，端坐在佛陀的手掌之中。佛陀的手掌将她从地面轻轻托起，与此同时，她在心中听到了许多关于生命与宇宙现实的真理。 当主持人史蒂文询问她听到了什么具体的真理时，朱莉缓缓说出了成为她人生底色的一句话：“每个人都在受苦（Everybody suffers）。”她阐释道，在这个世界上，没有人受的苦比其他人更多；每个人都承担着属于自己的痛苦，每个人也都有自己穿透痛苦、走向治愈的独特路径。痛苦不是对立的惩罚，而是“我们存在之完满的一部分（part of the perfection of our existence）”。史蒂文深受触动并感叹，一旦理解了痛苦的不可避免性，人就不会再将自己视为单纯的受害者，而是明白痛苦与生命中所爱的一切本身就是紧密交织在一起的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 朱莉的超自然灵见与顿悟 accDescr: 朱莉在沙漠冥想中获得关于痛苦与治愈体验的心路流程图 subgraph Vision["超自然灵见"] A["驱车穿越莫哈韦沙漠<br/>顺从强烈直觉靠边停车"] --> B["步入沙漠静坐冥想"] B --> C["感知置身发光金色大山<br/>化为掌托自身的金色佛陀"] end subgraph Insight["顿悟真理"] C --> D["全人类皆在受苦<br/>无人的痛苦多于他人"] D --> E["每个人皆有其独特愈合路径"] E --> F["痛苦是存在之完满的一部分<br/>摆脱受害者心态"] end ``` --- ### [02:12:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7930s) 约翰的灵验体验：植物园里的守护奇迹 轮到约翰回答时，他先是开玩笑打趣道，自己的“超自然体验”大概是“当统计数据完美吻合的那一刻”。不过随后他严肃地分享了一段深埋心底的往事。多年前，他在华盛顿大学植物园（University of Washington Arboretum）驱车穿行，当时他正患重感冒，高烧不退，伴随剧烈的喷嚏与咳嗽，身体极其虚弱。 那天他原本应该回家卧床休息，并取消了所有其他患者的预约，唯独有一位具有强烈自杀倾向的来访者，他无论如何都联系不上。约翰感到自己绝不能无故爽约让对方绝望，哪怕病入膏肓，也必须赶到办公室当面对她说一句：“我身体实在太虚弱无法做咨询，但我依然非常在乎你。” 就在开车穿过植物园的路上，约翰突然在车厢内清晰地感受到了已故父母的存在——他真切地感觉到母亲抚摸着自己的一侧脸颊，父亲抚摸着另一侧脸颊，内心涌起无尽的温情。受朱莉过往灵性体验的启发，约翰在心中想：“也许这是真的呢。”神奇的是，当车辆驶出植物园时，他身上所有的发烧和感冒症状瞬间消失得无影无踪。他以饱满的精神状态赶到了诊室，顺利接待了那位来访者并完成了咨询，而那位自杀倾向的来访者最终也平安度过了危机。 --- ### [02:13:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=8035s) 史蒂文的致谢与戈特曼夫妇的总结 在对话的最后，史蒂文对戈特曼夫妇表达了由衷的敬意与感谢。他回顾了上一期与夫妇俩合作的播客节目在听众中引起的轰动，表示无论走到哪里，都有观众热情地跑来赞叹他们之间的化学反应。史蒂文指出，约翰严谨的实证科学背景与朱莉细腻深沉的临床直觉相结合，形成了一种互补而完整的视角，这正是他们能够解开复杂人际关系谜题的关键所在。 史蒂文特别强调，戈特曼夫妇数十年来的研究不仅深刻改变了人们对爱情与亲密关系的理解，其影响力更渗透到了商业管理与公众演讲中。从末日四骑士（Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse）、轻蔑（Contempt）的毁灭性伤害，到著名的“爱情实验室（Love Lab）”，世界各地的人们都在引用他们的学术成果。面对史蒂文的高度评价，约翰真诚地回应，称赞史蒂文是他们“三十年来遇到过最出色的采访者”。 在全篇节目的尾声，史蒂文向观众展示了根据《CEO日记》历期嘉宾互动问题定制的第二版互动卡牌（The Conversation Cards Version 2），每张卡片正面收录了经典提问，背面附带扫码观看原嘉宾回答的二维码，为希望在家中展开深度沟通的观众提供了极具启发性的工具。 ## Notable quotes > [02:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=148s) 在人们深陷痛苦时陪伴并爱着他们 — Julie Gottman > [02:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=148s) 精确而可靠地测量事物 — John Gottman > [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=308s) 信任你自己的直觉，信任你原本的模样 — Julie Gottman > [23:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1380s) 天哪，你就是我的命中注定！你就是我要的答案！我觉得我已经爱上你了！ — Julie Gottman > [24:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=1492s) 虽然我不知道自己喜不喜欢她，但她真迷人，了解她很有意思。 — John Gottman > [01:02:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=3728s) 好，你说吧，我正记着呢，我想弄清楚到底发生了什么。 — John Gottman > [01:07:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4036s) 你们根本一点都不简单，这是彻头彻尾的假象！ — Julie Gottman > [01:11:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=4264s) 这周我怎样做才能让你感到被爱？ — Julie Gottman > [01:45:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=6314s) 如果连这个都是谎言，那我眼前的人到底是谁？ — Julie Gottman > [02:06:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7617s) 亲爱的，我真的很想现在听你好好聊聊，但我必须把手头这个项目赶完。我再做一小时工作，弄完之后我们好好聊聊，好吗？ — Julie Gottman > [02:09:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7779s) 每个人都在受苦 — Julie Gottman > [02:12:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=7930s) 我身体实在太虚弱无法做咨询，但我依然非常在乎你。 — John Gottman ## Mentioned John Gottman, Julie Schwartz Gottman, Steven Bartlett, The Diary Of A CEO, Bruce Willis, Eli Finkel, Claus Wedekind, Calvin Coolidge, Bob Levenson, Ingrid Bergman, Gaslight (电影), Fight Right (图书), Eight Dates (图书), Gottman Connect, The Gottman Institute, Pew Research Center, University of Washington Arboretum, Mojave Desert ## Video description In this conversation, the Gottmans and Steven discuss topics such as, how to repair from an affair, why dating apps are broken, the facts behind an awful sex life, and why to stop chasing the idea of 'the one'. 00:00 Intro 02:28 What Do You Do? 05:08 What We Doing Wrong About Dating 09:55 How Do We Find True Love? 11:39 What Is The Most Attractive Thing In A Person? 13:51 The Role Of Self Esteem In How Attractive You Come Across 16:13 There Isn't 'The One' 18:30 Are We Attracted To People Different To Us? 21:11 Do We Need To Lower Our Expectations? 24:52 It's A Red Flag When They Want To Rush Things 29:06 Can You Fake Confidence? 31:25 Science Know If People Connect Well Or Not 35:13 How To Build Confidence 38:04 Differences Between Gender In Attraction 39:37 Why People Need Alcohol When Dating 44:29 Is 'Good Enough', Enough To Be With Someone? 48:06 The Role Of Sex In Attraction 53:40 How To Spice Things Up 57:46 How Much Sex Should We Be Having? 01:03:21 Men Struggle To Talk About Their Feelings 01:09:36 Expressing Gratitude To Your Partner 01:15:55 How To Know If You Should Break Up 01:19:24 The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse In A Relationship 01:25:02 Insecure People Are More Defensive 01:32:19 Do Homosexuals Relationships Last Longer? 01:33:45 Gaslighting 01:38:32 Why People Stay With Gaslighter Or Abusers 01:41:24 How To Help People Going Through Domestic Violence 01:45:01 Treating Affairs 01:47:45 What Percentage Of People Have Affairs? 02:00:42 Does Cheating Help A Relationship? 02:03:34 The Importance Of Connection Follow the Gottmans: Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/66wXYNo5QMb Twitter - https://g2ul0.app.link/5htmCbr5QMb The Gottman Institute - https://g2ul0.app.link/KlYOelu5QMb You can purchase the Gottmans’ book, ‘Fight Right: How Successful Couples Turn Conflict into Connection’, here: https://amzn.to/4emRC7u Get access to exclusive Diary of a CEO members content here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGq-a57w-aPwyi3pW7XLiHw/join Get your hands on the brand new Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards here: https://appurl.io/iUUJeYn25v Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Shopify - http://shopify.com/bartlett [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34)

[2:28] Julie Gottman: 在人们深陷痛苦时陪伴并爱着他们 [2:28] John Gottman: 精确而可靠地测量事物 [5:08] Julie Gottman: 信任你自己的直觉，信任你原本的模样 [23:00] Julie Gottman: 天哪，你就是我的命中注定！你就是我要的答案！我觉得我已经爱上你了！ [24:52] John Gottman: 虽然我不知道自己喜不喜欢她，但她真迷人，了解她很有意思。 [62:08] John Gottman: 好，你说吧，我正记着呢，我想弄清楚到底发生了什么。 [67:16] Julie Gottman: 你们根本一点都不简单，这是彻头彻尾的假象！ [71:04] Julie Gottman: 这周我怎样做才能让你感到被爱？ [105:14] Julie Gottman: 如果连这个都是谎言，那我眼前的人到底是谁？ [126:57] Julie Gottman: 亲爱的，我真的很想现在听你好好聊聊，但我必须把手头这个项目赶完。我再做一小时工作，弄完之后我们好好聊聊，好吗？ [129:39] Julie Gottman: 每个人都在受苦 [132:10] John Gottman: 我身体实在太虚弱无法做咨询，但我依然非常在乎你。

[2:28] Dr. John Gottman: For me, it's a puzzle and it's fun to work on a puzzle... applying statistics and measurement and good math to try to understand processes that are going on between people with this really ultimate question of what makes relationships work. [9:55] Dr. John Gottman: People think that 97% of strangers, if they talk to them, will be rejecting and will feel like they're invading their privacy. But the data shows that just the opposite is true—that when you approach a stranger, almost 97% of the time they're quite delighted to be contacted. [24:52] Dr. John Gottman: When I met Julie, everything felt right. The world just kind of opens up when you talk and your heart opens, and it's very different. There's potential there that you don't feel with anybody else. [38:04] Dr. John Gottman: In speed-dating studies, preferences weren't about beauty or wealth—they were all in terms of what it felt like to be together. What made the difference was how much fun it was to interact. [44:32] Dr. Julie Gottman: Everything that came out of your mouth was so fraking fascinating. I knew I would be learning from him the rest of my life. [53:40] Dr. John Gottman: Affection and emotional connection for most people all over the planet are connected rather than there being this dichotomy... [60:28] Dr. John Gottman: I have a notebook in my back pocket... and it's just designed for when Julie says we need to talk and I take out the notebook and a pen and I say, 'Okay, talk to me. I'm taking notes.'... It's 90 minutes when you're willing to listen non-defensively, which is not easy. [82:50] Julie Gottman: Contempt is the worst that's sulfuric acid for a relationship where you're looking down your nose with disgust as well as criticism of the partner. [82:50] John Gottman: You fall through that crack and straight down into that hot lava of self-loathing that is agony... so you can't allow yourself to step into that crack, so you defend. [93:45] Julie Gottman: People have got it wrong speaking of gaslighting... when they have totally different points of view about what happened during the conflict... they're calling that gaslighting, and that is not gaslighting. [93:45] Julie Gottman: Memory isn't perfect, and so they're always going to have two points of view... there is no absolute reality, it's all about perception. People are calling that gaslighting, and it isn't. [105:01] Julie Gottman: What affairs do is they turn the hurt partner's world upside down. Everything they believed about the partner is wrong... when there's betrayal like that, that whole thing cracks and falls to the ground. It shatters. [128:32] Julie Gottman: everybody suffers... nobody suffers more than anybody else [128:32] John Gottman: again the best interviewer we've had in 30 years.

[0:00] when the sex Falls away it can become a [0:02] serious problem and the largest study [0:04] done on the quality of sex with 70,000 [0:07] people in 24 countries found the [0:09] differences between people who say they [0:11] have a great sex life have an awful sex [0:12] life has to do with really that's right [0:16] DRS John and Julie Gutman are [0:18] world-renowned psychologists and [0:19] researchers who have studied over 40,000 [0:22] couples written over 50 books and helped [0:24] millions of people find and stay in love [0:26] for over 50 years people don't know how [0:29] to have good relationships so I've got [0:31] so many questions I'll start from the [0:32] top what are we getting wrong well first [0:34] of all most people are living under the [0:36] myth that you have to be compatible with [0:39] a partner which is absolutely wrong and [0:42] this is really interesting there t-shirt [0:44] that where women smell t-shirts that [0:46] have been worn by men for at least 2 [0:48] days and selected the ones they thought [0:49] smelled the best and they found they [0:51] were selecting the men that were his [0:53] most Divergent from them genetically [0:56] rather than people who are like them cuz [0:57] we're not really turned on by our Al and [1:00] there isn't a one looking for the one is [1:03] a big mistake what about how do I become [1:05] the most attractive version of me if I'm [1:07] looking for a partner yeah that's a [1:08] great question and this is what you do [1:11] this is a difficult question to ask but [1:13] have you ever seen cheating help a [1:15] relationship oh very very often really [1:18] when there's recovery but can it be [1:20] treated [1:22] 75% so far in our research how we [1:25] developed a model and here's what it [1:27] involves first [1:32] this is a sentence I never thought I'd [1:34] say in my life um we've just hit 7 [1:36] million subscribers on YouTube and I [1:37] want to say a huge thank you to all of [1:39] you that show up here every Monday and [1:41] Thursday to watch our conversations um [1:44] from the bottom of my heart but also on [1:45] behalf of my team who you don't always [1:47] get to meet there's almost 50 people now [1:49] behind the dire of a CEO that work to [1:51] put this together so from all of us [1:53] thank you so much um we did a raffle [1:55] last month and we gave away prizes for [1:57] people that subscribed to the show up [1:59] until 7 million subscribers and you guys [2:01] love that raffle so much that we're [2:02] going to continue it so every single [2:05] month we're giving away money can't buy [2:06] prizes including meetings with me [2:08] invites to our events and ,000 gift [2:10] vouchers to anyone that subscribes to [2:13] the DI Co there's now more than 7 [2:14] million of you so if you make the [2:16] decision to subscribe today you can be [2:17] one of those lucky people thank you from [2:19] the bottom of my heart let's get to the [2:24] conversation John [2:27] Julie why do you both do what you [2:31] do I love that question one has to [2:35] Define what we do and there are many [2:37] things that we do first of all I love to [2:40] write that's great I've been helping [2:42] people since I was eight years old for [2:46] some odd [2:47] reason uh and I love love love [2:51] connecting with people and loving them [2:53] through their [2:55] pain that's why I do what I do and would [2:58] you CL yourself as a clinical [2:59] psychologist is that your official title [3:01] yes okay John could you answer the same [3:03] question which is why do you do what you [3:06] do and I guess what do you do well to me [3:08] it's really an interesting puzzle to try [3:12] to understand what makes relationships [3:14] work and what makes groups work what [3:17] what [3:18] makes people be cooperative versus [3:22] competitive selfish and mean what makes [3:25] them be altruistic and empathetic what [3:28] makes what makes relationships become [3:31] sources of longevity and health versus [3:35] illness and loneliness and despair so [3:38] for me it's a puzzle and it's fun to [3:41] work on a [3:42] puzzle and what do you do I measure [3:46] things accurately and [3:48] reliably and you know then really just [3:52] kind of see where the data fall out so [3:55] um it's really applying statistics and [3:58] measurement and good math to try to [4:01] understand processes that are going on [4:04] between people with this really ultimate [4:06] question of what what makes [4:10] relationships work and what makes groups [4:12] work what makes humans cooperative and [4:16] magnificent at their best versus selfish [4:20] uh greedy and functioning at their worst [4:23] so it's curiosity that drives me that's [4:27] all and collectively how many people do [4:30] you think you've studied researched [4:35] treated worked with in your practice [4:37] over the last however many decades well [4:40] we've done research on 40,000 couples [4:43] about the start couple therapy uh using [4:47] questionnaires and then more intensely [4:49] using physiology and and objective [4:52] rating of emotional Behavior about 3,000 [4:55] couples follow it over time as long as [4:58] 20 years and how many books have you [5:01] collectively written [5:03] Julie I think we're on [5:05] 51 but I'm not sure I've [5:09] lost I amum where I wanted to start with [5:12] this conversation is is really with I [5:15] guess the subje of relationships but how [5:17] we find and form them in the modern [5:19] society because when you look at the [5:21] stats despite the incredible work you've [5:22] done over the last couple of decades it [5:25] doesn't seem that we're better at [5:27] finding and keeping relationship than [5:29] ever before if you especially if you [5:31] look at non-romantic relationships you [5:33] know loneliness and isolation are [5:35] absolute alltime highs and the [5:37] technology that was invented over the [5:39] last couple of decades came with a [5:41] promise which was that it was going to [5:42] connect us but it doesn't seem to have [5:44] succeeded so I really want to start by [5:47] answering this question about how people [5:50] find love and form those relationships [5:52] in the modern world and like what the [5:54] data says and what what our psychology [5:56] says about where we're going wrong I had [5:58] some independent research that I found [6:01] uh that says according to the US Census [6:03] Bureau nearly 50% of the US population [6:06] are currently single according to the [6:08] 2023 survey by pe research about 33% of [6:13] men reported being single followed by [6:15] 28% of women the average first marriage [6:18] for men is 30 years old for women it's [6:20] about 28 um we're having less sex [6:22] however before um we're getting in [6:25] relationships later than ever before [6:27] marriages still seem to break down [6:29] almost half of them and you probably [6:31] know those numbers better than me and [6:33] almost half of people are using dating [6:36] apps but I think if you speak to anybody [6:39] that uses a dating app they feel like [6:41] they're all having a bad time when we [6:43] think about finding someone to love us [6:46] or that we love how much of our effort [6:49] should be about actively going out there [6:52] and putting ourselves out there buying a [6:53] new dress whatever it is putting [6:54] ourselves out in the market versus the [6:57] internal work of building ourselves into [7:00] someone that is a magnet instead of a [7:02] door to-door salesman you know what I [7:04] mean beautiful beautiful yes um I love [7:10] your uh thought about developing [7:12] ourselves internally because that's what [7:15] goes wrong that makes dating app so [7:18] terrible many many people suffer from [7:21] terrible insecurity right they feel [7:23] shame they may have been criticized a [7:26] lot as a kid or in their work and as a [7:29] result they hide out they hide and what [7:32] they present to the world either through [7:34] dating apps this is very common or just [7:38] even meeting people at a party is [7:41] something they're not it's something [7:43] that they believe is the ideal but where [7:46] are they getting their information [7:48] they're getting it from TV from [7:50] Hollywood from idealized Heroes and [7:54] heroins that are not real also they're [7:58] living under the myth [8:00] that you have to be [8:02] compatible with a partner which is [8:05] absolutely wrong as will talk about um [8:09] in other words you have to have the same [8:11] interests the same values uh maybe the [8:14] same background the same uh class you [8:17] were raised in and so on all of that is [8:21] wrong interestingly enough so when you [8:25] talk about building that internal World [8:28] basically what you're saying [8:31] is trust your own intuition trust who [8:34] you are people will come to you if you [8:38] are genuinely yourself and if you're [8:42] not um then people may mistake you for [8:45] somebody else have an expectation of who [8:48] you are and you're in inevitably going [8:51] to fail that [8:52] expectation which then gives you a [8:55] negative [8:56] experience uh because you feel like this [8:59] other person person is rejecting you and [9:00] doesn't like you but the reality is [9:03] they're not rejecting you they're [9:05] rejecting this idealized portrait that [9:08] you tried to present to them which isn't [9:11] real I guess a lot of people would think [9:15] when they hear that but Julie if I show [9:17] up as myself no one's going to love me [9:20] yeah that's right especially on a first [9:22] date that's right that's right that's [9:24] you know that's the sadness people don't [9:28] believe because of all that criticism in [9:31] the [9:32] society that they're worthy of Love they [9:36] don't believe it they have to you know [9:39] be uh I don't know what Bruce Willis or [9:42] something in order [9:44] to uh have somebody attracted to them [9:47] have somebody really want to get to know [9:49] them which isn't true at all in fact [9:53] it's the [9:54] opposite what do you think to that John [9:56] yeah I've been thinking a lot about this [9:58] question of you know how do we find true [10:02] love um and you know part of the problem [10:07] I think is that um as you mentioned [10:11] loneliness is a very serious thing and [10:14] um and so many people are lonely and [10:18] part of what they haven't done is to is [10:20] build a friendship Network that can [10:23] support them friends are just so [10:26] important as a precondition for finding [10:29] the love of your life because you know [10:32] the the research that's been done on [10:33] Strangers now shows [10:36] that people think that [10:39] 97% of strangers if they talk to them [10:43] will be [10:45] rejecting and will feel like they're [10:47] invading their privacy but the data [10:49] shows that just the opposite is true [10:52] that when you approach a stranger almost [10:55] 97% of the time they're quite delighted [10:58] to become contacted and they and they [11:01] meet an initial contact with interest [11:05] enthusiasm and so talking to strangers [11:08] turns out to be really a very important [11:10] thing and turning a stranger into a [11:13] friend turning your social networks into [11:16] places that are not alienating that are [11:19] you know places where you actually can [11:22] enjoy human and Company uh is an [11:25] important pre prerequisite to dating so [11:29] I would say you need to build that [11:31] friendship Network first and once you're [11:34] not lonely you're not desperate and then [11:36] you can find somebody much more easily I [11:39] think this is a really interesting point [11:41] which is you you finish there by saying [11:43] if you're not lonely you're not [11:45] desperate and I was I was thinking as [11:47] you're talking about what the most [11:49] attractive version of me is to the world [11:52] if I'm looking to find a partner whether [11:53] I'm a man or a woman um it doesn't sound [11:57] like a desperate version of me is a very [11:59] attractive version of me right so on [12:01] this point of [12:02] Attraction we'll start with you John and [12:04] then we'll go because we started with [12:05] Julie last time what do we know about [12:08] what makes people attracted to each [12:09] other like how do I become the most [12:11] attractive version of me to the world if [12:13] I'm looking for a partner I think [12:15] everyone is really interesting and [12:17] attractive as long as you know they're [12:20] with somebody who's curious about them [12:22] so uh if you're with somebody who's [12:25] really snobby and uh you know [12:28] condescending Superior nobody's at their [12:31] best you know but when you're with [12:33] somebody who's really interested in you [12:36] then you can really emerge and just [12:38] about everybody is really interesting [12:40] their thoughts are unique and their [12:42] background is interesting and their [12:44] their goals and their their struggles [12:47] are really fascinating so um I think [12:51] it's the social context that makes the [12:54] difference rather than the individual so [12:58] the problem with dating I think is that [13:00] they create this very [13:02] artificial situation in which everyone's [13:05] being [13:06] evaluated and assessed and they're [13:09] swiping left you know all the time well [13:11] my person's not quite right not quite [13:12] right not quite right not quite right [13:15] the research of Eli fle shows that [13:17] there's nothing you can measure in two [13:21] individuals that will predict whether [13:23] they like each other there's nothing you [13:26] can measure nothing you can measure in [13:28] fact you can actually ask people exactly [13:31] what they're looking for in a partner [13:34] and find that exact person in a large [13:37] database and it's very unlikely that [13:40] they'll like that person when they meet [13:43] them yet if you randomly pair them with [13:46] strangers 22% of people like each other [13:49] when they first [13:51] meet I wonder about the role that [13:54] self-esteem plays in attraction it's [13:57] kind of what we're talking about with [13:58] like being desperate maybe they feel [14:00] like a similar thing and I wonder if [14:02] there's any like data that supports this [14:04] idea that self-esteem or your [14:06] self-perception is this invisible force [14:09] that makes you attractive or not [14:10] attractive I've actually seen it in some [14:11] of my friends who I won't know who [14:13] started going to the gym and just [14:16] because they started working on [14:17] themselves it's almost like they grew [14:19] six Ines like they just were like [14:21] different people yeah so yeah a lot of [14:24] Attraction we think like go get the blow [14:26] dry I'll go get a better outfit but this [14:28] goes back to point about how much of it [14:30] is actually like do the internal [14:32] work what do you [14:34] think I think there's a lot to be said [14:36] for that yeah if you have a group of [14:39] friends you know who really like you and [14:42] you really like them then it's easier to [14:46] emerge and you know this this dating [14:49] situation is so [14:51] artificial that people are so terrified [14:54] you know when they meet somebody and [14:56] instead of approaching them with [14:59] curiosity about them they're worried [15:02] that they won't make a good impression [15:05] and they're so self-conscious of [15:07] themselves rather than being curious and [15:10] interested in the other person and [15:12] because if they're curious and [15:13] interested in the other person you know [15:15] it doesn't matter what happens right I [15:17] mean uh you meet somebody new and you [15:20] learn about them and it's an interesting [15:22] experience and maybe they're interested [15:24] in you too so the dating experience is [15:27] just kind of fun you know it's about [15:30] exploring two people exploring one [15:32] another and then there's no objective [15:35] there's no there's no real goal there [15:38] and then it's much less artificial and [15:41] then when you meet somebody you really [15:42] click with that's a wonderful experience [15:46] and especially when you meet an outlier [15:50] like I met Julie I dated 60 women before [15:53] I met Julie she's number 61 I had a [15:57] database so I knew [15:59] I met an outlier for me she was an [16:01] outlier because I just loved interacting [16:04] with her it was just so much fun and uh [16:08] she was Head and Shoulders above any [16:11] person I'd met before do you know what's [16:13] interesting though when people look at [16:14] you too and when they look at other [16:16] relationships they'll go okay John I get [16:18] it so you got to make a database you got [16:19] to wait till the you find the [16:21] one right and this is often the cause of [16:25] much procrastination as it relates to [16:26] love everyone's looking for the Julie [16:28] you know [16:29] there isn't a one you know that's one of [16:31] the the other myths there isn't a one [16:35] and it's funny because we've seen this [16:37] in our research on the opposite end of [16:40] it and here's what I mean every pairing [16:42] of people uh no matter how wonderful [16:46] they are no matter how much you love [16:48] them the two of you will always have [16:51] Perpetual problems between you and those [16:54] are based on either lifestyle preference [16:57] differences personality differences [17:00] always and at some point those conflict [17:04] and so you know what we saw in our [17:06] research was you know something like [17:09] 69% of the conflicts that couples suffer [17:12] from or have are Perpetual problems they [17:15] never go away so you know when I have [17:19] somebody coming into my office that says [17:23] I want to find my soulmate my soulmate [17:26] it's like huh what's a soulmate you know [17:29] I mean there you out of out of whatever [17:32] in the US we have what 350 million [17:35] people there's [17:37] probably 500,000 of them that you would [17:41] find wonderful and attractive right so [17:45] looking for the one is a big mistake [17:48] because inevitably they snore at night [17:52] or you know they eat with their mouth [17:54] open or you know something that drives [17:56] you crazy so okay so you're not looking [18:00] for the perfect person you're not the [18:02] perfect person and that's what I was [18:04] referring to earlier as you know let's [18:07] see each other as human beings there is [18:10] no Perfection we are all flawed we all [18:14] have cracks in us and those can be seen [18:19] as beautiful too we don't have to be [18:22] perfect to be [18:26] loved right y [18:29] right it's interesting because that [18:31] marries to something that I was reading [18:33] about in your books where you talk about [18:34] how often attracted to people who are [18:36] very different from ourselves and just [18:37] the very nature that they're different [18:39] from us means that there's going to be [18:40] that pretty much constant conflict why [18:42] is it the case that we're attracted to [18:45] people that are different from ourselves [18:46] is that true um because it doesn't seem [18:48] to make sense on the surface you'd think [18:50] I would be attracted to someone that [18:51] likes Manchester United and you know [18:54] like my favorite food and my favorite [18:56] stuff because then we'll get on like a [18:57] house on fire but [18:59] you're telling me that we're attracted [19:00] to people that like yeah the research of [19:03] class wakin is so interesting uh this [19:06] t-shirt study that he did uh where women [19:10] smell t-shirts that have been worn by [19:12] men for at least two days and selected [19:15] the ones they thought smelled the best [19:17] uh they actually were selecting what [19:20] wakin found was they were selecting [19:22] t-shirts of men those pheromones were [19:26] attractive the men were as most [19:28] Divergent from them [19:31] genetically just in the genes of the [19:33] immune [19:35] system wa very Divergent kinds of people [19:39] smelled really attractive to these women [19:42] rather than people who were like them [19:44] and actually the experiment was done it [19:46] showed they actually like those men [19:48] better than other men they might have [19:51] met so genetically different genetically [19:53] different in terms of the immune system [19:55] so here's this uh evolutionary explan [19:59] of why people are searching for somebody [20:02] who's really different cuz we're not [20:04] really turned on by our clone we're not [20:07] turned on be by people who are just like [20:09] us Julie and I are vastly different [20:12] she's you know this uh Adventurer you [20:16] know this Outdoors person she loves the [20:18] trees and Hiking you know up Mountain [20:21] Trails I'm an endorsement I like sitting [20:24] in my chair and reading books on [20:26] mathematics and quantum mechanics and [20:28] general relativity Theory he's a [20:30] consumate indoorsman so we're very [20:33] different you know but what's the EV [20:35] Sher reason then do you think for why we [20:37] like people that are different oh the [20:39] genetic immunity so um remember it's all [20:43] about reprodu reproduction right so if [20:47] you've got two very Divergent sets of [20:50] genetics in terms of the immune system [20:54] that child is going to have a broader uh [20:58] genetic base as their immune system as [21:02] opposed to two identical or close to it [21:06] where they'd have a very narrow genetic [21:09] base for immune immunity is there [21:12] anything else that if if you were [21:13] advising me if I was a single man and I [21:15] was saying okay how do I find a partner [21:18] um what should I be doing or looking for [21:20] should I make a list of things that I'm [21:21] looking for um should I be I don't know [21:25] you said earlier about being my [21:26] authentic self as much as I can be [21:28] because that you don't want people to be [21:29] attracted to your mask but should I be [21:32] making a list like what what should I be [21:34] going for is there qualities that are [21:36] enduring as it relates to success in [21:39] Romance that everyone should be looking [21:41] for should I lower my expectations it's [21:44] not about qualities it's about well I [21:48] hate to say it but it's more about [21:49] Behavior so for example um and I have so [21:54] many particularly women who've been [21:56] divorced and now they're dating and they [21:59] ask that question and here are several [22:01] of the things that I always tell them [22:04] one is uh does the person male or female [22:08] ask you questions about yourself or do [22:11] they broadcast did they just tell you [22:14] who they are oh my God my boss just gave [22:17] me a promotion oh my you know aren't I [22:20] cool or I just won this athletic [22:22] competition no are they asking you [22:25] questions about yourself and not only [22:28] that but listening to the answers right [22:31] and taking in the answers and oh that's [22:35] interesting that's one another is you [22:39] know our society is very striated right [22:43] so how do they treat [22:46] people who have let's say less social [22:50] status than they do how do they treat [22:54] the waitress who comes to their table do [22:57] they treat them with disdain or scorn or [23:00] you know the stake is terrible take it [23:03] back or are they kind do they treat them [23:06] like human beings that's another thing [23:10] do they treat people equally or uh do [23:14] they only treat a certain group with [23:17] respect and the others not that's number [23:20] two number three is are they reliable do [23:24] they do what they say they're going to [23:28] do if they say they're going to call you [23:30] do they call you if they say I'll pick [23:33] you up at 8 are they there at 8 so [23:36] reliability is a big deal and of course [23:39] nobody can be perfectly reliable you [23:42] know life happens but do they call you [23:44] to let you know oh I ran into heavy [23:46] traffic so I'll be 20 minutes late so [23:50] you know there's a [23:51] consideration there of your time of your [23:56] energy curiosity as John pointed out uh [24:00] as to who you are and also [24:05] um there are so many people who as you [24:10] have been talking about are so terribly [24:13] lonely watch out for this watch out for [24:16] people saying in the first date oh my [24:19] God you're it you're the [24:21] answer oh my God you're fantastic I [24:24] think I love you you know that kind of [24:28] um rush into let's have an intimate [24:33] relationship right now I want to marry [24:35] you and I'm going to ask you [24:37] tomorrow no you know they people need to [24:41] take their time to get to know one [24:44] another and peel away the layers slowly [24:48] and carefully to build trust do you [24:52] think that speed to rush into a [24:54] relationship is a sign of something else [24:56] further up like further Upstream maybe [24:58] incity you bet needy there and I don't [25:02] like the word needy um because everybody [25:05] has needs we're pack animals you know we [25:07] need each other we depend on each other [25:10] but um somebody who can [25:14] contain themselves as you were pointing [25:17] out with or without you energy that's [25:19] right and have done that internal work [25:22] so that they're not looking to you to [25:26] answer every problem they have M you [25:29] know I would give different advice to to [25:31] a male who's who's dating I I would say [25:34] you know just have fun you know me [25:36] people like when I was creating my [25:39] database you know I I met a woman who [25:41] was a survivalist he had a 38 Magnum [25:44] pistol right by her by her bedside and [25:48] she spent thousands of dollars on gowns [25:51] to go to Opera cuz she loved Opera and I [25:53] remember sitting there in her house and [25:55] saying you know God this is really [25:58] interesting you know I I don't know if I [26:00] like this person or I could be with this [26:02] person but she's fascinating you know [26:05] it's kind of fun getting to know her and [26:07] then at a certain point there's somebody [26:10] you meet like I met Julie and everything [26:14] feels right the world just kind of opens [26:16] up when you talk and your heart opens [26:20] and it's very different it's not just [26:23] interesting it's really there's [26:26] potential there that you don't feel with [26:28] anybody else were you desperate when you [26:30] met Julie though I don't think I was oh [26:33] I don't think I was desperate I I've [26:35] been divorced for about seven years I [26:38] was looking to meet somebody my you know [26:40] close to my age who you know was an [26:43] interesting person and uh I met a lot of [26:46] interesting people but she was different [26:50] I also this question impart because I I [26:51] wonder if someone's ever done a study [26:52] where they take a group of people who [26:54] are looking to find someone and then [26:57] they take a group of people who who [26:58] aren't really looking and they see who [27:00] has the most success and when I say [27:02] looking I mean some people are literally [27:04] looking for a husband and they they feel [27:07] like they need to find one within six [27:10] months because you know biological [27:12] clocks and goals they might have for [27:13] their lives and all these kinds of [27:15] things versus a group of people that are [27:17] just open to it and I wonder who's more [27:20] attractive I think either one can work [27:23] right you know I I don't think there has [27:25] to be a magic formula so I think I think [27:28] if you approach the whole situation with [27:31] curiosity and wonder you know and just [27:34] kind of see who we meet and see what [27:37] happens but but that see sounds more [27:39] like this group here you know that's [27:41] right I agree with you what you're [27:44] describing is [27:46] that being confident in yourself and [27:49] just being curious as opposed to I [27:52] really have to find somebody I need to [27:54] find somebody good um very very very [27:59] different I think about this in part in [28:01] the context of business as well because [28:04] as an investor you get an energy from [28:06] the entrepreneur that's trying to get [28:08] investment from you as to whether they [28:11] need you or whether you're an option and [28:14] it's so remarkable how much more likely [28:19] you are to invest in a Founder who makes [28:22] you feel like an option and I think [28:24] because and then you have these other [28:26] Founders when I can literally think of [28:27] one example that popped to my mind from [28:29] the last couple of weeks where they were [28:31] so desperate that it was almost [28:34] rude wow how did that manifest as in the [28:38] way that they sent their emails and the [28:41] way that they were like demanding and [28:42] how urgent they wanted to speak to you [28:44] and all these kinds of things and how [28:46] like [28:47] loky um expectant they were from you [28:51] made me feel like their business wasn't [28:54] doing [28:55] well whereas F and I think about this in [28:58] the context of relationships whereas the [28:59] founders and entrepreneurs that message [29:00] me where they're kind of more patient [29:03] they you know they're kind of maybe a [29:05] little bit busier the ones that have [29:07] that like it's I'll keep going back to [29:08] that phrase like with or without you [29:09] energy where you're an option to them [29:11] you're much more likely to invest you [29:12] feel like it's a privilege to invest and [29:14] I think about this from the context of [29:16] the question I just asked if someone's [29:17] like I need a husband now versus [29:19] someone's like I'm open I'm curious I'm [29:22] willing to go on the date and see yeah [29:24] right if we're right because I realize [29:26] that me saying yes to you [29:28] is a huge investment so I need to take [29:30] my time to figure out if that investment [29:32] is going to be worthwhile because I [29:33] respect [29:34] myself right yeah maybe you're right [29:36] right maybe it's better if you're just [29:39] kind of confident and not so desperate [29:42] any fake confidence [29:44] Julie this is the problem no you know as [29:47] a matter of fact when people try to fake [29:49] confidence they often um overstep it [29:54] right and uh golly I know I'll never [29:57] forget that his fellow in high school he [30:00] would brag about himself without knowing [30:03] that he was bragging he would boast and [30:06] boast and boast and boast and I realized [30:09] oh my God I cannot stand this you know [30:12] because it was so [30:14] fake but important thing I realized that [30:19] the extremity of my negative attitude [30:22] towards him was because there was a part [30:25] of me that was just like them that felt [30:28] insecure that wanted to present you know [30:31] this Perfect Image to people that I [30:34] wasn't uh which is what he was trying to [30:37] do and so then it's like oh I've got a [30:41] little work to do on myself well you [30:44] know one thing one thing about this [30:45] dating situation that's interesting is [30:48] even though there's nothing you can [30:50] measure in individuals that will predict [30:53] that they like each other once they get [30:55] together and start interacting our lab [30:58] can measure if that interaction has [31:02] promise or not wow really we measure [31:06] openness uh the emotional connection the [31:10] fact that people are [31:12] either connecting with one another [31:14] communicating with one another or not we [31:17] measure tension versus [31:19] relaxation or we measure uh curiosity [31:23] and interest and all those things yeah [31:26] so can you give me really specifically [31:28] exactly how a couple would show up [31:31] really specifically if they were if they [31:34] had promised to last and be successful [31:36] together so if you watch their videotape [31:39] and they had promise you'd find them [31:42] laughing together uh you know mirroring [31:46] each other smiling uh asking questions [31:49] being open uh wondering about things and [31:53] you'd have this real sense of [31:55] exploration and open openness [31:58] and um curiosity and interest in one [32:02] another whereas in in a couple that [32:05] wasn't doing very well you youd sense [32:07] this tension uh sarcasm a lot of you [32:12] know [32:13] negativity uh bragging about themselves [32:17] talking about themselves rather than [32:19] being interested in the other person [32:21] body language body language the ratio of [32:24] positive to negative emotion in in those [32:27] couple would be much less than one [32:30] whereas it would be 3 to one or 5 to one [32:32] among couples who are really getting [32:35] along very very well where is this [32:38] potential this openness and potential [32:40] what's the difference in body language [32:42] Let me let me demonstrate it so somebody [32:45] who's overconfident pretend he's not [32:47] sitting here is just going to be [32:49] doing so that for people that aren't [32:52] watching laying back on laying back your [32:56] arm you know stretch out over the top of [32:58] the chair next to you you're leaning [33:02] back you know which is to me come to me [33:07] you know it's all me um it's all about [33:09] me and I'm so cool and somebody who is [33:14] really [33:14] engaged is going to be more kind of [33:17] leaning forward and making eye [33:21] contact being fairly relaxed you know [33:24] not not hunching their shoulders inward [33:28] which shows they're probably depressed [33:31] they're insecure they're hiding out but [33:35] you know just relaxed their shoulders [33:37] are you know not up to their [33:40] ears [33:42] um they're allowing their eye gaze to [33:46] look away as they think about something [33:50] and then they look right at you and they [33:51] answer the question all of those [33:56] indicators that ratio of I to other I Me [34:01] Mine you know [34:03] predominates uh conversations where [34:06] there's all this tension say that again [34:08] sir is where you know the conversation [34:10] is really about just myself I'm sort of [34:15] putting myself in the center versus [34:17] being interested in you being interested [34:19] in us being interested in we and and [34:23] that emerges that openness emerges in [34:26] language as well there's also a [34:29] reciprocity uh in the sense that um [34:33] let's say you and I are meeting um you [34:36] asked me some questions about myself [34:39] I'll answer those questions but then [34:41] I'll ask you I'll come back and ask you [34:44] questions about yourself as opposed to [34:47] go ahead ask me more questions and more [34:49] questions and [34:50] more um so I'm only happy when I'm [34:54] talking about myself right right so [34:58] you know you're going back and forth [35:01] exhibiting that Curiosity as opposed to [35:04] uh just adoring somebody being curious [35:07] about you but not reciprocating by being [35:11] curious about them I um it's funny [35:14] because you're talking about body [35:15] language a second ago and many people [35:19] will click on episodes on YouTube or [35:21] podcasts that try and teach us body [35:23] language but I I think okay you can [35:26] learn some of the things but really [35:28] again I think body language is a symptom [35:30] of what's going on inside how do you [35:32] build confidence is really the question [35:34] you know especially when you [35:37] begin uh let's say in a family or with [35:41] caretakers who are critical and [35:43] contemptuous of you and when you have [35:47] that from practically the ground up as I [35:51] did uh [35:53] you internalize that and you believe [35:57] you're worthless because you were [35:58] treated as worthless so how do you build [36:01] the confidence right so either through [36:06] maybe therapy [36:08] through looking at yourself in the [36:11] mirror and saying all right this is who [36:15] I am this is who I am this is who I am [36:18] you know [36:20] one I I used to like almost every single [36:24] woman no matter how beautiful you are [36:27] you will always measure yourself as [36:29] inferior to somebody else always as a [36:32] woman I mean you've seen already 6 [36:35] million images of idealized women by the [36:38] time you're 18 think about that so how [36:43] do you build confidence in what you look [36:46] like go to a locker room where women are [36:50] undressing and look at their real bodies [36:53] and notice the variety notice you you [36:58] know the the whatever woman that's [37:01] larger than the standard thinner than [37:04] the standard women come in all shapes [37:07] and sizes so do men and just seeing the [37:13] reality the reality as opposed to the [37:17] photosho you know that's the thing that [37:19] is so difficult about technology is that [37:24] these days you know especially with [37:25] dating apps and so on people people are [37:28] photoshopping their images or they're [37:30] taking an image of themselves 30 years [37:32] ago and they here is what I am and I [37:36] actually still have hair it's the [37:38] reality that it's not really about the [37:42] appearance it's not even about you know [37:45] the IQ or whatever or the education it's [37:48] really about the well here we go it's [37:51] it's about the heart it's about the [37:54] heart is this a kind person is this a [37:57] caring person is this a person who [37:59] exhibits [38:00] compassion who treats people equally and [38:03] so on a dating that wouldn't work on [38:05] that basis would it no and most people [38:08] are lying on taking too that's right is [38:13] there a difference in what men and women [38:15] look for in a partner as it relates to [38:18] attraction when they first meet well you [38:21] know that's an interesting question [38:23] because uh I remember reading this paper [38:25] by Eli fle he says in the introduction [38:28] you know [38:29] generally uh the dating research [38:32] suggests that men are looking for [38:34] physical Beauty and women are looking [38:37] for occupational competence and wealth [38:41] and but actually when he did this really [38:44] elaborate speed dating study none of [38:47] that actually manifested in people's [38:50] preferences uh the preferences were all [38:53] in terms of what it felt like to be [38:56] together [38:57] and both men and women were really [38:59] similar so when you interact with [39:01] somebody for you're going to interact [39:02] with them for 5 minutes and the speed [39:05] dating uh situation what made the [39:07] difference was how much fun it was to [39:09] interact with them for five minutes how [39:12] enjoyable it was and men and women were [39:15] the same so the the the social context [39:19] of dating is so important um because if [39:23] it's this very tense you know evaluative [39:26] context [39:28] nothing is going to work but if it's [39:30] this relaxed sort of interested curious [39:33] context almost everything's going to [39:36] work now a lot of dating happens these [39:38] days with alcohol in a nightclub or with [39:41] alcohol at maybe dinner or at a bar is [39:45] there a better place to conduct a first [39:48] date and if so why well first of all [39:50] alcohol distorts everything drugs [39:54] distort everything you know there's a [39:57] reason they say [39:59] intoxicated toxic alcohol is toxic so it [40:03] shuts down certain parts of the brain [40:06] shuts down to some degree uh your [40:09] ability to judge your ability to sense [40:12] your reflexes your [40:14] intuition um all that stuff is shut down [40:17] to some degree and so wow she's really [40:22] hot I'm going to go for her you know [40:24] you're not picking up that you know [40:26] she's wearing a wedding ring she's [40:28] sitting with a man who has a match in [40:30] wedding you know you're not picking up [40:31] all that stuff so probably a coffee shop [40:36] is nice where we met yeah well I think [40:40] it needs to be a context that is not [40:44] evaluative um you know I think it has to [40:46] be some kind of relaxed context where [40:49] you're just kind of getting to know one [40:51] another uh yeah and seeing what it's [40:54] like to meet this person so it's the [40:57] Judgment that makes it tense and [41:00] uncomfortable and so people need alcohol [41:04] to get relaxed and of course then [41:06] they're you know where they get high and [41:09] they're laughing at everything and [41:11] nothing and there's no there's no [41:13] connection there's no real connection uh [41:17] so the evaluative context is the is kind [41:19] of like um the an the antidote to love [41:25] you have an evaluative context you know [41:27] you're trying to be your at your best [41:28] the other person is trying to be at [41:30] their best but you know there's no real [41:33] interest in one another when you say [41:34] evaluative context it means that we're [41:36] evaluating each other it's really really [41:38] AAR Jud it's like an interview basically [41:41] yeah it's like it's like a job [41:43] interview interesting never going to [41:46] work is there a certain age where if you [41:50] get together with someone you're more [41:51] likely to be successful I was talking to [41:54] my friend about this actually this [41:55] weekend because he is um approaching 40 [41:58] and his partner is significantly younger [42:01] um it's my friend that lives in uh [42:03] America in New York and he was telling [42:05] me that because she's sort of 23 he's [42:08] struggling a little bit because he wants [42:10] to settle down and he wants to think [42:11] about kids now and she's still trying to [42:13] figure out life so it made me wonder if [42:15] maybe he should be aiming at people that [42:16] are at least that that sort of 30 age [42:18] where you start right you know I don't [42:19] know if there's any research to you know [42:22] I I don't know about the research but [42:24] what I've seen clinically is that people [42:28] who date uh others that are very very [42:31] different in age from them have a [42:33] problem typically because first of all [42:36] their um the social history in which [42:40] they were raised is different right so [42:43] for example John and I uh though we're [42:46] not the same age we're about nine years [42:49] apart but we both went through Vietnam [42:52] we both went through all the [42:54] assassinations in the US Civil Right the [42:56] Civil Rights movement you know I got [42:58] arrested he didn't I was unlucky you [43:01] know in the protesting stuff but but [43:05] that context you know [43:08] understanding uh a period of history [43:12] that you grew up in is really important [43:14] and also internally in the sense that [43:18] there are really phases of development [43:20] that you go through as you get older and [43:23] you're absolutely right Stephen in that [43:26] a 40y old old who wants to now settle [43:28] down create a home create a family and a [43:31] 23y old are incredibly different [43:35] developmentally so their goals will be [43:37] different their values will be different [43:40] if you will their maturity will be [43:43] different um their interests Also may be [43:47] strikingly different there may be a real [43:50] difference in valuing commitment you [43:52] know and so on uh so I've seen [43:57] relationships work with that kind of [43:59] desperate age but [44:01] typically um that can happen more easily [44:04] when you're older when you've already [44:06] created your identity you've already [44:09] identified what what profession or line [44:12] of work you want to do uh whether or not [44:15] you want to have kids or if you've [44:16] already had kids and so [44:19] on so like a 40-year-old and a 50y old [44:23] or 55y old would be very different than [44:26] a 40y old and a 23y old um good enough [44:32] relationships should I be looking for [44:35] because this goes back to what I was [44:36] saying earlier about you know looking [44:37] for the one looking for your Julie or [44:39] should I be looking for a relationship [44:41] that is good enough um and then try and [44:44] build it to be a great relationship [44:47] because there's a lot of people that are [44:49] maybe over 30 years old over 40 years [44:50] old you are single um struggling to find [44:54] someone that's great and so they their [44:57] friends or their Partners or you know [44:58] the people around them are saying just [45:00] you know that person's good enough that [45:03] person's good enough just you know give [45:05] them a chance and go on the date and [45:07] yeah I think I think there's a lot to [45:09] that point of view uh [45:12] because when you know when you're [45:15] looking for the perfect relationship [45:18] that's good in every [45:19] Dimension uh you're going to be [45:22] disappointed and uh I think I think it [45:26] makes some sense to look for what's good [45:28] enough and so you know what's good [45:31] enough for one person is not the same as [45:34] what's good enough for another person I [45:36] know you know what's good enough for me [45:38] is having somebody you can really trust [45:42] and really feel a sense of commitment [45:44] toward and those two dimensions are [45:47] absolutely critical is that what did you [45:49] have non-negotiables both of you I were [45:52] there was there anything on your list of [45:54] things that were mandatory in finding [45:57] your partner yeah for me it was wanting [46:00] children so that's the non-negotiable [46:02] for you yes was there anything [46:05] else that was [46:07] non-negotiable uh monogamy okay yeah for [46:10] me [46:12] yeah sense of [46:14] humor was really [46:16] important I think another thing too is [46:20] do you get bored talking to them or not [46:25] or are they continually in interesting [46:27] to you um but I think one of the most [46:32] important things is how do they make you [46:34] feel about [46:36] yourself not just you know you're [46:39] attracted to them or whatever but how do [46:41] they make you feel about [46:42] yourself if they make you [46:45] feel uh dumb or unkind or too needy or [46:53] whatever not cool on the other hand if [46:57] they make you feel like the most [46:59] gorgeous thing in the world and the most [47:02] brilliant person in the world Etc and [47:05] you know you're not that's not it [47:08] either you know so do they recognize you [47:11] it's almost like that do they recognize [47:14] you in your fullness of humanity and you [47:18] know that takes time of course you have [47:20] to get to know one [47:22] another [47:24] um but let's see you [47:27] nebl I know very quickly um I think we [47:31] both realized [47:33] that whatever we spend time together [47:36] it's always interesting and [47:39] fun that's true talking over anything [47:41] it's really that's true and everything [47:43] that you said everything that came out [47:45] of your mouth was so fraking fascinating [47:49] I knew I would be learning from him the [47:51] rest of my life yeah I felt the same way [47:53] about you you know and Road a road trip [47:56] trip was an opportunity it was really [47:59] you know a time to talk about our dreams [48:01] and our hopes about the world and [48:05] yeah what about sex and the role that [48:08] plays in attraction I asked this [48:10] question because I had a relationship [48:12] when I used to live in New York and I [48:15] really really liked this person we got [48:17] on all the things you described the road [48:18] trips everything was fun and then when [48:20] it came to the point where we had sexual [48:24] intimacy it just wasn't there yeah and [48:27] it was it was crushing for me because [48:30] this person was perfect in every [48:31] conceivable way smart kind fun [48:35] everything I just and then the minute we [48:38] moved to the the next stage it just [48:40] wasn't there I just wasn't sexually [48:42] attracted had that experience too and so [48:45] it made me add to my list of [48:46] non-negotiables a third thing at the [48:48] time there was two things on that list [48:49] the first was they kind of helped me [48:51] become a better version of myself and [48:52] however I want to Define that the second [48:54] was this intellectual stimulation the [48:56] ability to conversate and be interested [48:58] in them and them interested in me and [48:59] the third became not about appearance at [49:02] all it was purely a sexual [49:04] connection because yeah and so I just [49:08] wonder the role that sexual intimacy and [49:11] sexual attraction plays in having a a [49:13] good relationship with someone yeah you [49:15] know I think that really varies Stephen [49:18] because um there's a huge range of the [49:22] importance sexuality plays in [49:25] individuals you know some people are [49:27] practically asexual MH other people you [49:31] know it's been a really long time if [49:32] they hadn't had sex in four hours so and [49:36] everything in between so I think to some [49:40] degree that's an individual in a choice [49:45] as to how important is sexuality to you [49:49] and having a wonderful sexual [49:51] connection as opposed to who cares you [49:55] know I just want to have cup coffee and [49:57] a pastry you know it [50:01] so every individual needs to decide that [50:04] for themselves how important it is and [50:07] then you know if it if it is important [50:10] even of average importance it's really [50:14] important yeah but the other thing too [50:17] that's interesting I mean we're talking [50:18] about dating but I've also seen [50:21] relationships that have been together [50:22] for a long time and uh the sex Falls [50:27] away [50:28] mhm but it's much more important to one [50:31] person than the other and they [50:34] diverged and it becomes you know a [50:37] pretty serious problem uh it didn't [50:40] start off that way but it can become [50:44] that way and what happens in those [50:46] scenarios well you know typically it's [50:49] really interesting um of course in [50:52] second well second marriages or [50:54] relationships at let's say over 40 or so [50:59] um women uh especially women going [51:03] through per menopause you know finishing [51:05] with [51:06] menopause um sex hormones go way down [51:11] they go way down and so are they still [51:14] interested in having sex [51:18] well they may not be so interested in it [51:22] that they want to initiate sex but we [51:26] all [51:27] hardwired in particular ways um so you [51:31] touch there you lick there you know you [51:33] stimulate here and that wiring is going [51:38] to kick in and the sexuality will kick [51:41] in again and the sexual responsiveness [51:44] will kick in so um you can work on that [51:50] angle number one but number two often [51:53] times there have been big emotional [51:56] injuries IES that have broken trust that [51:59] have broken emotional [52:01] connection [52:03] and okay so two theories [52:07] one most men in Western culture are not [52:13] uh they don't accept themselves if they [52:16] just want to [52:17] cuddle that's not [52:20] masculine right so everybody needs touch [52:24] but for many many men who bought into [52:28] that the only way they can get touch is [52:30] through sex they can't just say will you [52:33] please just hold me women can because [52:37] women are considered you know more [52:40] vulnerable and uh softer and it's okay [52:45] for them you know to ask to just be held [52:48] but not for men so you know sex becomes [52:52] a difficult thing there too especially [52:55] with an ultra m Uline man where he's [52:59] just come back from war he wants to just [53:02] be held but he can't ask for that he's [53:05] got to be tough and strong and sexy [53:08] therefore he'll go for [53:13] sex any thoughts on that John I I I [53:17] think I agree with you I it it's it's [53:19] not negotiable you know it's it's one of [53:22] these intangible things that you know if [53:25] it's not there it's not going to work [53:28] very well in the beginning if it's not [53:31] there right I mean [53:34] it's yeah I think it needs to be there [53:37] because it goes on a journey all [53:39] relationships it's funny because from [53:40] doing this podcast and speaking to a lot [53:42] of sort of sex therapists or Coupes [53:45] therapists this one of them said [53:47] something to me one day or maybe two of [53:48] them said the same point I think two or [53:50] three of them so the same point which is [53:52] much of what makes sex so you know [53:57] arousing is the spontaneity and the [53:59] novess the newness of it the excitement [54:01] of it all these kinds of things and they [54:03] said to me that love is in many respects [54:05] the opposite of that it's the opposite [54:07] of spontaneity and love is like security [54:10] and trust and dependability and it's you [54:14] know knowing someone so I I've spoken to [54:19] a few of my friends in fact about this [54:21] Balancing Act between like I really love [54:22] this person I know them and I'm there [54:24] for them and we we know everything about [54:25] each other [54:26] and then like having to fight to also [54:29] create this excitement like how do I how [54:33] do I love you like we've known each [54:34] other for 10 years and you can trust me [54:36] and depend on me but then how do I have [54:39] sex with you like like we've just [54:43] met it's this so we call it the coolage [54:47] effect have you heard of this uh Kelvin [54:50] coolage uh was President of the United [54:52] States and he and his wife were visiting [54:54] visiting a farm and uh and as the [55:00] president uh was led past these uh [55:04] chickens and roosters the farmer said oh [55:07] uh this rooster has sex 17 times a day [55:13] and Mrs kulage wanted me to point that [55:15] out to you Mr President when she came by [55:18] here because we pointed out that rooster [55:20] as sex 17 times a day and Calvin Coan [55:24] said with the same head [55:27] and the farmer said no always a [55:29] different H he said and president said [55:32] tell that to Mrs [55:34] kulage so the coolage effect is that it [55:38] has to be novel it has to be exciting to [55:40] be eronic right and familiarity you know [55:44] which creates security and relaxation [55:48] and openness is antithetical to the [55:51] novelty that creates sexual excitement [55:54] but the truth is actually not so simple [55:58] uh because eroticism often really [56:01] results from really creating an erotic [56:06] situation together and making it an [56:09] erotic situation and for women [56:11] especially feeling safe and feeling [56:13] emotionally connected is a prerequisite [56:17] for feeling really attracted and feeling [56:21] that this is an erotic situation that [56:23] emotional connection is necessary for [56:25] many women because women have such a [56:30] strange relationship to safety and fear [56:33] compared to men the world is so much [56:35] more dangerous place for women than it [56:37] is for men women really need that [56:40] emotional safety and connection in order [56:42] to feel that the situation is erotic at [56:45] all it's important for your your [56:47] audience to realize that the largest [56:50] study done on the quality of sex with [56:54] 70,000 people in 24 countries found that [56:58] the differences between people who say [57:00] they have a great sex life and people [57:02] say they have an awful sex life has to [57:04] do with affection and emotional [57:06] connection that people have a great sex [57:08] life say I love you every day and mean [57:11] it kiss each other passionately for no [57:14] reason at all cuddle they're [57:16] affectionate even in public they have [57:19] romantic dates so affection and [57:21] emotional connection for most people all [57:24] over the planet Are connected rather [57:27] than there being this dichotomy between [57:30] if you're close and if your friendship [57:32] is good sex is going to be terrible and [57:36] if you're distant and you know and it's [57:40] novel sex is going to be great just not [57:44] true that's right and is there a certain [57:47] amount of because a lot of couples fall [57:49] into this trap of sort of fake [57:50] comparison whether it's social media or [57:52] movies where we think okay if we're not [57:54] having sex three times a week [57:56] something's wrong I need to raise it we [57:57] need to argue about it we need to fix [57:59] it is there any Merit to the [58:03] quantity resulting in you know happiness [58:07] no no relationship between quantity and [58:11] happiness quality yes well with the [58:16] caveat with the caveat that if you have [58:19] two people paired together one who is [58:24] extremely sexual MH and you know really [58:28] does need sex frequently and the other [58:31] one uh the opposite sexual who is more [58:34] asexual and you know could take it or [58:37] leave it want sex maybe once a month [58:40] that's not going to work that's not [58:41] going to [58:42] work one of the things me and my friends [58:45] have been deliberating about is the [58:47] importance of what we call Desire [58:50] management which is if someone is like [58:53] around too much and they're there every [58:56] second of every day in the house when I [58:58] get home you know everywhere does that [59:01] not to some degree start to kill the [59:03] desire a little bit one of the best [59:04] things that I I think I found in my [59:05] relationship is that my partner is [59:07] always working away then I'm working [59:08] away and so when we see each other it [59:10] feels special and [59:12] interesting but I personally don't know [59:15] that if we were both in the house seven [59:17] days a week and I worked from home with [59:19] her whether the desire would be the same [59:24] I don't know you know I I I think that [59:27] for example John and I are around each [59:29] other 7 days a week and we have been for [59:32] you know most of our marriage but it [59:34] doesn't matter um is that because of my [59:37] attachment style maybe because you know [59:40] I wondered if yeah yeah could be could [59:43] be I need a lot of [59:46] solitude yeah but you all around each [59:49] other yeah but you're around each other [59:51] most of the time you well we are but but [59:53] you know in a house where there's enough [59:57] space in the house to not be in visual [60:01] contact with the other person all the [60:03] time right you see so he's downstairs I [60:06] may be upstairs something like that or I [60:09] can maybe hear him maybe not he can hear [60:12] me maybe not you know [60:15] so [60:18] um I think there is something wonderful [60:21] about being a part and then coming [60:23] together that reunion after you've been [60:25] a part for a while is really quite [60:28] delicious you know what though this is [60:30] so interesting I I am working with an [60:33] individual right now uh and they're both [60:37] artists they both travel a whole bunch [60:40] all the time and whenever they reunite [60:45] after one of them is [60:46] gone nothing there's nothing for about [60:50] two or three days and then they have to [60:52] get into the same rhythm again [60:56] someone said to me on this podcast they [60:57] said you have to spend 90 minutes a week [61:00] talking to your partner and if you don't [61:02] and the person actually said to me if [61:03] you don't get that into your dumb skull [61:05] you'll be spending much more time with [61:06] them in divorce court oh and wow I know [61:09] it was a it was a Brash thing to say but [61:12] I reflected on it and it really helped [61:15] me because I think I don't know I'm I'm [61:18] speaking as a man so I can't speak for [61:19] all men I can't speak for women but [61:21] speaking for as a man myself and also on [61:23] behalf of my friends with my own [61:25] attachment Stu I think that's important [61:27] to add I struggle with naturally with [61:32] conflict resolution because conflict [61:34] resolution to me sounds like blame so if [61:37] my when my partner says we need to talk [61:39] I'm like oh my [ __ ] god what have I [61:42] done now that's right what have I done [61:45] now and I sit there like a you know I [61:47] feel like it's a a kid in school being [61:49] told off by their like the Headmaster or [61:51] the a child being told of by their [61:52] mother I'm like go on tell me all the [61:54] ways that I'm inadequate but the phase [61:56] of this idea of you're going to have to [61:57] spend 90 minutes a week sitting with [61:58] each other and talking regardless help [62:01] me because he he then went on to say [62:03] because if you do that then you can get [62:05] to play well I think here's here's my [62:08] invention I have a notebook in my back [62:10] pocket oh yeah interesting and it's just [62:12] designed for when Julie says we need to [62:15] talk and I take out the notebook and a [62:17] pen and I say okay talk to me I'm taking [62:21] notes I want to know what's going on and [62:24] she'll tell me I'm disappointed you or [62:26] angry you know I mean whatever says you [62:30] know I write it down and reflect it back [62:34] and see if I understand what you're [62:36] saying yeah and so I think I think it's [62:39] not just 90 minutes it's 90 minutes when [62:42] you're willing to listen non-defensively [62:44] which is not easy that's not easy that's [62:49] really the work in relationships is [62:51] being [62:52] non-defensive but that's why we wrote [62:54] fight right yeah you know and when we [62:58] gave you know talk uh it's it's [63:02] really so important to not do that you [63:06] you you you blaming thing that blaming [63:09] it's you know I feel about what what's [63:14] the situation not you know the way you [63:19] fail me it's the situation Julie is it [63:22] is it more often men or women that are [63:24] saying that I feel [63:26] are you kidding men are catching up but [63:29] it's hard it's hard for men to do that [63:33] women I mean you go to mental health [63:37] expertise and all the characteristics of [63:42] uh a man that are considered mentally [63:45] healthy autonomy [63:48] Independence uh strength resilience [63:51] resilience you know all the stuff that's [63:53] autonomous for women [63:57] vulnerability sensitivity empath empathy [64:01] expressing emotion so you know there's [64:04] only one emotion that men are allowed to [64:07] really openly Express [64:10] anger right can they express fear oh my [64:14] God I'm so scared of going in there [64:16] tomorrow or sadness or you know the more [64:21] vulnerable [64:22] emotions it's God think about it it's [64:26] seen as [64:29] effeminate and that's supposed to be [64:32] bad why is that bad because women are [64:36] second class [64:38] citizens right so to be allegedly like a [64:43] woman and express vulnerable emotions is [64:46] a bad thing because you shouldn't be [64:50] like a woman why [64:53] not you know I mean so [64:56] expressing vulnerable emotions I think [64:59] men are starting to catch up you know [65:01] don't women like [65:03] strength yes and no they like strength [65:07] but the problem is is that they also [65:11] want to be [65:13] empathetic too they want to be you know [65:17] nourishing to their partner and if their [65:20] partner is always presenting this facade [65:22] of strength they can't get close to them [65:25] it's like the of connection yeah but you [65:28] know we we observed 8-year-olds in [65:31] playgrounds uh and if you if you look at [65:34] eight-year-old boys they'll do run and [65:37] chase games over a very large distance [65:40] and if an emotional event happens if [65:43] somebody gets upset you know say what's [65:45] the matter Brian says the leader of the [65:47] group say I never get the ball okay toss [65:51] the ball to Brian Brian gets the ball [65:53] and they're of and running they keep the [65:54] game in Play [65:56] manage conflict quickly look at two look [65:59] at girls they're playing in groups of [66:02] two or three close to the school [66:04] building and they're talking about their [66:07] feelings over and over again you know [66:11] you said that I was a baby you know cuz [66:13] I had those barrettes that really hurt [66:15] my feelings yeah well I you know I I [66:18] only wear barrettes when when I was [66:20] little and now I don't wear them you [66:22] know but that hurt my feelings when you [66:24] said that so I didn't mean to hurt your [66:26] feels they're talking about emotions [66:29] constantly and it's like the Hopscotch [66:32] or whatever game they're playing is just [66:34] an excuse for talking about emotions for [66:37] the boys the most important thing is [66:39] keeping the ball in play and conflict [66:42] gets in the way of that they resolve it [66:44] quickly they socialized so [66:47] differently is this part the reason why [66:49] it feels for many men that they are [66:52] being held off all the time because it [66:54] actually what's happening is the their [66:56] wife is just expressing their emotions [66:57] and the man never really expresses it [66:59] you know that old sort of slightly [67:00] problematic phrase which is happy wife [67:02] happy life that's right the reason why [67:05] that phrase exists I would assume is [67:07] because the man thinks as long as I can [67:09] keep her from expressing more problems [67:11] to me then I'm happy he like thinks of [67:13] his responsibility is just like yeah ask [67:16] a man how he's feeling he says well I'm [67:17] not hungry I'm not horny uh I'm [67:21] okay ask a woman how she's feeling she [67:24] says well I don't know know there's [67:26] there's you know the children and [67:28] there's this and the house and you know [67:30] and there's this tangle of questions [67:33] that really she has to address when you [67:34] ask her how she's feeling there's so [67:36] many things and for a guy it's so much [67:39] easier but John as man I think we can [67:41] both agree that although well I'm [67:44] speaking for myself here but although in [67:46] the moment going through that conflict [67:48] resolution the 90 minutes a week getting [67:49] out your notepad listening is annoying [67:52] in the moment when we zoom out we [67:54] realize that [67:56] if they didn't raise these issues if [67:58] they didn't Express these issues this [68:00] relationship wouldn't be so good that's [68:02] right and would' be in serious that's [68:04] right they're the managers of intimacy [68:06] yeah we need [68:08] them yes we need them to [68:11] say stepen we need to [68:14] talk yeah did you see Steven's face that [68:18] was so cutie oh it's true I realize it I [68:22] realize that this is serving a purpose [68:23] which is helping me you know [68:25] us right so I sit there and I'll listen [68:28] to you know the things that um the [68:31] things that aren't right but you're [68:33] right my brain is just like me and my [68:35] friends can sit in silence for8 hours [68:37] sat right next to each other and we'll [68:39] meet each other sit in silence for eight [68:41] hours leave great evening great evening [68:44] great we both we both like doing our own [68:46] thing but it's just I think men are such [68:49] simple creatures most of the time oh you [68:51] are not that is so not true you know one [68:55] of of the things that I've certainly [68:56] seen in my my work you know I've been [68:59] doing clinical work for 50 years and [69:02] what I see is that men have exactly the [69:05] same emotions they do they just try to [69:09] bury them because it's not okay for them [69:12] to express them so they just try to [69:15] shove it down but open a little door [69:18] crack and up it comes lion old Tiger who [69:21] studied men's friendships and women's [69:24] friendships said with alcohol men get [69:28] together they're very physical and they [69:30] talk about their feelings an enormous [69:33] amount takes a little alcohol to make it [69:36] happen two women said to me last night [69:38] that I was speaking to um on uh WhatsApp [69:42] um people that I work with in a [69:44] different company they were saying to me [69:45] that their Partners often express how [69:47] they're feeling by just sending songs [69:48] out of the blue sending songs sending [69:51] songs out of the blue i' never heard of [69:54] it because one of them said it and and [69:55] the other woman said oh my God my [69:56] partner does that too which is instead [69:58] of like telling me how he feels he'll [70:01] send me a song which just which is [70:03] basically how he feels yeah um and some [70:06] of those songs are very romantic and [70:07] it's like I love you you're the best [70:08] person I've ever found but instead they [70:09] he they can't he can't vocalize it to [70:11] her so he has to send her a Spotify link [70:13] and say listen listen to [70:16] this but it's the same thing right it's [70:18] the that's right inability to to [70:20] vocalize which is yep difficult for men [70:24] keep working on it [70:25] I am yeah I'm like progressively getting [70:27] better but sometimes I have little [70:29] relapses if you if I am very busy in my [70:33] mind and then I have to have one of [70:34] those we need to talk chat so I think [70:36] you're right there needs to be a bit of [70:37] a ritual around like is this a good [70:41] time that's right yeah will I have your [70:43] attention or you know even being in a [70:45] different environment like well you can [70:46] make you know make a date to have a talk [70:49] like that when we are giving couples [70:51] workshops at the very end of it we [70:53] always uh give recommendations for ways [70:56] of preserving the changes you're making [70:59] in the relationship the improvements and [71:01] one of them is called the state of the [71:04] union meeting right where you start with [71:08] five appreciations of each other you [71:11] know things you haven't said before that [71:13] you've noticed that your partner is [71:15] doing right and express your gratitude [71:18] or thanks or your [71:20] admiration then you go into okay so what [71:26] do we need to change what do we need to [71:28] improve right and then you finish up [71:32] with this beautiful question I just love [71:35] this question how can I make you feel [71:37] loved this [71:39] week and that's [71:43] closure you mentioned the word [71:46] there [71:47] gratitude yes why is gratitude so [71:51] important being grateful for them and [71:53] expressing that it's something that you [71:54] two both du to each other I think I I [71:57] think it's indicative of a habit of mind [71:59] that's that's really much more important [72:02] a habit of Mind where you're noticing [72:04] what's going right and feeling [72:07] appreciative for it and I I know I wake [72:10] up every morning lying next to Julian [72:12] and think I'm one lucky guy you know [72:16] I've got this wonderful woman and you [72:19] know life is good I go through my [72:22] checklist everybody's okay all all the [72:25] people I love her all right and I'm with [72:28] her and I get to see my grandson you [72:32] know and my daughter life is [72:36] good yeah yeah you know I think [72:39] gratitude brings you into the moment [72:42] brings you into the moment you know so [72:44] and as John pointed out uh you're not [72:47] just looking for what's wrong you know [72:50] or what your partner is doing wrong [72:52] you're looking for what your partner is [72:54] doing right [72:56] um you know there's been studies who was [72:59] it chrysson Robinson I guess um who [73:02] looked at unhappy couples versus happy [73:04] couples and unhappy it wasn't that they [73:07] weren't doing things for one another but [73:10] unhappy couples only saw [73:14] 50% of what their Partners were doing [73:17] the positivity of the positivity right [73:20] whereas happy couples were seeing it all [73:22] the time it's like they're wearing [73:24] different sunglasses or something a [73:26] different fil different filters well and [73:28] the negative habit of mind you know [73:30] really puts you in a state of being kind [73:33] of irritable and grumpy all the time you [73:36] know you're noticing other people are [73:38] driving badly and you know and being [73:41] careless and making mistakes all the [73:44] time and that's all that's all you [73:46] see because gratitude puts you on a [73:49] different frame of mind so you notice [73:51] actually all the good stuff that's going [73:54] on right let me draw ACC let me draw a [73:57] parallel one of the things that uh I've [74:00] done in my private practice I still do [74:02] is treat cancer patients in their [74:05] families and cancer patients of course [74:08] often are facing the possibility of [74:13] death [74:14] so one of the questions uh and [74:18] oftentimes I mean the ones who deal with [74:21] their diagnosis best are people who say [74:24] okay [74:26] I don't have that long to live I'm going [74:27] to repr prioritize my life I'm going to [74:31] really think about what's most important [74:33] to me for the six months I have left so [74:37] one of the things that I do in my [74:39] practice with [74:41] couples um who are just racing through [74:45] life together on Parallel tracks not [74:48] connecting at [74:49] all [74:50] uh is to ask them okay you know if you [74:55] had 6 months left to [74:58] live how would you want to spend it who [75:01] would be the most important people that [75:05] you would want to draw close [75:07] to who would you not value as much how [75:11] would you want to spend that six months [75:14] and I I first kind of take people into a [75:18] very relax state so their minds are [75:20] really free to [75:22] imagine uh and and what's what's that [75:25] doing is it helping to crystallize [75:27] whether they should be with this person [75:29] uh clarify sometimes but it's more that [75:34] oh my God you know I'm wasting my life [75:36] trying to make more [75:38] money why am I doing that when I've got [75:41] this love right here what's more [75:44] important to me making more money or [75:47] creating more love between us that's [75:50] what it comes down to often times [75:55] when do you know how do you know when to [75:58] quit a relationship how do I know if the [75:59] relationship I'm in is bad is not good [76:03] because relationships are incredibly [76:05] tempting they tempt us back they offer [76:08] Comfort which sometimes necessarily [76:09] isn't healthy Comfort but they're very [76:12] hard to leave and I actually had a [76:13] conversation with one of my friends [76:15] recently I always talk about my friends [76:16] because it's the only way I know to draw [76:18] on case studies so instead of me just [76:19] hypothetical coming with something [76:21] hypothetical I think about the the [76:23] challenges my friends face and got [76:25] friend who's been in a relationship for [76:26] many many years seven eight years um [76:29] relationship is broken broken down and [76:33] he naturally because the relationship is [76:35] broken down is like jumping to repair [76:38] but I [76:40] wonder if he should even repair because [76:43] they've broken up six times they've gone [76:46] through this cycle six times so I'm like [76:48] are they just rushing back together for [76:50] the comfort of the [76:51] relationship or um should do they you [76:55] know take a moment to say is this even [76:58] right but this also the answer here [76:59] applies to people that are in [77:00] relationships that have those thoughts [77:02] in their mind is this the right one how [77:03] do you know how do you know if this is a [77:06] problem we can solve and should solve or [77:08] this is just the wrong [77:10] person therapy helps M has your friend [77:14] gone to therapy good therapy not with [77:17] their partner no then they don't know [77:20] you know in other words a lot of people [77:24] um [77:25] don't know how to deal with Conflict for [77:27] example nobody's taking relationships [77:30] oneone in high school right to learn how [77:33] to deal with conflict or to learn how to [77:37] be more vulnerable to somebody else and [77:39] be more open and so on so people don't [77:42] know how to have good relationships [77:44] that's part of what drives the work that [77:47] John and I do people just don't know how [77:50] to do it and if they did know they could [77:53] change those patter patterns and so you [77:57] know with your friend for example often [78:00] times you know when people have been [78:02] together for over you know a couple of [78:04] years they create patterns that are like [78:08] dark holes you know they're like black [78:10] holes that have this tremendous [78:12] gravitational pole and so they keep [78:16] sinking down in the same patterns over [78:19] and over and over and over again right [78:21] that's well exactly what Happ your but [78:25] you can change those patterns once you [78:28] know and practice what the alternatives [78:33] are oh okay well I think it's I think [78:35] it's not the partner the pattern an [78:38] alternative pattern yes I think when [78:40] that fund us and admiration system you [78:42] know the system of affection and respect [78:45] love and respect is gone and gets [78:48] replaced by denigration belittling [78:52] contempt that's a ton to bail and you've [78:55] seen this in your work oh yeah this is [78:57] like much of what you guys you know are [78:59] known for is this and whenever I hear [79:01] people talking about the goans they're [79:03] always talking to me about the idea of [79:04] contempt and The Four Horsemen [79:06] right see those things can change too [79:10] those things can change too that often [79:13] is what constitutes the bad pattern or [79:16] there's been so much of that that now [79:19] they avoid each other all together and [79:21] there's huge emotional distance what are [79:24] the four Horsemen and before we talk [79:25] about how we would go about changing if [79:27] possible these things for anyone that [79:29] doesn't know and how you found these [79:31] four [79:32] horsemen uh well Bob Lon and I when we [79:36] doing our research we first the first [79:38] thing we looked at was what's the ratio [79:41] of positive to negative emotion in a [79:43] conversation so how did you conduct this [79:45] experiment really just observing couples [79:48] talking about how their day [79:50] went wait wait wait bring them into the [79:53] lab first of all what's the lab uh the [79:56] lab was a room where they sat facing one [80:01] another there were video cameras here [80:04] and there that were focused [80:08] on each individual and their faces and [80:11] their body language um there was what [80:13] was called a jigal ometer how much they [80:16] moved in their chairs you know how much [80:18] the chairs move physiological measures [80:21] what was happening to their heart rate [80:23] you know as well velocity respiration [80:26] respiration conductance and all of that [80:30] all of that data that was pulled from [80:32] those measures was all synchronized you [80:35] know hundredth of a second by hundredth [80:37] of a second and they would talk for [80:40] let's say 15 minutes about the events of [80:42] the day and then they were asked to talk [80:46] about a problem they hadn't solved and [80:49] to try and solve it or talk about it so [80:52] that you know ends up being conflict and [80:55] then a positive topic and then a [80:57] positive topic or in in the apartment [81:00] lab they just hung out for you know 12 [81:03] hours before they went to sleep and the [81:05] cameras just rolled while we collected [81:07] physiological data so that raal SPI on [81:11] them you really SPI spied on them right [81:13] except they knew they were [81:14] be for 12 hours you watch them just sort [81:17] of chill and hang out together couple [81:18] that's right how many couples have you [81:20] 130 and how many couples have been in [81:22] the lab in total 3,000 3,00 000 and they [81:25] were followed you know so then they'd be [81:28] brought back every couple of years right [81:31] uh to see how the relationship changed [81:35] right so the procedures would be [81:37] repeated every couple of years for as [81:39] long as 20 years and what did you find [81:42] happen so that the initially that ratio [81:45] of positive to negative interaction even [81:49] talking about how their day went or [81:50] especially during Conflict for people [81:53] who were in happy stable relationship it [81:56] average five positives for every [81:58] negative positives about the other [82:00] person or about no just positive emotion [82:03] like let's describe positives so a [82:06] positive can be nodding your head it can [82:09] be smiling it can be asking a question [82:13] humor validation showing interest [82:15] interest in the other person uh negative [82:18] would be anger irritability [82:20] disappointment hurt disgust contempt uh [82:25] shared humor was another big positive [82:28] that turned out to be very important [82:30] that so that ratio of positive to [82:32] negative averaged five to one in [82:35] relationships that were stable and happy [82:37] during conflict during conflict and [82:40] point8 to one in relationships that were [82:43] headed for disaster either splitting up [82:46] or being together [82:47] unhappily uh but certain negatives were [82:50] much more predictive of relationship [82:53] demise and they were criticism [82:56] defensiveness contempt and [82:59] stonewalling so let's define what those [83:02] are so criticism means blaming a problem [83:06] on a personality flaw of your partner [83:09] like you're so lazy you'd never think to [83:11] clean up the kitchen wouldn't you or God [83:14] you're thoughtless you didn't even call [83:16] me when you were going to be late you [83:18] know thoughtless lazy inconsiderate [83:21] selfish okay making about personality [83:25] and their character that's right that's [83:27] a criticism contempt is the worst that's [83:31] sulfuric acid for a [83:33] relationship um where you're looking [83:35] down your nose with [83:38] disgust as well as criticism of the [83:40] partner superiority so give me an [83:43] example of that you're such an idiot you [83:46] know you just never get things right you [83:48] know it's just you're just not like me [83:52] you know I I'm thoughtful and cons [83:54] consider it and you're just you're just [83:57] you're stupid you're a narcissist right [83:59] you know right so there there's the [84:02] criticism but it's making yourself [84:04] Superior to that other person MH and [84:07] there's a little disgust in it you know [84:10] s kind of stuff sarcasm is a good [84:14] example mockery you know especially in [84:17] front of people yeah right awful so the [84:20] person says well I really care how you [84:22] feel you really care how I feel you [84:27] know so that's contempt Stow malling is [84:31] really emotional with don't forget [84:33] defensiv and defensiveness yeah so every [84:36] defensiveness is the one we all have [84:39] it's so hard to get over which is you [84:42] know you either kind of whine like an [84:44] innocent victim you know I did too pay [84:47] the bills on time what do you mean I'm [84:49] thoughtful I'm thoughtful I am [84:51] thoughtful don't you remember blah blah [84:53] blah or it's Counterattack oh yeah [84:56] you're so perfect huh you never clean up [84:59] the kitchen you know it's that [85:01] Counterattack do you find that insecure [85:03] people are more defensive sure I have [85:06] this like theory that if your [85:07] self-esteem and your self- perception of [85:09] yourself is fragile then anyone poking [85:12] at it at all causes such extreme pain [85:15] right that you like you live in a this [85:17] state of like I have never done anything [85:19] wrong I can't I've do anything wrong and [85:20] if someone points out something you've [85:21] done wrong it's so painful if you're [85:24] insecure right walking on anything yeah [85:26] exact it's like a playing with like an [85:28] open wound yeah it's like you're a [85:31] walking burn victim yeah you know the [85:33] way I describe it um because I've been [85:36] there I know what that's like is you [85:40] know the the Earth if you take uh a [85:43] picture of the Earth and the Earth has [85:44] this very thin crust on it and then you [85:48] go down some layers and in the center is [85:51] this boiling hot lava you know [85:54] uh that burns you to death well somebody [85:58] says to you why didn't you pay the bills [86:00] on [86:01] time and the Earth opens up you fall [86:05] through that crack and straight down [86:07] into that hot lava of self loathing that [86:12] is Agony absolutely and you feel like [86:15] you're getting burned to death so you [86:18] can't allow yourself to step into that [86:21] crack and say oh God you're right right [86:24] I [86:26] didn't so you defend you defend oh yeah [86:30] well I'm the one who does all the bill [86:32] paying what are you doing you know it's [86:34] defensiveness well in that case it [86:36] sounds like that's fundamentally linked [86:37] to some kind of trauma because paying [86:39] the you didn't pay the bills to the [86:41] average person would be yeah I know [86:42] sorry my bad but if that's linked to [86:44] maybe I don't know your childhood where [86:46] your your father or your mother or the [86:47] bullies on the playground told you that [86:49] you always you're so forgetful Steve or [86:52] Julie you're the most forgetful person [86:53] ever in the and they punched [86:55] you you could get to you know 40 can't [86:57] be yeah can be can be and then [87:00] stonewalling this was one that was so [87:03] fascinating because you could have you [87:07] know a pair of people sitting just like [87:09] this looking perfectly normal but you [87:14] notice that one is completely shutting [87:18] down not showing anything on their face [87:21] in their body maybe looking away or just [87:23] glaz Ed you know looking and not saying [87:27] a word and that's not for seconds it's [87:30] for minutes and what's actually going on [87:33] because these guys you know John and his [87:36] colleagues measured [87:38] physiology is that they feel so attacked [87:41] that their heart rates are zooming up [87:44] above 100 beats a minute which just [87:47] sitting here secting cortisol and [87:50] adrenaline massively and so they're [87:53] shutting down yeah it's a terribly it's [87:56] going into fight ORF flight only you're [87:58] not facing a [88:04] [Music] [88:24] whatever issue they keep smashing into [88:26] right um but much of why I think from [88:32] what I've [88:33] heard or at least a symptom of their [88:35] relationship is stonewalling but it it's [88:37] not minutes one of the one of them it's [88:40] month I think I think basically I only [88:43] know this because I was showing some [88:44] text messages and I looked at the text [88:46] messages and I was like oh my God [88:47] there's like whenever you talk about [88:49] something that might be a little bit [88:50] challenging or whatever or um you even [88:53] ask how do you think the relationship's [88:55] going the other partner is like vacant [88:59] like like vacant nothing it's like [89:01] they're not expressing their needs [89:03] they're not saying what they feel [89:05] they're spiraling in their own mind and [89:07] then they're just breaking up with you [89:09] wow you know it's kind of I don't know [89:10] whether that's Stone Walling but it's [89:11] also what you were saying about lacking [89:12] the tools that was at the heart of the [89:14] relationship is one partner spirals [89:17] independently and then without you even [89:19] knowing it you thought everything was [89:21] okay breaks up with you to to give more [89:23] context this is a homosexual [89:25] relationship yeah between two men yeah [89:28] so you know we talked earlier on about [89:29] the the woman's sometimes the instigator [89:31] of expression of needs yeah it's just [89:33] right you know oh that's so sad you know [89:37] so it sounds like both of them have [89:40] terrible difficulty making themselves [89:43] vulnerable to the other and saying what [89:46] they feel and it may be that uh when the [89:52] if they tried that early on in the [89:54] relationship the other one said [89:58] something very negative to them back [90:00] that felt punishing in terms of [90:04] expressing their [90:05] emotion and so they made a choice oh God [90:10] I can't make myself vulnerable I'm going [90:12] to get hurt if I do that so they shut [90:15] down but this point about um men not [90:17] being very good at expressing their [90:18] feelings do we you know with that in [90:21] mind and with the ackn knowledge that [90:23] expression feelings are good for [90:24] building [90:26] connection how come homosexual [90:28] relationships with men work and I don't [90:31] know is there any data to show that they [90:33] they last less longer than a [90:35] relationship where a woman is um [90:37] stereotypically more likely to you know [90:39] talk about the the challenges and the [90:41] issues and Bridge the [90:43] connection someone's got to done the [90:45] research on this subject well we you [90:47] know we've studied gay and lesbian [90:49] couples and compared them to [90:51] heterosexual couples as well and years [90:55] generally they're less [90:57] defensive uh they have a better sense of [90:59] humor and they're uh they're much much [91:03] more gentle in the way they bring up an [91:05] issue with one another men or women in [91:08] those homosexual relationship and women [91:12] together gay men and lesbians are better [91:15] than heterosexuals and they're much less [91:18] possessive and domineering as well um [91:21] much more of a sense of equality in [91:24] their relationships well especially you [91:26] know pre well so do we wait pause [91:32] pread you know men gave each other much [91:35] more autonomy to have sex outside the [91:39] relationship right but then AIDS kicked [91:41] in and a lot of that shut down now it's [91:44] opening up again so they're giving [91:48] themselves sexual Freedom as long as [91:51] there isn't a lot of emotional [91:53] connection and falling in love with the [91:56] third party women don't do that nearly [91:58] as [92:00] much they're uh they tend to feel very [92:07] insecure around polygamy let's say or [92:11] polyamory uh and so they really are more [92:16] wanting monogamy with their [92:18] Partners [92:21] so am I right in thinking John that [92:22] you're saying that h sexual [92:24] relationships are better than [92:26] heterosexual relationships are they are [92:28] better in general they're better do you [92:31] know if they last [92:32] longer I don't know that there's data on [92:35] that I don't think there are differences [92:37] and how long that last is that right I [92:39] don't think there's any [92:41] differences you know there's there's [92:43] another thing too I mean again it [92:45] depends on what period of History you're [92:47] talking about but because um being [92:51] homosexual has been so stigmatized in [92:54] the past you know and there's so much [92:56] prejudice against [92:59] homosexuality um there's first of all [93:02] there's more of a sense of community [93:05] amongst gay men and gay women you know [93:08] they've they've uh connected with one [93:11] another not just as couples but as [93:13] community in order to survive the kind [93:16] of prejudice they endure out in the [93:18] heterosexual Society right so uh and [93:24] it's been shown actually the research [93:25] has shown this that when the community [93:28] really supports the [93:29] relationship the relationship does [93:32] better so if you've got a community [93:35] around [93:36] you uh that's a consistent Community [93:39] that's really supporting the [93:40] relationship that's really going to help [93:42] you sustain that [93:44] relationship and on these um these four [93:46] horsemen a word you didn't mention but I [93:48] wondered if it fit in there somewhere is [93:50] the word gaslighting which has become [93:52] quite popular in society [93:54] what is gaslighting how does that show [93:56] up so in in in physically violent [94:00] relationships um that are [94:02] characterologically violent whether it's [94:04] a perpetrator and a victim those kinds [94:07] of domestic violence quite often the the [94:10] perpetrator is communicating to the [94:14] victim that everything about the reality [94:18] is is wrong they never they never raised [94:21] their hand against this person you know [94:24] it's just all imagined they're basically [94:27] doing you know what happened to in GRE [94:30] Bergman in that movie guas light where [94:32] she's married to this where she's [94:34] married to this guy who who can tries to [94:38] convince her that she's mentally ill [94:40] that her whole sense of reality is wrong [94:43] so he does things like um change the [94:47] order of the [94:49] pictures and you know in the home uh [94:54] steel um jewelry that he's given her [94:57] that you know that he says comes from [95:00] his mother and grandmother he steals it [95:03] and then he says you know where is it [95:06] you know you lost it you're so forgetful [95:10] and he's constantly sort of uh making [95:12] her feel like she's going crazy there [95:14] never was a painting there what are you [95:16] talking about there's never a painting [95:18] there and she know and he's actually [95:21] removed it or he's changed the order of [95:23] the pictures he's trying to make her [95:25] think she's crazy and even her sense of [95:28] reality needs him to determine what's [95:32] real and what's not real and that's what [95:34] gas light comes from let me mention [95:36] something because that word you're right [95:38] it's really being bandied about commonly [95:41] and people have got it [95:43] wrong speaking of gasoline um so people [95:49] for example who have a conflict and they [95:52] have totally different points point of [95:54] view about what happened during the [95:56] conflict who remembers it better you [95:58] know and one will say well you said this [96:03] no I didn't I never said [96:05] that that they're calling gaslighting [96:09] and it's not that is not gaslighting so [96:12] it's being misused in the culture all [96:15] the time because people always have two [96:19] points of view about different [96:21] perceptions and any who situation that's [96:24] right they have you know everybody has [96:26] their own individual filters and so [96:29] they're going to hear some things not [96:30] hear other things and distort things and [96:33] so on memory isn't perfect and so [96:35] they're always going to have two points [96:37] of view and uh people can get locked [96:42] into struggles over no this is the [96:46] absolute reality of what happened no it [96:48] isn't this is and there is no absolute [96:52] reality it's all about perception so [96:54] people are calling that gaslighting and [96:57] that's not and it isn't that's not what [97:00] gaslighting is at what point does it [97:01] become gaslighting is that when you're [97:03] intentionally trying to make the other [97:05] person crazy okay believe that they're [97:08] crazy so they don't trust themselves and [97:09] these violent relationships that you [97:11] know the man will slap the woman across [97:14] the face and says God damn it you just [97:16] hit me I never hit you I never touched [97:19] you yeah I I spoke to a domestic [97:21] violence victim once who told me that [97:23] her partner when after like love bombing [97:25] her so immediately like you know [97:28] throwing all all this affection onto her [97:30] and you know very very quickly he would [97:32] then start like hiding her stuff so he'd [97:34] put her car keys in the fridge oh and [97:36] he'd be like I didn't why did you put [97:38] your car keys in the fridge gaslighting [97:40] yeah that's gaslighting perfect [97:42] description then she thinks she's going [97:44] crazy so he goes well I'm going to have [97:45] to take your car keys often and then she [97:47] can't she's lost that car that's right [97:48] often done in the service of extreme [97:50] jealousy yeah and and socially isolating [97:54] the victim yeah we've treated domestic [97:57] violence um a lot and uh God I'll never [98:02] forget this one guy who had put a mark [98:05] on the tire and a mark on the [98:08] driveway that matched up that lined up [98:11] and at the end of the day if those marks [98:15] didn't line up he'd beat her up even if [98:18] she just went to the grocery store it [98:21] didn't matter who did you [ __ ] today [98:23] right where'd you [98:25] go nowhere oh yeah right you liar you [98:29] roar you yeah this is the typical and [98:35] naive question people ask when they hear [98:37] a story like that their head goes I [98:39] would never stay with someone that did [98:42] that to me blah blah blah but it not [98:44] true yeah not true you know first of all [98:48] it doesn't happen [98:50] all secondly uh often times the victim [98:54] usually you know in a het a row it's a [98:56] it's a woman um has her confidence [99:00] beaten down so it's not just physical [99:04] it's also mental abuse god you're an [99:07] idiot man are you stupid and she starts [99:10] doubting her own judgment her own [99:13] intuition plus you know I don't think [99:16] you could survive out there nobody else [99:18] is going to want [99:20] you and she starts to believe it start [99:23] to believe it um and she also has a [99:26] dream that he's going to change yeah [99:29] because he's so rewardful of what he did [99:32] to her he promises he'll never happen [99:35] again and he loves her and he's going to [99:37] get this under control is he a [99:40] narcissist or is it possible that [99:43] someone who isn't a narcissist can [99:45] perform that behavior or is the word [99:47] narcissist in other word that's just [99:48] thrown around too much very good A+ yeah [99:52] yeah I thought so another word you know [99:55] everybody is narcissistic Stephen [99:59] everybody is you know narcissism [100:02] basically comes from the Instinct for [100:05] self-preservation you know you're you're [100:07] thinking about okay me what do I need [100:10] what do I need how am I going to get it [100:12] and so on I've got to really you know [100:15] think about taking care of myself [100:17] sometimes I mean they call that a [100:19] narcissist but the way it really is me [100:24] uh is shorthand for a narcissistic [100:27] personality disorder which is [100:31] Extreme narcissism where there is no [100:35] empathy whatsoever the person has no [100:39] conscience [100:41] whatsoever they can hurt you they can do [100:44] everything uh that damages you and um [100:50] they take absolutely no responsibility [100:52] for it and blame you for it blame the [100:56] victim [100:58] so uh somebody [101:00] who you know says I didn't fail you made [101:05] me fail this is what you did that set me [101:07] up you know blah blah blah so every [101:11] everybody around them is a reflection of [101:16] who they are themselves and so they only [101:19] see people other people in two [101:22] dimensions [101:24] how' you go about you said you spoke to [101:26] couples and women who had been through [101:28] domestic abuse and you know how do you [101:31] go about helping [101:33] them okay there's two types of domestic [101:37] violence John mentioned [101:39] characterological domestic violence [101:41] that's when there's a clear perpetrator [101:43] clear victim nothing the victim can [101:46] do uh will change violence there's major [101:51] injury so so what has to happen there is [101:56] the victim has got to get out of the [101:59] relationship because she could be killed [102:02] easier said than done right it is that [102:05] is correct it is very very hard it has [102:09] to be secretive it you know she's got to [102:11] plan it especially if there are kids and [102:14] so on but there's also that's only [102:17] 20% of the domestic violence out there [102:20] only 20% 80% % of the domestic violence [102:25] is what we call situational domestic [102:27] violence and in that kind both people [102:31] tend to be violent [102:34] both the violence is not uh seriously [102:40] injuring of the other person it's a slap [102:43] it's a push uh it's a holding you know [102:47] holding them from moving you know that [102:50] kind of thing pushing them down breaking [102:53] breaking things throwing things them and [102:56] so on and that results from moving into [103:01] that flooded State we described earlier [103:04] where you're in Conflict your heart rate [103:07] is jumping up over 100 beats a minute [103:11] you're going to fight or flight and when [103:13] you do that you lose access to your [103:17] ability to problem solve your ability to [103:21] listen actually to um really take in [103:26] what the other person is saying you hear [103:29] attack attack attack no matter what the [103:32] person is saying because it's like your [103:35] frontal cortex your prefrontal cortex is [103:39] offline so both people typically are [103:42] getting flooded during conflict so those [103:45] people we can really really help so [103:47] we've done a randomized clinical trial [103:49] treating those people right and even a [103:51] year and a half after has ended when [103:55] they when they discuss a conflict on [103:57] videotape in their home and we measure [104:00] physiology physiology stays low so the [104:03] therapy is really effective compared to [104:06] a control group as an entrepreneur I'm [104:08] always looking for ways to connect and [104:10] to create and that's why I decided to [104:12] launch the conversation cards I turned [104:14] to Shopify who also sponsored this [104:16] podcast and Shopify made it so easy to [104:19] set up an online store and reach all of [104:22] you no matter where are in the world I [104:24] remember the challenges we faced when we [104:26] first launched the D Co conversation [104:27] cards managing inventory ensuring a [104:29] seamless checkout process and reaching [104:31] our audience Shopify stepped in and made [104:34] everything so straightforward and [104:35] efficient it was like having an entire [104:37] team of experts by our side allowing us [104:39] to focus on creating content and [104:41] connecting with you what I love about [104:43] Shopify is no matter how big you intend [104:45] to grow your business they give you [104:46] everything you need to take control and [104:49] take your business to the next level and [104:50] to say thank you for listening to this [104:52] podcast we giving you a trial which is [104:54] just $11 a month and you can sign up by [104:56] going to shopify.com Bartlet the link is [104:59] in the description [105:00] below is is this part of the reason why [105:03] you're in the UK at the moment you you [105:05] talked about your trauma oh it's trauma [105:08] it's trauma at Oxford yeah we're talking [105:10] about drama and also Affairs Affairs [105:14] talking about Affairs you're talking [105:15] about treating Affairs right right [105:17] that's right so I've never really heard [105:19] the the phrase treating Affairs as if [105:22] it's a you know a condition per se but [105:25] your if if there has been an affair or [105:27] some form of [105:29] infidelity can it be [105:31] treated [105:34] 75% so far in our research cure rate and [105:39] when you say Affair what are you [105:41] throwing in that bucket in terms of the [105:43] definition of an affair is that a text [105:44] or is that it can be an emotional affair [105:46] as well as a affair a physical Affair a [105:50] physical Affair usually so it can be [105:54] emotionally you know falling in love [105:56] with somebody else without physical [106:00] consummation [106:02] or physical [106:05] consummation uh with somebody that [106:07] you've fallen in love with or just [106:10] having sex outside the relationship not [106:12] an emotional connection but just having [106:15] sex when the agreement is [106:18] monogamy so almost almost always [106:21] involves deception right always it [106:24] always does yeah that's that's a big [106:27] part of it is the deception and broken [106:30] trust you know it what Affairs do is [106:33] they turn you know the hurt partner's [106:37] world upside down everything they [106:40] believed about the partner is [106:42] wrong everything that they thought they [106:45] shared in terms of values is [106:49] wrong um [106:53] so you know you can trust the what the [106:55] person says no you can't because they [106:58] weren't staying at work late they were [107:00] going to so and so's [107:02] apartment it's like I didn't know this [107:04] person I didn't know this yeah who are [107:06] you right who are you and you know [107:09] relationships are really often times you [107:12] know especially committed ones are the [107:14] foundation for our whole life you know [107:17] we build everything around that often [107:19] times our sense of family even our sense [107:22] of work sometimes what work we choose [107:25] how we live our lives purpose purpose [107:28] and meaning that we give our lives [107:30] together and when there's betrayal like [107:33] that and the person that you thought [107:35] your partner was [107:37] isn't then that whole thing cracks and [107:42] falls to the ground it [107:44] shatters and how many people how many [107:47] couples cheat in any of those [107:50] definitions that you've described [107:53] well we don't really know yeah you know [107:56] but you know probably around 30% of all [108:01] couples is you think it's a conservative [108:04] estimate conservative really I've heard [108:08] 15% of men and women and the thing [108:11] that's interesting is that the the stat [108:14] for women having Affairs has pretty much [108:18] caught up to men now but here's why when [108:23] before the' 70s and women's the women's [108:27] Liberation movement women were stuck at [108:29] home they weren't out in the world [108:33] working they didn't have access to [108:37] other the Milkman and the uh the plumber [108:41] was and the mailman maybe you know they [108:44] so you know they were stuck at home [108:46] having coffee around their you know [108:48] kitchen table with their neighbor woman [108:51] you know whoever but once they entered [108:53] the [108:54] workforce then they had access to a [108:57] whole [108:58] field our potential people out there and [109:02] so you know it's interesting as you say [109:05] that Julia I was I was thinking through [109:07] all the implications of what would [109:09] happen in a woman's life when she she [109:12] went out to work and one of the other [109:14] things is she would become more [109:15] independent in every sense yeah exactly [109:18] that's right she doesn't have to stay in [109:20] the marriage she can support herself [109:23] financially so how did you treat an [109:25] affair so we developed a model uh based [109:29] on our research called uh the a tone a [109:33] tune attach a a a [109:36] model and here's what in a nutshell [109:40] here's what it involves again it has to [109:42] be done in therapy you really can't do [109:44] this stuff at home it's it's too intense [109:47] first the person who did the [109:50] betraying uh needs to resp respond [109:53] totally transparently to every question [109:57] the hurt partner asks them however the [110:01] hurt [110:02] partner uh shouldn't probably ask about [110:07] the kind of sex they had and here's why [110:10] I mean it's it's an important thing [110:13] almost every person who suffered through [110:16] an affair has PTSD from it [110:18] post-traumatic stress disorder and part [110:21] of post-traumatic stress disorder is [110:23] having these images or flashbacks if you [110:28] will come into your mind unbidden you [110:32] don't want them there but they come in [110:34] anyway and traumatic memory is different [110:38] than uh regular memory regular memory [110:42] you have a few little fragments [110:43] something said and so on traumatic [110:46] memory everything comes up at one time [110:49] the images the smells the the sounds [110:53] the uh adrenaline cortisol and so on so [110:58] when uh a woman asks questions about sex [111:01] and then gets the answers guess what you [111:04] know so her images now are like flooding [111:08] her mind with the kind of sex they had [111:13] you know the partner and the affair [111:15] partner uh that plague her to an even [111:19] greater degree and it's horrible so [111:24] aone answering the questions and [111:28] then saying I'm sorry a thousand times [111:32] and really meaning it really really [111:36] meaning it I've had [111:38] many uh both men and women who've [111:41] cheated on their Partners or had affairs [111:43] who end up crying during that phase even [111:46] the strongest of men will cry when they [111:49] realize how hurt the woman is or the man [111:53] the other thing that they uh that the [111:56] betraying partner needs to do is to [111:59] listen to the other partner's feelings [112:03] without defensiveness just [112:05] listen but in the therapy you know a lot [112:09] of times what happens um is that the [112:13] therapist has to help shape the hurt [112:17] partner's expression of emotion to take [112:20] it out of criticism and out of contempt [112:24] into I feel destroyed I feel like my you [112:27] know my world has fallen apart I feel so [112:31] empty so abandoned so rejected so she [112:34] has to describe or he has to [112:37] describe their own [112:39] feelings not how bad the partner was [112:42] which is typically what happens at home [112:45] so that's the atonement phase a tune and [112:49] this has to come after atonement not as [112:52] the first thing they start looking at [112:54] the actual marriage or relationship [112:58] itself and what was wrong with it and a [113:01] lot of times what you see uh are couples [113:05] who at first might have had terrible [113:07] conflict it was so bad they started [113:10] avoiding conflict once they avoided [113:12] conflict they got more emotionally [113:14] distant and the person who did the [113:17] betraying got lonely got lonely so [113:22] often times the Affairs are not about [113:25] just getting more sex they're about [113:28] loneliness and beginning to talk to [113:31] somebody else about how unhappy they are [113:34] and then the third phase is attachment [113:38] so it's like reattaching to your partner [113:41] that second phase is really rebuilding [113:44] trust and the third phase is [113:49] recommitting to the relationship and in [113:52] many this is not always true I've seen [113:54] the opposite but in many cases the [113:57] sexual relationship doesn't [114:00] resume until phase [114:03] three especially if the woman is the one [114:06] who's been betrayed but there there are [114:10] some where the woman will kind of throw [114:13] herself at the man [114:15] sexually to compete with the affair [114:18] partner and be better than the the [114:20] affair partner so you know it can be [114:23] both it's um I mean I've got so many [114:25] questions that so the first phase was [114:26] the atonement atunement and then [114:29] attachment um so many questions at [114:31] different phases in that I mean so many [114:33] of them um I'll start from the top which [114:35] was how many times do you apologize a [114:38] thousand because is it true that at some [114:42] point you've you've got to kind of move [114:43] on you have to know you have to know [114:45] what you're apologizing for well that [114:48] that's important but here's why and you [114:52] know [114:52] probably some of your audience [114:54] especially therapists May disagree with [114:57] this but I've treated it for 50 years [115:00] PTSD doesn't [115:02] disappear it doesn't disappear right it [115:06] can get episodes of getting triggered [115:09] can be much less frequent over time or [115:15] maybe not as intense but it never [115:17] disappears so for example you may [115:20] apologize a lot during the therapy [115:22] things get better better better better [115:24] better and then you know a couple months [115:27] later after you leave therapy the man is [115:31] late home from work and doesn't call [115:33] well guess what happens boom she goes [115:36] into fullblown [115:39] PTSD uh reenactment basically where it's [115:42] gotten triggered again and oh my God [115:44] he's doing it again you see that's why [115:49] you can't stop apologizing and just put [115:51] it behind you you don't put PTSD behind [115:54] you you see [115:59] interesting I guess that's the cost of [116:00] cheating is the person it really is [116:02] never be the same again it's a high cost [116:05] a very high cost that's right yeah I [116:08] wrote insecurity as you were talking as [116:10] a as a note and I think what I meant [116:11] when I wrote that is being cheated on [116:14] must create a huge amount of like [116:16] lasting insecurity and it kind of links [116:18] to the second thing I was writing down [116:19] which is this whole question of like why [116:21] did you Che on me and it must be for a [116:25] lot of people difficult to answer that [116:27] question because if it's and also I was [116:29] thinking some people don't even know [116:31] yeah they don't actually so they might [116:33] try and Hazard a guess and do even more [116:34] harm right well I think it's because you [116:37] gained some weight or I think well uh [116:39] you uh I think you um you smell or you [116:43] know what I mean when actually it's [116:44] something much deeper so like that's [116:45] right you know so is that a useful [116:48] question to even ask in that setting it [116:51] is but again in the setting of therapy [116:55] in the setting of therapy you need the [116:58] safety hopefully with a good therapist [117:00] you need the safety that the therapist [117:04] provides um where you know why did she [117:08] cheat well because you're an [ __ ] you [117:11] know no that's not going to work you [117:14] know so I once treated a couple where he [117:18] had had 57 Affairs and they'd only been [117:23] they had three children under the age of [117:27] 10 and he'd had 57 Affairs and three of [117:32] them he actually fell in love [117:34] with okay so you know you can you can [117:39] easily say oh because the guy has a [117:41] sexual addiction or blah blah blah no [117:45] not [117:46] true the real reason was that he had [117:51] been raped as a kid and he feared oh my [117:56] God maybe I'm a latent [117:58] homosexual which in his [118:00] culture was the worst in the world you [118:04] know in the worst way so he had to keep [118:06] proving to himself that he was [118:08] heterosexual heterosexual heterosexual [118:11] over and over and over again and as soon [118:15] as he you know we put that together cuz [118:20] he just completely blocked it out for [118:22] for the most part Boom the affair [118:25] stopped [118:27] wow it just goes to show how complex it [118:30] can be that's right yeah that's [118:33] right yeah and it's atonement not not [118:37] forgiveness big difference there because [118:40] when when carapus emphasized forgiveness [118:43] in this aair uh situation they would [118:48] blame the Betrayed partner for not [118:50] forgiving is it acceptance importance [118:54] acceptance of what the situation you [118:56] find yourself in no no that's bad [119:01] just because you're accepting something [119:04] that's [119:06] hurtful that's terribly hurtful the [119:09] reason I asked that particular question [119:10] is because I was thinking about my [119:11] friend who's going through this breakup [119:12] and um much of the agony that I see [119:15] himself in it's because he's like [119:17] refusing to accept the situation it [119:19] seems and all the resistance situation [119:21] situation is basically someone's broken [119:23] up with him oh and so it's this constant [119:26] rumination of maybe if I do this I can [119:27] change it or maybe if I go like almost [119:30] like thinking back in time to see see if [119:31] he could time travel and fix all his [119:33] mistakes and I was and I was saying to [119:35] him and this might be bad advice but I [119:36] saying to him like I think the first [119:37] thing is we have to accept that this is [119:39] a situation you find yourself in and [119:40] then we'll work from here oh oh oh [119:42] that's yeah that's a whole different [119:44] meaning of acceptance okay yeah um I [119:47] don't mean except the fact that they [119:48] cheated on you and like deal that's [119:50] that's how I yeah interpreted it at [119:53] first but yes acceptance you know I [119:56] would call that grounding in the reality [119:59] of what you have right [120:01] now and then you know really grounding [120:05] in it okay I really have made all these [120:10] mistakes uh and you know if if the [120:14] partner maybe maybe you know tiny little [120:18] teeny weeny spark [120:20] left um I call it an ember that in [120:25] therapy it can be blown on you know to [120:27] bring back the fire and the passion and [120:29] the relationship array but as John was [120:33] pointing out sometimes the person is [120:36] only feeling the [120:38] ashes of the past relationship there are [120:41] no Embers left this is a difficult [120:43] question to ask but have you ever seen [120:46] cheating help a relationship oh every [120:50] time really when there's [120:54] recovery every time not every time but [120:57] very very often very often when they get [121:00] help when they get help if they don't [121:03] get help it's not going to you know it's [121:05] worse but when they get Help The Help [121:08] can help them change all the [121:13] patterns in the [121:15] relationship and help them learn who the [121:18] other person really is what their needs [121:22] really are how they want you to turn up [121:26] in the [121:27] relationship that they had no idea of [121:29] before so it can create more intimacy [121:33] different kind of trust of course but [121:37] more intimacy and more connection [121:39] betrayal is always yeah implied prior [121:43] conflict avoidance instead of talking to [121:46] your partner about what's wrong you talk [121:48] to somebody else about what's wrong with [121:49] you with the partner [121:52] what are some of the um so you're [121:54] telling me that 74% of the time Affairs [121:57] can be treated 75% of the time Affairs [121:59] can be treated roughly um what are some [122:02] of the revelations or [122:05] realizations that you've had over the [122:07] all the years of your work about the [122:09] nature of humans and relationships and [122:10] love and dating and all these things [122:12] that always stick front of mind for you [122:14] I'm going to ask you first John um from [122:16] a research perspective is there any [122:17] particular research which you would [122:19] consider to be your favorite research [122:21] that was most pivotal for the way you [122:23] think that you haven't mentioned yet I [122:26] think that [122:29] relationships can be great sources of [122:32] longevity Health uh great context for [122:36] raising children and so they can they [122:40] can have this wonderful magic that uh is [122:44] health-giving longevity giving and it [122:48] just requires [122:50] certain condition to be met and those [122:53] are the principles that make [122:54] relationships work is there a particular [122:57] piece of research that um you're most [123:01] fond of and that's he's done or somebody [123:04] else has done e [123:06] both yeah I mean I you know I think this [123:09] whole field of social [123:12] epidemiology is which has emerged in the [123:14] last 50 years really shows that [123:18] relationships are lifegiving and [123:21] longevity giving uh given today's level [123:24] of of medical treatment of chronic [123:27] illness it's really relationships that [123:30] make the difference and really make the [123:32] difference in raising [123:33] kids and the last thing I want to talk [123:36] to to you about is this idea of bids for [123:37] connection because it's a very popular [123:40] topic and there's lots of people online [123:41] and on Tik Tok discussing the importance [123:43] of bids for connection right um what [123:46] what are bids for [123:48] connection well in this in this [123:50] apartment lab that Julie and I built um [123:54] there were three cameras um and at the [123:59] time um it was only possible to [124:02] technologically merge two of them in a [124:04] split screen so the people in the in the [124:07] control room uh had to use the cameras [124:11] in a particular way so that they had a [124:13] split screen and they very quickly saw [124:16] that uh quite often one person was [124:18] trying to get the other person's [124:19] attention or interest and so they would [124:23] focus on that person who was saying oh [124:25] look at that beautiful boat going by and [124:27] then they focus the other camera on the [124:29] partner and see the response and so this [124:33] you had this uh you know sort of um [124:39] two-step interaction one attempting to [124:42] get the partner's attention making a bid [124:44] for connection and the other person [124:46] either responding or not responding or [124:48] responding irritably turning toward or [124:52] turning away or turning against and it [124:55] turned out that six years later the [124:58] couples who eventually divorced when [125:00] they looked back six years earlier they [125:03] had turned toward these bids an average [125:05] of 33% of the time whereas the couples [125:08] who were still married they look back [125:10] six years later they had turned to their [125:12] Partners bids 86% of the time so this [125:16] huge difference 33% versus 86% you [125:20] mentioned three responses to a bid for [125:22] connection so my partner comes up to me [125:23] she goes babe look at this you mentioned [125:25] they turn toward them which is me [125:27] turning towards my partner saying what [125:28] is it babe it's not physical okay mind [125:30] you so could be it no what I'm trying to [125:34] say is that a lot of people interpret [125:37] turning toward us oh you turn your body [125:39] toward your partner no it's not it's [125:42] just say it's responding to your [125:45] partner's uh desire for interest or [125:48] attention Okay yeah and then turning [125:51] away [125:52] is me not responding resp then turning [125:55] against would be an irritable kind of [125:57] response stop interrupting me I'm [125:58] working okay yeah so 86% of the couples [126:04] that stayed together were those that [126:06] turned toward I they acknowledge the bid [126:08] for the couples who stayed married had [126:11] turned toward bids and 86% of the time [126:16] so when their partner Tred to get their [126:17] attention probability of them turning [126:20] toward was [126:22] 86 okay 86% of the time they it turns [126:25] out the other thing that was interesting [126:27] was that um people who turned toward a [126:31] lot tended to have a sense of humor [126:34] together during conflict which reduced [126:36] physiological arousal so how do you get [126:40] people to laugh together when they're [126:42] disagreeing and it turns out that if you [126:45] increase turning toward people [126:47] spontaneously develop more of a sense of [126:49] humor about themselves during [126:52] that was a really amazing finding of one [126:55] of my graduate students dri you can [126:57] teach people to turn toward acknowledge [127:00] yeah you can you know just increase [127:02] awareness I've I've struggled with that [127:04] in my relationships I've not been very [127:05] good at turning towards I when my [127:07] partner makes SPID for connection I've [127:08] not been great at I often saw it as like [127:11] an interruption or you knew I was busy [127:13] or like but from doing this podcast in [127:16] fact and speaking to lots of great [127:17] people like you guys I've in those [127:19] moments I go Steve [127:21] [ __ ] the [127:24] laptop just turning mid email hi what's [127:27] up what's you know and um helps let me [127:30] give you a a suggestion you know because [127:33] all of us have times when we can't turn [127:35] towards right because we've got a [127:37] deadline or we've got something but what [127:39] you can do is say honey I would really [127:42] love to listen to you right now but I've [127:43] got to finish this project after I do [127:47] another hour of work can we then talk [127:49] yeah you see so so you're putting a [127:52] bookmark in there that says I want to [127:55] talk to you but I've got this competing [127:57] that's a nice way of saying goal that I [128:00] have to finish and but then we'll talk [128:04] my pet says to me it's how you say it oh [128:07] you know so I've just got to be like [128:10] actually turn my body language so I'm [128:12] acknowledging the person not like saying [128:14] it while without missing a keystroke [128:16] yeah turn my body and say it in a way [128:17] that's loving not just one second I'm [128:20] just working on something [128:22] is not it just you know doesn't do it [128:26] not GNA work even worse is just at one [128:28] good TR you know C [128:32] miners if um if people want to learn [128:35] more about all the work that you do how [128:38] do they go about finding [128:40] you uh well couple of things they can go [128:43] to uh gottman.com G TT [128:48] mn.com Internet site uh uh there's a [128:52] whole bunch of stuff there or they can [128:54] go to our [128:55] books um and the last one especially if [128:59] you're dealing with conflict the last [129:00] one is called fight right um but we also [129:05] have one that is uh eight [129:08] dates um essential conversations for a [129:11] lifetime of love and that's a great one [129:14] too and there's also a website we [129:15] created called Gutman connect right [129:18] where people can actually go and take [129:20] questionnaires evaluate the strengths [129:22] and challenges in their own relationship [129:25] and the privacy of their homes and then [129:27] access 37 vi video modules that Julie [129:31] and I created for improving how you deal [129:34] with conflict how you improve intimacy [129:37] sexual connection and so on we have a [129:39] closing tradition on this podcast where [129:40] the last guest lives leaves a question [129:42] for the next I'm going to start with [129:43] Julie tell us about a paranormal [129:46] experience you've had okay uh [129:51] these always I I have uh Visions now and [129:54] then and they always happen when I'm [129:57] driving for some odd reason so uh I was [130:01] driving across the Mojave Desert and I [130:03] felt a very strong urge to pull over [130:06] okay I always listen to those pulled [130:08] over walked into the desert to whatever [130:12] felt like the right place sat down [130:15] started to [130:17] meditate [130:19] and felt myself self inside a huge [130:24] Golden Mountain that was just [130:28] glowing [130:29] [Music] [130:30] and it took the form of a [130:34] huge Golden Buddha and I was sitting [130:38] tiny little being in its hands and it [130:42] lifted me up off the [130:45] ground uh [130:49] and I heard [130:52] many truthful [130:55] things uh about [130:58] reality that form my very Foundation can [131:03] you give me [131:06] one [131:08] everybody [131:09] suffers [131:11] everybody [131:14] and so and nobody suffers more than [131:17] anybody else everybody has their own [131:20] suffering and everybody has their own [131:24] path to move through that [131:27] suffering um and to [131:30] heal and people do [131:35] heal but life is full of suffering [131:38] that's normal it's it's not a sense of [131:42] Duality suffering is part of the [131:46] Perfection of our [131:50] existence it really does change your [131:52] perspective on yourself and others when [131:54] you when you hear that that point about [131:56] suffering um being unavoidable because [131:58] then at least you can you don't treat [132:01] yourself as such a victim to that's [132:03] right suffering you realize that it's [132:04] part of it's It's fundamentally attached [132:06] to all the things that I love as well [132:07] you know that's right what about you [132:10] John have you ever had a paranormal [132:13] experience oh when the numbers just came [132:15] together perfectly [132:18] and I I don't know if this is a parent [132:20] normal experience but I um I was once [132:24] driving through the University of [132:27] Washington ARB burum and I was really [132:30] really sick and um and I was I was [132:34] driving uh toward my office because I [132:38] had a client who was suicidal and I I [132:42] hadn't been able to reach her to cancel [132:45] the appointment and I cancel all the [132:47] other appointments but you know I as [132:50] sick as I was I just didn't think I [132:52] could you know just not show up you know [132:54] so I had to show up and at least say I'm [132:57] really too sick you know physically to [132:59] see you but I care about you um and as I [133:02] was driving through the arinum you know [133:05] I was I've had a fever and I was [133:08] sneezing and coughing uh I felt the [133:12] presence of my parents in the car and [133:16] both both no longer living I felt my [133:19] mother on this cheek and my father on [133:22] this cheek and it was really very sweet [133:25] I just because of Julie's experiences I [133:28] kind of said oh well maybe this is real [133:31] you know and by the time I got through [133:33] the Arboretum all my cold symptoms were [133:37] gone and it was important for me to be [133:41] there for that client and I was healthy [133:44] enough to actually have a session with [133:46] her so that I don't know if that [133:49] constitutes a paranormal experience but [133:51] is she it's pretty weird she was okay [133:55] yeah thank you so much I've um I've [133:58] continued to learn so much from your [133:59] wonderful lovely work and our last [134:01] conversation was such a Smash Hit with [134:03] my audience everywhere I went people [134:05] would stop me and say oh my God I love [134:06] that episode with the Gans and I think [134:08] it's both your your wisdom um your your [134:11] knowledge but also the power of you [134:14] together forms such a diverse set of [134:17] perspectives which is useful in sort of [134:19] taking on some of these problems that [134:20] we've discussed today [134:21] which is really nice because you do have [134:22] very different perspectives and you come [134:24] at things differently and I think that [134:25] helps complete the whole picture and [134:27] thank you more broadly for the work that [134:28] you've done on relationships and love [134:30] over the last couple of decades because [134:31] people cite it everywhere I go not just [134:33] in the context of love but they cite it [134:35] in the context of business I used your [134:37] work on stage when I did a tour of [134:39] Australia recently I've heard I've gone [134:40] to conferences in Colombia and I've [134:42] heard people talk about your work on the [134:43] four horsemen and contempt and all these [134:45] kinds of things and your your love lab [134:47] as they call it so you're doing [134:49] incredibly important work targets the [134:51] most important thing which is keeping [134:52] humans together so thank you for all [134:54] that you do and thank you for being here [134:55] again thank you st and thank you very [134:57] much for being the again the best [135:01] interviewer we've had in 30 [135:07] years isn't this cool every single [135:10] conversation I have here on the DI of [135:12] CEO at the very end of it you'll know I [135:14] asked the guest to leave a question in [135:17] the Diary of a CEO and what we've done [135:20] is we've turned every single question [135:22] written in the Diary of a CEO into these [135:24] conversation cards that you can play at [135:27] home so you've got every guest we've [135:29] ever had their question and on the back [135:32] of it if you scan that QR code you get [135:36] to watch the person who answered that [135:39] question we're finally revealing all of [135:41] the questions and the people that [135:44] answered the question the brand new [135:47] version two updated conversation cards [135:49] are out right now at Theon conversation [135:52] cards.com theyve sold out twice [135:54] instantaneously so if you are interested [135:56] in getting hold of some limited edition [135:58] conversation cards I really really [136:00] recommend acting quickly [136:02] [Music] [136:21] m