I have two suggestions, which are not so much about romantic relationships as they are about communicating clearly; given your example and the comments below, though, I think they’re the kind of thing you’re looking for.
The Usual Error is a free ebook (or nonfree dead-tree book) about common communication errors and how to avoid them. (The “usual error” of the title is assuming by default that other people are wired like you—basically the same as the typical psyche fallacy. It has a blog as well, although it doesn’t seem to be updated much; my recommendation is for the book.
If you’re a fan of the direct practical style of something like LW, steel yourself for a bit of touchy-feeliness in UE, but I’ve found the actual advice very useful. In particular, the page about the biochemistry of anger has been really helpful for me in recognizing when and why my emotional response is out of whack with the reality of the situation, and not just that I should back off and cool down, but why it helps to do so. I can give you an example of how this has been useful for me if you like, but I expect you can imagine.
A related book I’m a big fan of is Nonviolent Communication (no link because its website isn’t of any particular use; you can find it at your favorite book purveyor or library). Again, the style is a bit cloying, but the advice is sound. What this book does is lay out an algorithm for talking about how you feel and what you need in a situation of conflict with another person (where “conflict” ranges from “you hurt my feelings” to gang war).
I think it’s noteworthy that following the NVC algorithm is difficult. It requires finding specific words to describe emotions, phrasing them in a very particular way, connecting them to a real need, and making a specific, positive, productive request for something to change. For people who are accustomed to expressing an idea by using the first words which occur to them to do so (almost everyone), this requires flexing mental muscles which don’t see much use. I think of myself as a good communicator, and it’s still hard for me to follow NVC when I’m upset. But the difficulty is part of the point—by forcing you to stop and rethink how you talk about the conflict, it forces you see it in a way that’s less hindered by emotional reflex and more productive towards understanding what’s going on and finding a solution.
Neither of these suggestions requires that your partner also read them, but it would probably help. (It just keeps you from having to explain a method you’re using.)
If you find a good resource for this which is a blog, I’d be interested in it as well. Maybe obviously, this topic is something I think a lot about.
You’re welcome! Glad you like it. I’m a fan of that particular page as well—it’s probably the technique I refer to/think about explicitly from that book second most, after the usual error itself. It’s valuable to be able to separate the utility of hearing something to gain knowledge and that of hearing something you already know to gain reassurance—it just bypasses a whole bunch of defensiveness, misunderstanding, or insecurity that doesn’t need to be there.
I have two suggestions, which are not so much about romantic relationships as they are about communicating clearly; given your example and the comments below, though, I think they’re the kind of thing you’re looking for.
The Usual Error is a free ebook (or nonfree dead-tree book) about common communication errors and how to avoid them. (The “usual error” of the title is assuming by default that other people are wired like you—basically the same as the typical psyche fallacy. It has a blog as well, although it doesn’t seem to be updated much; my recommendation is for the book.
If you’re a fan of the direct practical style of something like LW, steel yourself for a bit of touchy-feeliness in UE, but I’ve found the actual advice very useful. In particular, the page about the biochemistry of anger has been really helpful for me in recognizing when and why my emotional response is out of whack with the reality of the situation, and not just that I should back off and cool down, but why it helps to do so. I can give you an example of how this has been useful for me if you like, but I expect you can imagine.
A related book I’m a big fan of is Nonviolent Communication (no link because its website isn’t of any particular use; you can find it at your favorite book purveyor or library). Again, the style is a bit cloying, but the advice is sound. What this book does is lay out an algorithm for talking about how you feel and what you need in a situation of conflict with another person (where “conflict” ranges from “you hurt my feelings” to gang war).
I think it’s noteworthy that following the NVC algorithm is difficult. It requires finding specific words to describe emotions, phrasing them in a very particular way, connecting them to a real need, and making a specific, positive, productive request for something to change. For people who are accustomed to expressing an idea by using the first words which occur to them to do so (almost everyone), this requires flexing mental muscles which don’t see much use. I think of myself as a good communicator, and it’s still hard for me to follow NVC when I’m upset. But the difficulty is part of the point—by forcing you to stop and rethink how you talk about the conflict, it forces you see it in a way that’s less hindered by emotional reflex and more productive towards understanding what’s going on and finding a solution.
Neither of these suggestions requires that your partner also read them, but it would probably help. (It just keeps you from having to explain a method you’re using.)
If you find a good resource for this which is a blog, I’d be interested in it as well. Maybe obviously, this topic is something I think a lot about.
Both look rather useful, thanks for the suggestions. Also, Google Books has Nonviolent Communication.
You’re welcome, and thanks—that’s good to know. I’ll bookmark it for when it comes up again.
I rather liked the page about how we’re made of meat.
Thanks for the cool link!
You’re welcome! Glad you like it. I’m a fan of that particular page as well—it’s probably the technique I refer to/think about explicitly from that book second most, after the usual error itself. It’s valuable to be able to separate the utility of hearing something to gain knowledge and that of hearing something you already know to gain reassurance—it just bypasses a whole bunch of defensiveness, misunderstanding, or insecurity that doesn’t need to be there.