Better Alternatives to Unhealthy Relating
Is your primary relationship or your marriage plagued by fights that leave one or both of you feeling unheard, unseen, unloved, disrespected, unprotected, defensive, controlled, or lacking in security? There are only so many reasons that such feelings arise from dialog between two people who profess to care about—or even love—one another. They have been de-mystified and named. Look below for the culprits in your relationships. More importantly, look below for their antidotes.
Some of the unhealthy tactics noted below are found in abusive relationships, or in relationships complicated by a personality disorder. Cluster B personality disorders include Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Grandiose or Vulnerable), Borderline Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder. A relationship may also be characterized by a commingling of these orders and of codependency. These can all be difficult to identify, yet wreak havoc in a relationship. However, one need not be an abuser nor have a diagnosable personality disorder to exercise some of these unhealthy patterns.
In fact, personality disorders are best understood as tendencies that exist on a spectrum. We all carry some unhealthy tendencies, and some of them are listed below. We can all improve our relationships by resisting and replacing the behaviors below. Even when a diagnosable personality disorder is present, I don’t ascribe to the notion that such relationships are hopeless. If persons can own the behaviors below and practice their antidotes, there is hope. (For example, see this video resource on Narcissism and this one, and one of the videos here on Borderline.)
Those of us who are not “disordered” (although persons with personality disorders lack awareness), but are just having relationship problems, we may have picked up these behaviors from childhood, from media, or from culture, or they may be natural to our temperament. Or we may have learned at some point in our past that they worked to defend ourselves, or to get what we needed or wanted; but now, they’re creating problems. To recognize this is a good thing. It helps us to understand and to accept ourselves rather than shaming ourselves, while also giving us something to work on, instead of blaming our partner for all of the relationship problems.”
Before you read on to the lists below, beware the risks. One risk is to identify several habits in our partner and conclude that these explain our relationship problems. While one partner may bear more responsibility than the other, relationship patterns are usually the problem, meaning there is action and reaction and counter-action and counter-reaction that must be understood by both sides. Another risk is projection. Projection is the unconscious transfer of one’s own emotions, thoughts, motives and methods onto another, blaming them for exactly that which we’re exhibiting. Anatol Rapoport’s Assumption of Similarity advises that we search ourselves for a negative quality we’re ascribing to our partner, and consider whether our partner has a positive quality that we are attributing only to ourselves. Therefore, ask “Do I do the same thing(s) I’m charging my spouse with doing?”
These unhealthy forms of relating are organized into the following categories:
Research-identified patterns
Pitfalls to communication
Common drivers
Expectations and Demands
Control
Emotional abuse
Evasion
Irrationality
Themes transcending these categories include: insecurity, emptiness, shame, self-centeredness, entitlement, lack of empathy, non-reflective listening, a critical or negative outlook, manipulation and control, exploitation, and possibly a muted or inactive conscience. All of the above have self at the center, which is a stance opposite love. To win against our spouse is to lose at love. People grow weary of losing to one who professes to love them, and eventually protect themselves with boundaries, or leave if the relationship is too toxic. Love protects. Love yields. Love gives and serves. If both partners have this stance, the antidotes below follow easily.
Finally, as you read below, pray for your partner. Nothing humbles the heart and opens us to change like prayer, and nothing softens our heart toward another like prayer.
Below are unhealthy patterns identified by The Gottman Institute.
____________________________________________________
Dr. Gottman’s Six Destructive Patterns
Harsh Startup - Harsh words create self-defensiveness in the recipient. Whether at the start of a conversation or elsewhere, harshness includes a negative tone, excessive volume, name-calling, “you” language, global language (all, nothing, every, always, never), sarcasm, condescension, and sometimes profanity. These feel unprotective to the recipient, who therefore becomes self-protective, and conflict is underway. The antidote is to be protective of our partner, even from the outset; to be gentle.
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Named after the image painted in Revelation 6 of the end times, the following ride like a team of horses, working in concert to destroy a relationship.
Criticism: This is finding fault in our partner, assigning blame, accusing, or demeaning their character. The antidote is to find the longing under the criticism and name it as a positive request, even adding an affirmation of when our partner has done what we’re seeking. This turns a criticism into a compliment and articulates a path for relational success.
Defensiveness: This is self-protection. It arises naturally in response to harshness or criticism. Mutual defensiveness fuels conflict. The antidote is other-protection, including owning what we can for at least part of the problem. If both parties are protective of one another’s feelings, interests, wounds, and what is important to the other, then the self-defensive cycle will slow, or even stop. Before getting defensive, get curious. What can you protect for your partner so they don’t have to be self-protective?
Contempt: This is disdain; it is a “negative sentiment override” that sees our partner in the worst light, assumes the worst intent in their words or actions, and dwells upon aspects of our partner that irritate us or that we dislike. It is recalling their failures and disappointments and not calling to mind their successes, ways they are there for us, and the positive side of their personality traits. The antidote is a “positive sentiment override” that nurtures what we admire or are fond of in our partner.
Stonewalling: This is withdrawal. The stonewaller has become overwhelmed and stopped talking; dropped out of the conversation. It is now like we’re talking to a stone wall. Stonewallers give two reasons for stonewalling. Either they have given up being understood, or they can’t think of anything to say that won’t make matters worse. Either way, it is a form of self-protection, or insidiously, an attempt to protect the relationship from the stonewaller’s flooded condition. The antidote is to ask for understanding and/or to ask for and take a break for physiological self-soothing.
Flooding and Body Language: Flooding is a physiological condition characterized by elevated biometrics that Dr. Gottman calls, “body language” (not here referring to eye rolls, crossed arms, heavy breaths, etc.). Flooding is also sometimes known as “diffuse physiological arousal,” Amygdala hijack, animal brain, reptilian brain, and the fight or flight response. It is characterized by an elevated heart rate, the presence of cortisol and adrenaline in the blood stream, an elevated oxygen saturation level, dilated pupils, sweaty palms, reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, and increased activity in the more primitive, instinctual parts of the brain. Norepinephrine drives this condition, for which there is no offsetting enzyme, meaning that it will take time to come down from this condition. The antidote, therefore, is physiological self-soothing; it is recommended to take twenty minutes or more to return to a resting state where respectful, listening conversation can resume. The difference between this and stonewalling is that stonewalling is done by unilateral decision to protect oneself, while taking a break is done by mutual decision to protect "us."
Failed Repair Attempts: A repair attempt is any attempt to restore harmony once a relationship has been interrupted by discord. Repairs fail either because they were not initiated, were poor repair attempts by the recipient’s judgment, or were rejected, thus leaving the couple at odds. The antidote is that couples “not be okay with not being okay” and that one or both partners initiate repair— and that the recipient lets there be repair—even if the recipient makes a positive request for an adjustment to the repair.
Negative Memories: Negativity, in general, destroys a relationship. But negative memories—the way a partner or couple describes their shared history—has a direct correlation to their perspective on their present relationship—positive or negative. And that lens is predictive of whether a partner or couple will regard their future positively. It is a glass-half-full versus glass-half-empty lens. The antidote to negative memories is to re-write one’s history from a positive perspective. That is, to notice and recount the positives in the relationship history; to count the blessings; to see the silver lining; to be thankful.
In addition to the above toxic patterns, research by The Gottman Institute (TGI) has also identified a healthy process for talking through a regrettable interaction in order to mine it for constructive mutual understanding. It is spelled out in TGI’s Aftermath of a Fight: How to repair after a fight or regrettable incident. I often refer to it as the "talking it out" process, or a "help me understand" discussion.
Below are unhealthy pitfalls that hinder such “Help me understand” discussions.
____________________________________________________
Pitfalls to Talking It Out
Interrupting - Interrupting may mean we’re more interested in being heard than in listening; more interested in being understood than in understanding (although some people interrupt to participate in a conversation). If both partners are intent upon listening to understand the other, then each will allow the other to finish their thought.
You language - Sentences that begin with “You…” are likely to be followed by an accusation, judgment, or some sort of challenge, creating defensiveness. Use “I” language, instead.
Definitives - Words like “always,” “never,” “every,” “none,” etc. shift attention from the topic at hand to whether something is indeed as extreme as these absolute words imply.
Flooding - Flooding is a physiological condition characterized be an elevated heart-rate, high cortisol level, and other biometrics characteristic of a self-defensive state in which it is very difficult to listen to, care for, and be protective of our partner. It’s time to take a break.
Failure to Reflect Empathy and Understanding - To listen without voicing empathy and understanding is to fail from the start. Empathy and understanding does not mean agreement; it means we heard. Saying, “I get it,” doesn’t count. Sarcasm, derision, minimizing or sighing also make even the best words not count. Reacting with our own feelings and point of view is synonymous with skipping empathy and understanding.
Self-Defensiveness and Rationalization - When we defend ourselves and rationalize things our partner has explained had an ill effect on them, we bypass empathy that could have connected us. The goal of "Talking It Out" is to understand how something affected our partner, so that we can protect and defend them. Put yourself in the other's shoes. Verbally reflect or paraphrase the other's experience and perspective. Again, reflection does not mean agreement; it means we heard and understood.
Detail Derailment - The goal of understanding can be derailed by sparring over details, such as what day of the week something happened, what time, in proximity to what other events, or myriad other details. The brain trims details over time, and two brains will trim different details. Let go of details and focus on understanding the other's feelings and what was important to them, so that you can defend and support them.
Disrespecting Feelings - Partners sometimes object to or minimize how their partner felt, or tell them they should not have felt that way. Instead, empathize. Empathy does not mean you would have felt the same way; it means you can get close to feeling what they felt.
Judging - Judging is deciding the other’s motive, heart, or what they really meant, often without checking out our assumptions. Or, if we did ask, it is rejecting the other’s explanation and returning to our pre-judgment. Give the benefit of the doubt. Inquire. Believe.
Somatic & Emotional Derailments - The way something feels physically and emotionally will remind us of other events, which “felt” the same way. If we voice those other events, the discussion can get off track as it becomes unclear which event is being talked about. Stay on topic. Use the “Triggers” sections of the Aftermath of a Fight process to name past events that influenced the event under discussion, so that it provides further explanation, not a rabbit trail.
Negative Body Language and Lack of Eye Contact - Mirror neurons pick up the "heart" (accurately or not) of a person’s meaning. The look on one’s face, the tilt of one’s eyes, the position of one’s body—can confirm or contradict words. Be attentive to your non-verbals.
(End of Pitfalls to Talking It Out)
____________________________________________________
Other Unhealthy Relating & Better Alternatives
COMMON DRIVERS:
Selfishness
Selfishness may be unconscious and unintended, but is a common driver; a cancer lurking underneath relationship-harming tactics.
Human nature is self-interested at least, usually self-centered and, at worst, selfish. Selfishness puts one’s own feelings, past, point of view, insecurities, preferences, needs, and circumstances above others. It does not consider others’ interests; selfishness does not concern itself with nor remember meaningful events in others’ lives. It insists upon its own way, serving and protecting self rather than other.
Love is the opposite of self-centeredness; love is other-centeredness. Love acts to benefit, protect, and serve another. Healthy relationships love mutually.
Expecting or Demanding Sameness:
Allowing little differences to become major divisions
Anything and nothing can destroy a relationship bond; big things and little things, important things and inconsequential things.
Relationships—and certainly the unique union that is marriage—are fragile bonds. They are protected when we unite against the myriad things that could divide us, disallowing a hostile takeover. Only the couple can protect itself from "death by a thousand cuts.” The antidote is to expect differences in feelings, opinions, and priorities; to get curious about what is important to the other.
Rejecting Temperament Differences
This is rejection of temperament differences like extroversion versus introversion, internal versus external processing, etc, demanding change. The ideal is that we accept each other, yet adjust to one another out of consideration, without expecting transformation into a mirror version of ourself. Positive Sentiment Override accepts the whole, choosing to see positively what could be viewed negatively.
Emotional or Cognitive Hijack
A form of rejecting differences, this occurs when one party insists that his or her thoughts, logic, rational, and ideas for resolution are the most important part of the discussion, or opposite—that his or her emotions and the feel of the relationship are the most important part of the discussion. One is seeking empathic connection; the other is seeking a logical conclusion. In this “hijack,” the cognitively-focused-partner dismisses empathy and connection on the way to a conclusion, or the emotionally-focused person skips validation of the other’s thoughts and ideas on the way to emotional connection. Both need empathy and understanding, but in a different order. The opportunity is to recognize your partner’s needs in this balance, which may be different or even opposite from your own. Learn what is important to each other and support it.
Control:
Passive aggression
Passive aggressive speech and behavior is attempting to get what one wants through indirect means. It is aggressive in that it is against another; seeking something at their expense, but covertly. What a person is saying and doing looks like one thing, but its intent is another, such as pouting or slamming doors in an effort to get attention or an apology. There is a disconnect between what one is saying or doing and what one is actually seeking. The antidote is to be clear—with consideration and kindness—about what one wants or needs, stated positively.
Threats
Threats are an attempt to control by targeting something of importance to another, perhaps even something necessary to survival. The threat might be physical, emotional, social, familial, financial, occupational, or otherwise. For example, “If you don’t do as I say, I’ll post on social media those compromising pictures of you.” Or, “If you divorce me, I’ll take the kids and move where you’ll never find us.” Love is just; love protects.
Emotional Blackmail
Emotional control is wielding control over someone by withholding love, approval, affirmation, acceptance, and other things spouses have a right to expect from one another, unless a certain demand is met. In a loving relationship, partners ideally give to each other more empathy, support, love, affection, and encouragement than either finds anywhere else.
Using “authenticity” to excuse inconsideration
It is healthy to live authentically. But in relationships, authenticity is in tension with consideration. No one gets to live in complete authenticity unless they live on an island, alone. We all balance what would be “authentic” to our thoughts, feelings and desires, with what is ethical, legal, and—per the topic of this article—relationally healthy. Relationships are a constant balance between authenticity and caring consideration for the other person(s) in the relationship.
Failing to Accept Influence
This is disregarding one’s partner’s point, perspective, ideas, preferences or tastes, and simply proceeding as one would as if not in a relationship. The antidote is for both parties to "yield to win."
Invalidation, Minimizing, Diminishing, and Dismissing
To invalidate another’s feelings or point of view is to dismiss or minimize another’s emotions and alternate perspective, experience, or thoughts. This may be done verbally or through an eye-roll, smug smile, or scoff. The opportunity is to instead validate our partner’s feelings and experience, though they differ from our own. Validation does not mean we feel or think the same way; it means we heard and—unless being unjustly accused—are letting the other have their own feelings, even if those feelings sprang unintentionally from our actions.
Brainwashing
An intense form of invalidation, brainwashing is manipulating someone into abandoning their legitimate views in favor of the brainwasher’s (sometimes untenable) views, from which they somehow benefit. Research, evidence, testing and verification are mocked or disallowed. By contrast, in healthy relationships, differing ideas are given patient consideration, and verification and testing for efficacy are welcome for the sake of truth and mutual well-being.
“But”-ing
A common form of invalidation, this is responding to what our partner has said with “But…" It is casting aside, or discounting, or objecting to the other’s feelings, point of view, experience, or needs. It is the opposite of empathy and understanding. It is dismissing and replacing their thoughts or point of view with our own. They likely will do the same in return, the conversation devolving into a series of “Buts…” with neither party reflection understanding and thus neither feeling heard. It is argument as sport, as if the relationship will benefit by one party winning and the other being defeated.
A healthy couple will listen non-defensively and lead with empathy and understanding. As mentioned above, empathy does not mean we feel the same way; it means we can feel what the other feels. Voicing understanding does not mean we agree; it means we listened. Instead of saying, “But,” ask for help understanding—and really want to understand, not object.
Triangulation
Triangulation is in contrast to direct communication, wherein two people communicate with one another in order to understand and protect each another and their relationship. By contrast, triangulation communicates with someone outside of the dyad, telling a one-sided version of events—outside the hearing of the other—portraying oneself as the victim in order to gain allegiance. The triangulated party might be a close friend, a sibling, a parent, a counselor, or an institution. By contrast, healthy communication is direct and respectful, presuming the best of one another while understanding is mutually sought. And there is a desire that others outside the relationship think well of our spouse, unless they have acted in ways to make that impossible.
Objectifying
This is seeing a person as utilitarian. It is reducing them to an object without concern for their human experience, feelings, or needs… people are a means to an end, a tool in service to one’s agenda, or an object from which to derive pleasure. In narcissism it is seeing people as an audience, a fan club, a “supply” of affirmations and adoration by which the narcissist is always the focus of attention.
By contrast, love sees one’s partner as precious, cherished, and of inestimable value, whose needs, feelings, and experience are worth defending for their sake, regardless of self-benefit.
Punishment or Rewards for Conformity
Punishments or rewards for conforming behavior may be dispensed as a misuse of the principles of behavioralism by which we all live (that which is rewarded tends to be repeated; that which is punished tends to diminish). For example, access to a car or money or entertainment might be given only in exchange for a task done, or for conforming to a controller’s desires. It is manipulation. By contrast, love learns what is meaningful to each another and mutually gives and receives unselfishly without having to earn love nor fear punishment. Appreciation is mutual and generous, upbuilding, unconditional and other-centered.
Love Bombing
Love bombing is the lavishing of attention, gifts, get-aways, and declarations of love and affection. Who wouldn’t want such things? Normal courtship often includes these things. What distinguishes loving, lavish attention from love-bombing is motive. Love-bombing is manipulative—to get what one wants, rather than to give altruistically, irrespective of what one gets in return. And love lasts; love-bombing ceases. Or love-bombing might be intermittent, resurfacing when useful as a tool to regain a partner’s interest, affection, or return after an ugly argument, a selfish act, or a severe violation like abuse or infidelity.
Loving attention is a great thing as part of a committed, kind, considerate, respectful committed relationship or marriage. It can also be a welcome form of repair following a relationship breach, so long as it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card designed to buy time only until the next infraction, and the next… rinse and repeat. In safe relationships, kindness, gifts, attention, affection, and declarations of love are normative, selfless, mutual, unconditional, and not a means of getting what one wants from the other.
Symbolic Aggression
This could be something as small as a glare or a threatening gesture, or as overt as slamming a door, punching a wall, throwing something, or brandishing a weapon. The goal is to control others through intimidation; to cause others to fear upsetting, confronting or challenging a controller. By contrast, mature loving relationship feel safe.
Hurt and Rescue
This is putting someone in a desperate situation from which they’ll need rescue, then coming to their rescue, similar to pushing someone into the ocean and then throwing them a life preserver. The motive is to foster dependence. By contrast, love does not endanger; it protects proactively and at all times, not just when self-serving or endearing.
Emotional Abuse:
Abuse is a strong term and should be used cautiously. But some things are abusive, whether physically or emotionally.
Emotional Barriers
Like dismissing feelings (above), this is disallowing someone’s emotions. Legitimate frustration, anger, sadness, hurt, etc. are not allowed. Even positive emotions, such as happiness, might be suppressed if such emotions do not fit with the controlling partner’s interests at the moment. The objective here is again, control. The antidote is to allow each other to feel what they feel and to empathize with one another—not necessarily feeling the same way, but being supportive as the other feels what they feel.
Shaming
Shaming is humiliation through mockery, insults, expressions of contempt, voicing disappointment, etc, whether privately or in the presence of others. By contrast, lovers protect one another, including self-image and feelings of self-worth.
Double Bind
The Double Bind is to put someone in a position wherein, no matter what they choose, it will be wrong. It is setting up a person for failure. It may be placing a person in a role for which he or she is ill-equipped, assigning more tasks than can be accomplished under the circumstances, or disallowing adjustment to changing circumstances. The victim’s subsequent failure is then used against them. By contrast, in caring relationships, partners do not put loved ones in impossible binds; they set each other up for success and help one another.
Infantilize
This is to reduce the other to the status of a child, such that they perceive themselves, and perhaps are perceived by others, as incompetent to hold power or to be trusted with significant choices and tasks. By contrast, in egalitarian adult relationships, spouses respect each other, honor their different gifts, allow for different ways of doing things, and even having different standards. There is allowance for different strengths.
Monitor and Stalk
To monitor or to stalk is to surveil someone for the purpose of gaining information to use against them, control, blackmail, or somehow gain advantage over them. (Monitoring the whereabouts of one another’s phone for safety is not stalking if mutual permission has been granted and that access is not abused for selfish or nefarious purposes.) Love trusts and is trustworthy.
Intrude and Interrupt
This is to have no respect for boundaries. It is interrupting conversations, walking into closed rooms without knocking, opening others’ personal mail, inserting oneself into another’s task or project. It is essentially doing as one pleases, despite convention, rights to privacy, declared boundaries, voiced objections or requests. Sound relationships are built on mutual consideration and respectful treatment.
Covert Aggression
This is the disguising of insults as helpful advice, instruction, or unsolicited help. Such “helpfulness” is recognized by the recipient, and perhaps by others, as a vote of non-confidence designed to make someone look inferior. Loving relationships are marked by encouragement and protecting of another’s pride.
Amplification
This is amplifying someone’s weaknesses, flaws, or failures, while minimizing or ignoring their strengths, virtues and successes. Its goal is to elevate oneself. By contrast, in a loving relationship between two secure people, there is plentiful affirmation, encouragement, and upbuilding.
Stonewalling
This is withdrawal into non-communication. It is the stonewaller self-protecting, but deprives their partner of attention, conversation, and affection, in some cases perhaps triggering a partner’s fear of abandonment. Stonewallers may also stonewall as a form of manipulation or even punishment of their spouse. However, if you ask a stonewaller why they are stonewalling, they will often say they have given up being understood, which means their partner may need to get better at reflecting understanding and empathy, rather than “But-ing.” Stonewallers also sometimes say that they’ve gone silent because they can’t think of anything nice to say. It may be that they are in a self-protective state—perhaps physiologically flooded—unable to think, speak, and act in a way that is protective of their partner and of the relationship.
When one partner is flooded, it is advisable for the couple to stop talking and agree on a time to resume the conversation when the flooded partner is again calm. The difference between taking a break and stonewalling is that stonewalling is by unilateral decision to protect oneself; agreeing to take a break is by mutual decision to protect the relationship.
Lying
A lie is an intentional denial, misrepresentation, or manipulative omission of what one knows to have been factually true. A lie of commission is knowingly making a false statement. Lies of omission leave things out in order to paint an inaccurate picture favorable to the liar. But be cautious before using the combustible word, “lie.” It is not a “lie” to be unable to recount every detail of an incident (that is impossible). It is also not a lie to have different memories and a different experience of the same event (that is guaranteed). It is also not a lie to refrain from saying volatile or wounding things, even though they are what we think and feel. Rather, honesty means that loving partners do not intentionally deceive one another for self-benefit. Honesty (considerate honesty, not brutal honesty) builds trust, and trust is a pillar of a mutually-satisfying relationship.
Gaslighting and Crazy-Making
The term, gaslighting comes from the 1938 play, Gas Light, and its subsequent 1944 screenplay Gaslight and subsequent remakes. In the storyline, a man marries a woman for her inheritance, then through lies and manipulation leads her and others to question her sanity. His intent is to gain control of her wealth by having her institutionalized.
Gaslighting in a relationship can take various forms, including saying something, then denying saying it, or telling someone that what they clearly saw did not happen, or saying something hurtful, mean, or manipulative, then blaming the recipient for being hurt or offended by it, or for having “read into it” some unintended meaning.
Be cautious in the use of this term, as it is not gaslighting for one’s partner to have different feelings, to hold a different point of view, and to have experienced the same event differently. This are certain to be the case. Gaslighting, by contrast, is willful misrepresentation for personal advantage.
In healthy relationships, partners do not lie to win or to gain advantage over the other; partners have each other’s best interest at heart. They can trust that what they hear from their partner is true; each can rely on the other’s integrity for protection.
Feigning Innocence or Confusion
A form of gaslighting, this is pretending to have not done what one intentionally did, or feigning confusion over why something that was intended to wound, caused wounding. The denier may feign a look of surprise or “play dumb.” Maturity owns up and apologizes.
Negative Insinuation
Similar to the above, this is the use of subtleties, such as innuendo, veiled comments, tonal inflection, and body language to insult, or to imply another’s inferiority. Because the forms it takes are intangible and somewhat subjective, it is possible for the offender to deny meaning what seemed clearly insinuated. By contrast, love is kind and not rude.
Gang Stalking
Gang stalking is enlisting a group, mob, community or institution to negatively impact a victim. It may be in-person, online, in professional, social, or family settings. It might be overt or the organizer might hide behind anonymous communication. Mature, healthy relationships are characterized by direct, respectful communication where each respects the other’s feelings, listens to the other’s point of view and takes into consideration their legitimate (and often contrasting) needs.
Moving the Goalpost
This is changing the “win” just before or after the victim has satisfied the originally set goal. For example, if having dinner at 5:30 was agreed-upon, then there is criticism that it wasn’t ready earlier, or that dinner didn’t include dessert. If a spouse plans a date as requested, there is criticism that it was the wrong kind of date, or that the wrong sitter was chosen. The victim will never get it right. In good relationships, agreements are kept, changes are negotiated, efforts are appreciated, and affirmations are generous.
Evasion:
Deflection or Diversion
When a person is called out on a lie, or asked a direct question, the answer to which would cast the person in a negative light, this tactic evades responsibility by diverting attention elsewhere. Or it may deflect the question, or give an irrelevant or vague response. Another method is to change the subject, or call attention to the questioner’s or someone else’s wrongs, or to challenge the challenge, such as: “How dare you accuse me of that!”
Instead of evasion, the opportunity is to seek to understand someone’s complaint, asking in turn for mutual understanding. Be quick to own what you have come to understand was hurtful, disrespectful, inconsiderate, wrong, etc. Apologize, make amends, and refrain from the same behavior in the future.
Blame-Shifting
Blame-shifting is responding to someone’s disappointment, hurt, sadness, or other emotion resultant from mistreatment, by evading responsibility. The victim is instead blamed for causing the neglect or abuse, or for being thin-skinned, unable to take a joke, being psychologically damaged, or for bringing the offense upon themselves.
It is not blame-shifting to want one’s different experience of the same situation understood, but it is blame-shifting to excuse oneself for having wounded someone, especially as in this case, by blaming them for being wounded. This is common with personality disorders, as some PDs can’t be wrong; they do not admit fault nor apologize.
In healthy relationships, however, a regrettable incident or disappointing conflict is met with remorse and by each partner seeking to understand what they could have said or done differently for the sake of the relationship. Each takes responsibility where they can, apologizes, and commits to doing differently.
Vilifying the Victim
This occurs when a victim is criticized for appropriately creating boundaries or standing up for himself or herself against harshness, aggression, selfishness, or harm. In a healthy relationship, self-defensiveness can be explored to learn what a partner is protecting, so that we can protect it for them.
Playing the Victim
This is the abuser portraying himself or herself as the victim of circumstances beyond their control. They were just along for the ride; not the driver. Or, as with blame-shifting, abusive behavior is excused because the other “forced them into it.” While circumstances and the other’s experience are always worth hearing, at the end of the day maturity means taking responsibility without excuse for the part we played, especially if injurious in any way.
Rationalization
Instead of accepting responsibility for wrong-doing, or for words or actions that had a hurtful or ill effect on another, the wrong is painted as right, or to be expected, or even as caused by the victim. Of course, room must be made for listening to understand each other’s different experience of the same event. Rationalizers do not learn from listening; they repeat the same offense because they’ve justified it.
Love means caring how words and behavior affect one another; making adjustments, not excuses.
Irrationality:
Splitting
Splitting is “black and white” or “all or nothing” thinking. It shifts from seeing a person or entity as “all good” to “all bad.” In family systems, splitting identifies one child as the “golden child” and another as the “black sheep.” Splitting is a disordered form of self-protection that occurs in response to a real or perceived slight, injury, or disappointment. It fails to acknowledge the tension that both positive and negative qualities exist in any person or entity—including in oneself. Relationships require the realistic perspective that people have good qualities and bad; will perform well sometimes and at other times not so well, or even quite badly. In healthy relationships partners accept that at times their partner will please them and at times will disappoint, and the same is true of our partner’s experience of us. Unconditional love extends grace.
Scapegoating
Scapegoating is refusing to acknowledge the breadth of a conflict and the role played by each person or part, but instead singling out a “fall guy.” In a family system, the fault might routinely be placed on a particular child who cannot effectively defend himself or herself. Mature communication is the brave acceptance of responsibility by each person and the acknowledgment when a circumstance is no one’s “fault.”
Expecting Mind-reading
This is holding someone responsible for not knowing what was not communicated. It is the expectation that the other should "just know." If the victim does not know what was not made known, they are charged with not loving or caring enough to know. The healthy alternative is to kindly voice to one another your hopes, expectations, and what is important to each of you about an upcoming event.
Double-Mindedness
This is living as if something is acceptable behavior for oneself, but unacceptable for others. For example, wanting to be excused for raging at others, but being incensed if one is raged at; or unilaterally making exceptions to mutual agreements, but declaring a breach if on the receiving end of the same. It is living by the double standard, “I do unto others what I would not tolerate being done unto me.” Maturity treats others with the same standard with which one wants to be treated.
Doublethink
Doublethink is to simultaneously maintain contradictory positions. For example, to publicly maintain a moral stand, then abandon it in private. It is remembering something when it is advantageous to remember, then forgetting if convenient, then remembering again when remembering better serves one’s purpose. By contrast, sound relationships are grounded in integrity.
Entitlement
Similar to Double-Mindedness, this is the mindset that “The rules don’t apply to me.” It is doing as one pleases, regardless of ethics. It is expecting or demanding that an exception be made or special treatment be given, such as being moved to the head of the line, or not being punished for violations. It is wanting courtesies that the entitled person would not afford to others. This is especially prominent in narcissism. By contrast, healthy relationships are marked by humility, justice, yielding to one another, or even putting another above oneself.
Remember to use this list not to accuse each other, but own those to which you are individually prone and commit together to their healthier antidotes.
Below are unhealthy patterns identified by The Gottman Institute.
Dr. Gottman’s Six Destructive Patterns
Harsh Startup - Harsh words create self-defensiveness in the recipient. Whether at the start of a conversation or elsewhere, harshness includes a negative tone, excessive volume, name-calling, “you” language, global language (all, nothing, every, always, never), sarcasm, condescension, and sometimes profanity. These feel unprotective to the recipient, who therefore becomes self-protective, and conflict is underway. The antidote is to be protective of our partner, even from the outset; to be gentle.
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Named after the image painted in Revelation 6 of the end times, the following ride like a team of horses, working in concert to destroy a relationship.
Criticism: This is finding fault in our partner, assigning blame, accusing, or demeaning their character. The antidote is to find the longing under the criticism and name it as a positive request, even adding an affirmation of when our partner has done what we’re seeking. This turns a criticism into a compliment and articulates a path for relational success.
Defensiveness: This is self-protection. It arises naturally in response to harshness or criticism. Mutual defensiveness fuels conflict. The antidote is other-protection, including owning what we can for at least part of the problem. If both parties are protective of one another’s feelings, interests, wounds, and what is important to the other, then the self-defensive cycle will slow, or even stop. Before getting defensive, get curious. What can you protect for your partner so they don’t have to be self-protective?
Contempt: This is disdain; it is a “negative sentiment override” that sees our partner in the worst light, assumes the worst intent in their words or actions, and dwells upon aspects of our partner that irritate us or that we dislike. It is recalling their failures and disappointments and not calling to mind their successes, ways they are there for us, and the positive side of their personality traits. The antidote is a “positive sentiment override” that nurtures what we admire or are fond of in our partner.
Stonewalling: This is withdrawal. The stonewaller has become overwhelmed and stopped talking; dropped out of the conversation. It is now like we’re talking to a stone wall. Stonewallers give two reasons for stonewalling. Either they have given up being understood, or they can’t think of anything to say that won’t make matters worse. Either way, it is a form of self-protection, or insidiously, an attempt to protect the relationship from the stonewaller’s flooded condition. The antidote is to ask for understanding and/or to ask for and take a break for physiological self-soothing.
Flooding and Body Language: Flooding is a physiological condition characterized by elevated biometrics that Dr. Gottman calls, “body language” (not here referring to eye rolls, crossed arms, heavy breaths, etc.). Flooding is also sometimes known as “diffuse physiological arousal,” Amygdala hijack, animal brain, reptilian brain, and the fight or flight response. It is characterized by an elevated heart rate, the presence of cortisol and adrenaline in the blood stream, an elevated oxygen saturation level, dilated pupils, sweaty palms, reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, and increased activity in the more primitive, instinctual parts of the brain. Norepinephrine drives this condition, for which there is no offsetting enzyme, meaning that it will take time to come down from this condition. The antidote, therefore, is physiological self-soothing; it is recommended to take twenty minutes or more to return to a resting state where respectful, listening conversation can resume. The difference between this and stonewalling is that stonewalling is done by unilateral decision to protect oneself, while taking a break is done by mutual decision to protect "us.
Failed Repair Attempts: A repair attempt is any attempt to restore harmony once a relationship has been interrupted by discord. Repairs fail either because they were not initiated, were poor repair attempts by the recipient’s judgment, or were rejected, thus leaving the couple at odds. The antidote is that couples “not be okay with not being okay” and that one or both partners initiate repair— and that the recipient lets there be repair—even if the recipient makes a positive request for an adjustment to the repair.
Negative Memories: Negativity, in general, destroys a relationship. But negative memories—the way a partner or couple describes their shared history—has a direct correlation to their perspective on their present relationship—positive or negative. And that lens is predictive of whether a partner or couple will regard their future positively. It is a glass-half-full versus glass-half-empty lens. The antidote to negative memories is to re-write one’s history from a positive perspective. That is, to notice and recount the positives in the relationship history; to count the blessings; to see the silver lining; to be thankful. In addition to the above toxic patterns, research by The Gottman Institute (TGI) has also identified a healthy process for talking through a regrettable interaction in order to mine it for constructive mutual understanding. It is spelled out in TGI’s Aftermath of a Fight: How to repair after a fight or regrettable incident.
Below are unhealthy pitfalls that hinder such “Help me understand” discussions.
Pitfalls to Talking It Out
Interrupting - This may mean we’re more interested in being heard than in listening to understand (although some people interrupt to participate in the conversation). If both partners want to listen to understand the other, both will allow the other to finish their thought.
You language - Sentences beginning with “You…” are likely to be followed by an accusation, judgment, or some sort of challenge, creating defensiveness. Use “I” language, instead.
Definitives - Words like “always,” “never,” “every,” “none,” etc. shift attention from the topic at hand to whether something is indeed as extreme as these absolute words imply.
Flooding - Flooding is a physiological condition characterized be an elevated heart-rate, high cortisol level, and other biometrics characteristic of a self-defensive state in which it is very difficult to listen to, care for, and be protective of our partner. It’s time to take a break.
Failure to Reflect Empathy and Understanding - To listen without voicing empathy and understanding is to fail from the start. Empathy and understanding does not mean agreement; it means we heard. Saying, “I get it,” doesn’t count. Sarcasm, derision, minimizing or sighing also make even the best words not count. Reacting with our own feelings and point of view is synonymous with skipping empathy and understanding.
Self-Defensiveness and Rationalization - When we defend ourselves and rationalize things our partner has explained had an ill effect on them, we bypass empathy that could have connected us. The goal of "Talking It Out" is to understand how something affected our partner, so that we can protect and defend them. Put yourself in the other's shoes. Verbally reflect or paraphrase the other's experience and perspective. Again, reflection does not mean agreement; it means we heard and understood.
Detail Derailment - The goal of understanding can be derailed by sparring over details, such as what day of the week something happened, what time, in proximity to what other events, or myriad other details. The brain trims details over time, and two brains will trim different details. Let details go and focus on understanding the other's feelings and what was important to them, so that you can defend and support them.
Disrespecting Feelings - Partners sometimes object to or minimize how their partner felt, or tell them they should not have felt that way. Instead, empathize. Empathy does not mean you would have felt the same way; it means you can get close to feeling what they felt.
Judging - Judging is deciding the other’s motive, heart, or what they really meant, often without checking out our assumptions. Or, if we did ask, we rejecting the other’s explanation and return to our pre-judgment. Give the benefit of the doubt. Inquire. Believe.
Somatic & Emotional Derailments - The way something feels physically and emotionally will remind us of other events that “felt” the same way. Problems occur if we then also introduce those events, confusing what event we’re discussing. Parties lose track of what is being being talked about. Stay on topic, noting other events in the “triggers from the past” section.
Negative Body Language and Lack of Eye Contact - Mirror neurons pick up the "heart" (accurately or not) of a person’s meaning. The look on one’s face, the tilt of one’s eyes, the position of one’s body—can confirm or contradict words. Be attentive to your non-verbals.
(End of Pitfalls to Talking It Out)
Other Unhealthy Relating & Better Alternatives
COMMON DRIVERS:
Selfishness
Selfishness may be unconscious and unintended, but is a common driver; a cancer lurking underneath relationship-harming tactics.
Human nature is self-interested at least, usually self-centered and, at worst, selfish. Selfishness puts one’s own feelings, past, point of view, insecurities, preferences, needs, and circumstances above others. It does not consider others’ interests; selfishness does not concern itself with nor remember meaningful events in others’ lives. It insists upon its own way, serving and protecting self rather than other.
Love is the opposite of self-centeredness; love is other-centeredness. Love acts to benefit, protect, and serve another. Healthy relationships love mutually.
EXPECTING SAMENESS
Allowing little differences to become major divisions
Anything and nothing can destroy a relationship bond; big things and little things, important things and inconsequential things.
Relationships—and certainly the unique union that is marriage—are fragile bonds. They are protected when we unite against the myriad things that could divide us, disallowing a hostile takeover. Only the couple can protect itself from "death by a thousand cuts.” The antidote is to expect differences in feelings, opinions, and priorities; to get curious about what is important to the other.
Rejecting Temperament Differences
This is rejection of temperament differences like extroversion versus introversion, internal versus external processing, etc, demanding change. The ideal is that we accept each other, yet adjust to one another out of consideration, without expecting transformation into a mirror version of ourself. Positive Sentiment Override accepts the whole, choosing to see positively what could be viewed negatively.
Emotional or Cognitive Hijack
A form of rejecting differences, this occurs when one party insists that his or her thoughts, logic, rational, and ideas for resolution are the most important part of the discussion, or opposite—that his or her emotions and the feel of the relationship are the most important part of the discussion. One is seeking empathic connection; the other is seeking a logical conclusion. In this “hijack,” the cognitively-focused-partner dismisses empathy and connection on the way to a conclusion, or the emotionally-focused person skips validation of the other’s thoughts and ideas on the way to emotional connection. Both need empathy and understanding, but in a different order. The opportunity is to recognize your partner’s needs in this balance, which may be different or even opposite from your own. Learn what is important to each other and support it.
CONTROL
Passive aggression
Passive aggressive speech and behavior is attempting to get what one wants through indirect means. It is aggressive in that it is against another; seeking something at their expense, but covertly. What a person is saying and doing looks like one thing, but its intent is another, such as pouting or slamming doors in an effort to get attention or an apology. There is a disconnect between what one is saying or doing and what one is actually seeking. The antidote is to be clear—with consideration and kindness—about what one wants or needs, stated positively.
Threats
Threats are an attempt to control by targeting something of importance to another, perhaps even something necessary to survival. The threat might be physical, emotional, social, familial, financial, occupational, or otherwise. For example, “If you don’t do as I say, I’ll post on social media those compromising pictures of you.” Or, “If you divorce me, I’ll take the kids and move where you’ll never find us.” Love is just; love protects.
Emotional Blackmail
Emotional control is wielding control over someone by withholding love, approval, affirmation, acceptance, and other things spouses have a right to expect from one another, unless a certain demand is met. In a loving relationship, partners ideally give to each other more empathy, support, love, affection, and encouragement than either finds anywhere else.
Using “authenticity” to excuse inconsideration
It is healthy to live authentically. But in relationships, authenticity is in tension with consideration. No one gets to live in complete authenticity unless they live on an island, alone. We all balance what would be “authentic” to our thoughts, feelings and desires, with what is ethical, legal, and—per the topic of this article—relationally healthy. Relationships are a constant balance between authenticity and caring consideration for the other person(s) in the relationship.
Failing to Accept Influence
This is disregarding one’s partner’s point, perspective, ideas, preferences or tastes, and simply proceeding as one would as if not in a relationship. The antidote is for both parties to "yield to win."
Invalidation, Minimizing, Diminishing, and Dismissing
To invalidate another’s feelings or point of view is to dismiss or minimize another’s emotions and alternate perspective, experience, or thoughts. This may be done verbally or through an eye-roll, smug smile, or scoff. The opportunity is to instead validate our partner’s feelings and experience, though they differ from our own. Validation does not mean we feel or think the same way; it means we heard and—unless being unjustly accused—are letting the other have their own feelings, even if those feelings sprang unintentionally from our actions.
Brainwashing
An intense form of invalidation, brainwashing is manipulating someone into abandoning their legitimate views in favor of the brainwasher’s (sometimes untenable) views, from which they somehow benefit. Research, evidence, testing and verification are mocked or disallowed. By contrast, in healthy relationships, differing ideas are given patient consideration, and verification and testing for efficacy are welcome for the sake of truth and mutual well-being.
“But”-ing
A common form of invalidation, this is responding to what our partner has said with “But…" It is casting aside, or discounting, or objecting to the other’s feelings, point of view, experience, or needs. It is the opposite of empathy and understanding. It is dismissing and replacing their thoughts or point of view with our own. They likely will do the same in return, the conversation devolving into a series of “Buts…” with neither party reflection understanding and thus neither feeling heard. It is argument as sport, as if the relationship will benefit by one party winning and the other being defeated.
A healthy couple will listen non-defensively and lead with empathy and understanding. As mentioned above, empathy does not mean we feel the same way; it means we can feel what the other feels. Voicing understanding does not mean we agree; it means we listened. Instead of saying, “But,” ask for help understanding—and really want to understand, not object.
Triangulation
Triangulation is in contrast to direct communication, wherein two people communicate with one another in order to understand and protect each another and their relationship. By contrast, triangulation communicates with someone outside of the dyad, telling a one-sided version of events—outside the hearing of the other—portraying oneself as the victim in order to gain allegiance. The triangulated party might be a close friend, a sibling, a parent, a counselor, or an institution. By contrast, healthy communication is direct and respectful, presuming the best of one another while understanding is mutually sought. And there is a desire that others outside the relationship think well of our spouse, unless they have acted in ways to make that impossible.
Objectifying
This is seeing a person as utilitarian. It is reducing them to an object without concern for their human experience, feelings, or needs… people are a means to an end, a tool in service to one’s agenda, or an object from which to derive pleasure. In narcissism it is seeing people as an audience, a fan club, a “supply” of affirmations and adoration by which the narcissist is always the focus of attention.
By contrast, love sees one’s partner as precious, cherished, and of inestimable value, whose needs, feelings, and experience are worth defending for their sake, regardless of self-benefit.
Punishment or Rewards for Conformity
Punishments or rewards for conforming behavior may be dispensed as a misuse of the principles of behavioralism by which we all live (that which is rewarded tends to be repeated; that which is punished tends to diminish). For example, access to a car or money or entertainment might be given only in exchange for a task done, or for conforming to a controller’s desires. It is manipulation. By contrast, love learns what is meaningful to each another and mutually gives and receives unselfishly without having to earn love nor fear punishment. Appreciation is mutual and generous, upbuilding, unconditional and other-centered.
Love Bombing
Love bombing is the lavishing of attention, gifts, get-aways, and declarations of love and affection. Who wouldn’t want such things? Normal courtship often includes these things. What distinguishes loving, lavish attention from love-bombing is motive. Love-bombing is manipulative—to get what one wants, rather than to give altruistically, irrespective of what one gets in return. And love lasts; love-bombing ceases. Or love-bombing might be intermittent, resurfacing when useful as a tool to regain a partner’s interest, affection, or return after an ugly argument, a selfish act, or a severe violation like abuse or infidelity.
Loving attention is a great thing as part of a committed, kind, considerate, respectful committed relationship or marriage. It can also be a welcome form of repair following a relationship breach, so long as it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card designed to buy time only until the next infraction, and the next… rinse and repeat. In safe relationships, kindness, gifts, attention, affection, and declarations of love are normative, selfless, mutual, unconditional, and not a means of getting what one wants from the other.
Symbolic Aggression
This could be something as small as a glare or a threatening gesture, or as overt as slamming a door, punching a wall, throwing something, or brandishing a weapon. The goal is to control others through intimidation; to cause others to fear upsetting, confronting or challenging a controller. By contrast, mature loving relationship feel safe.
Hurt and Rescue
This is putting someone in a desperate situation from which they’ll need rescue, then coming to their rescue, similar to pushing someone into the ocean and then throwing them a life preserver. The motive is to foster dependence. By contrast, love does not endanger; it protects proactively and at all times, not just when self-serving or endearing.
EMOTIONAL ABUSE
Abuse is a strong term and should be used cautiously. But some things are abusive, whether physically or emotionally.
Emotional Barriers
Like dismissing feelings (above), this is disallowing someone’s emotions. Legitimate frustration, anger, sadness, hurt, etc. are not allowed. Even positive emotions, such as happiness, might be suppressed if such emotions do not fit with the controlling partner’s interests at the moment. The objective here is again, control. The antidote is to allow each other to feel what they feel and to empathize with one another—not necessarily feeling the same way, but being supportive as the other feels what they feel.
Shaming
Shaming is humiliation through mockery, insults, expressions of contempt, voicing disappointment, etc, whether privately or in the presence of others. By contrast, lovers protect one another, including self-image and feelings of self-worth.
Double Bind
The Double Bind is to put someone in a position wherein, no matter what they choose, it will be wrong. It is setting up a person for failure. It may be placing a person in a role for which he or she is ill-equipped, assigning more tasks than can be accomplished under the circumstances, or disallowing adjustment to changing circumstances. The victim’s subsequent failure is then used against them. By contrast, in caring relationships, partners do not put loved ones in impossible binds; they set each other up for success and help one another.
Infantilize
This is to reduce the other to the status of a child, such that they perceive themselves, and perhaps are perceived by others, as incompetent to hold power or to be trusted with significant choices and tasks. By contrast, in egalitarian adult relationships, spouses respect each other, honor their different gifts, allow for different ways of doing things, and even having different standards. There is allowance for different strengths.
Monitor and Stalk
To monitor or to stalk is to surveil someone for the purpose of gaining information to use against them, control, blackmail, or somehow gain advantage over them. (Monitoring the whereabouts of one another’s phone for safety is not stalking if mutual permission has been granted and that access is not abused for selfish or nefarious purposes.) Love trusts and is trustworthy.
Intrude and Interrupt
This is to have no respect for boundaries. It is interrupting conversations, walking into closed rooms without knocking, opening others’ personal mail, inserting oneself into another’s task or project. It is essentially doing as one pleases, despite convention, rights to privacy, declared boundaries, voiced objections or requests. Sound relationships are built on mutual consideration and respectful treatment.
Covert Aggression
This is the disguising of insults as helpful advice, instruction, or unsolicited help. Such “helpfulness” is recognized by the recipient, and perhaps by others, as a vote of non-confidence designed to make someone look inferior. Loving relationships are marked by encouragement and protecting of another’s pride.
Amplification
This is amplifying someone’s weaknesses, flaws, or failures, while minimizing or ignoring their strengths, virtues and successes. Its goal is to elevate oneself. By contrast, in a loving relationship between two secure people, there is plentiful affirmation, encouragement, and upbuilding.
Stonewalling
This is withdrawal into non-communication. It is the stonewaller self-protecting, but deprives their partner of attention, conversation, and affection, in some cases perhaps triggering a partner’s fear of abandonment. Stonewallers may also stonewall as a form of manipulation or even punishment of their spouse. However, if you ask a stonewaller why they are stonewalling, they will often say they have given up being understood, which means their partner may need to get better at reflecting understanding and empathy, rather than “But-ing.” Stonewallers also sometimes say that they’ve gone silent because they can’t think of anything nice to say. It may be that they are in a self-protective state—perhaps physiologically flooded—unable to think, speak, and act in a way that is protective of their partner and of the relationship.
When one partner is flooded, it is advisable for the couple to stop talking and agree on a time to resume the conversation when the flooded partner is again calm. The difference between taking a break and stonewalling is that stonewalling is by unilateral decision to protect oneself; agreeing to take a break is by mutual decision to protect the relationship.
Lying
A lie is an intentional denial, misrepresentation, or manipulative omission of what one knows to have been factually true. A lie of commission is knowingly making a false statement. Lies of omission leave things out in order to paint an inaccurate picture favorable to the liar. But be cautious before using the combustible word, “lie.” It is not a “lie” to be unable to recount every detail of an incident (that is impossible). It is also not a lie to have different memories and a different experience of the same event (that is guaranteed). It is also not a lie to refrain from saying volatile or wounding things, even though they are what we think and feel. Rather, honesty means that loving partners do not intentionally deceive one another for self-benefit. Honesty (considerate honesty, not brutal honesty) builds trust, and trust is a pillar of a mutually-satisfying relationship.
Gaslighting and Crazy-Making
The term, gaslighting comes from the 1938 play, Gas Light, and its subsequent 1944 screenplay Gaslight and subsequent remakes. In the storyline, a man marries a woman for her inheritance, then through lies and manipulation leads her and others to question her sanity. His intent is to gain control of her wealth by having her institutionalized.
Gaslighting in a relationship can take various forms, including saying something, then denying saying it, or telling someone that what they clearly saw did not happen, or saying something hurtful, mean, or manipulative, then blaming the recipient for being hurt or offended by it, or for having “read into it” some unintended meaning.
Be cautious in the use of this term, as it is not gaslighting for one’s partner to have different feelings, to hold a different point of view, and to have experienced the same event differently. This are certain to be the case. Gaslighting, by contrast, is willful misrepresentation for personal advantage.
In healthy relationships, partners do not lie to win or to gain advantage over the other; partners have each other’s best interest at heart. They can trust that what they hear from their partner is true; each can rely on the other’s integrity for protection.
Feigning Innocence or Confusion
A form of gaslighting, this is pretending to have not done what one intentionally did, or feigning confusion over why something that was intended to wound, caused wounding. The denier may feign a look of surprise or “play dumb.” Maturity owns up and apologizes.
Negative Insinuation
Similar to the above, this is the use of subtleties, such as innuendo, veiled comments, tonal inflection, and body language to insult, or to imply another’s inferiority. Because the forms it takes are intangible and somewhat subjective, it is possible for the offender to deny meaning what seemed clearly insinuated. By contrast, love is kind and not rude.
Gang Stalking
Gang stalking is enlisting a group, mob, community or institution to negatively impact a victim. It may be in-person, online, in professional, social, or family settings. It might be overt or the organizer might hide behind anonymous communication. Mature, healthy relationships are characterized by direct, respectful communication where each respects the other’s feelings, listens to the other’s point of view and takes into consideration their legitimate (and often contrasting) needs.
Moving the Goalpost
This is changing the “win” just before or after the victim has satisfied the originally set goal. For example, if having dinner at 5:30 was agreed-upon, then there is criticism that it wasn’t ready earlier, or that dinner didn’t include dessert. If a spouse plans a date as requested, there is criticism that it was the wrong kind of date, or that the wrong sitter was chosen. The victim will never get it right. In good relationships, agreements are kept, changes are negotiated, efforts are appreciated, and affirmations are generous.
EVASION
Deflection or Diversion
When a person is called out on a lie, or asked a direct question, the answer to which would cast the person in a negative light, this tactic evades responsibility by diverting attention elsewhere. Or it may deflect the question, or give an irrelevant or vague response. Another method is to change the subject, or call attention to the questioner’s or someone else’s wrongs, or to challenge the challenge, such as: “How dare you accuse me of that!”
Instead of evasion, the opportunity is to seek to understand someone’s complaint, asking in turn for mutual understanding. Be quick to own what you have come to understand was hurtful, disrespectful, inconsiderate, wrong, etc. Apologize, make amends, and refrain from the same behavior in the future.
Blame-Shifting
Blame-shifting is responding to someone’s disappointment, hurt, sadness, or other emotion resultant from a legitimate complaint, by evading responsibility. The victim is instead blamed for causing the abuse, or for being thin-skinned, or unable to take a joke, or for bringing it on themselves. It is not blame-shifting to want one’s experience of the situation understood, but excusing an abusive response is not okay. Some personality disorders can’t be wrong; they don’t admit fault nor apologize.
In healthy relationships, however, a regrettable incident or disappointing conflict is met with remorse and each partner seeking to understand what they could have said or done differently for the benefit of the relationship. Each takes responsibility where they can, apologizes, and commits to doing differently in the future.
Vilifying the Victim
This occurs when a victim is criticized for appropriately creating boundaries or standing up for himself or herself against harshness, aggression, selfishness, or harm. In a healthy relationship, self-defensiveness can be explored to learn what a partner is protecting, so that we can protect it for them.
Playing the Victim
This is the abuser portraying himself or herself as the victim of circumstances beyond their control. They were just along for the ride; not the driver. Or, as with blame-shifting, abusive behavior is excuse because the other “forced them into it.” While circumstances and the other’s experience are always worth hearing, at the end of the day maturity means taking responsibility without excuse for the part we played, especially if abusive in any way.
Rationalization
Instead of accepting responsibility for wrong-doing, or for words or actions that had a hurtful or ill effect on another, the wrong is painted as right, or to be expected, or even as caused by the victim. Of course, room must be made for listening to understand each other’s different experience of the same event. Rationalizers do not learn from listening; they repeat the same offense because they’ve justified it.
Love means caring how words and behavior affect one another; making adjustments, not excuses.
IRRATIONALITY
Splitting
Splitting is “black and white” or “all or nothing” thinking. It shifts from seeing a person or entity as “all good” to “all bad.” In family systems, splitting identifies one child as the “golden child” and another as the “black sheep.” Splitting is a disordered form of self-protection that occurs in response to a real or perceived slight, injury, or disappointment. It fails to acknowledge the tension that both positive and negative qualities exist in any person or entity—including in oneself. Relationships require the realistic perspective that people have good qualities and bad; will perform well sometimes and at other times not so well, or even quite badly. In healthy relationships partners accept that at times their partner will please them and at times will disappoint, and the same is true of our partner’s experience of us. Unconditional love extends grace.
Scapegoating
Scapegoating is refusing to acknowledge the breadth of a conflict and the role played by each person or part, but instead singling out a “fall guy.” In a family system, the fault might routinely be placed on a particular child who cannot effectively defend himself or herself. Mature communication is the brave acceptance of responsibility by each person and the acknowledgment when a circumstance is no one’s “fault.”
Expecting Mind-reading
This is holding someone responsible for not knowing what was not communicated. It is the expectation that the other should "just know." If the victim does not know what was not made known, they are charged with not loving or caring enough to know. The healthy alternative is to kindly voice to one another your hopes, expectations, and what is important to each of you about an upcoming event.
Double-Mindedness
This is living as if something is acceptable behavior for oneself, but unacceptable for others. For example, wanting to be excused for raging at others, but being incensed if one is raged at; or unilaterally making exceptions to mutual agreements, but declaring a breach if on the receiving end of the same. It is living by the double standard, “I do unto others what I would not tolerate being done unto me.” Maturity treats others with the same standard with which one wants to be treated.
Doublethink
Doublethink is to simultaneously maintain contradictory positions. For example, to publicly maintain a moral stand, then abandon it in private. It is remembering something when it is advantageous to remember, then forgetting if convenient, then remembering again when remembering better serves one’s purpose. By contrast, sound relationships are grounded in integrity.
Entitlement
Similar to Double-Mindedness, this is the mindset that “The rules don’t apply to me.” It is doing as one pleases, regardless of ethics. It is expecting or demanding that an exception be made or special treatment be given, such as being moved to the head of the line, or not being punished for violations. It is wanting courtesies that the entitled person would not afford to others. This is especially prominent in narcissism. By contrast, healthy relationships are marked by humility, justice, yielding to one another, or even putting another above oneself.
Remember to use this list not to accuse each other, but own those to which you are individually prone and commit together to their healthier antidotes.