Listen First
We are better off in our relationship when we feel connected, and curiosity is the key.
(photo from the author)
The word dialogue comes from the Greek word “dialogos.” The root words there are dia, meaning “through” or “across,” and logos, meaning “word,” “reason,” or “discourse.” So the origin of the word dialogue means the exchange of words between people. I would take it a step farther and suggest that dialogue means two (or more) people interacting using words to find a truth between them.
I think this is particularly important in intimate partner relationships. I would argue that nothing matters between intimate partners more than the words they choose to use with each other. This idea is borne out in the research. John Gottman, arguably the world’s leader in research and theory related to intimate partner relationships, has shown that the way couples communicate predicts relationship satisfaction and stability. This is especially true, although not only so, regarding communication during conflict.1 Research by Laurenceau et al. (1998) expands beyond the context of conflict, finding that self-disclosure and perceived partner responsiveness in conversation are key predictors of the degree of emotional intimacy in the relationship.2
Carelessness in the use of words between intimate partners can have disastrous effects on the relationship. Gottman talks about “The Four Horsemen” that are predictive of relationship dissatisfaction and divorce: stonewalling, defensiveness, criticism, and contempt.1 All are a likely response to emotional escalation and reactivity, when we are most likely to be careless with our words. Cramer and Jowett (2010) showed how verbal aggression (such as insults, criticism, and sarcasm) significantly undermines relationship satisfaction and increases emotional distress.3
In addition to carefully choosing the words that we use, it is also important that intimate partners are truthful with each other. My rule for myself is ALWAYS tell the truth, no matter what. That’s not license to be a jerk; the truth has to be presented carefully and lovingly. But openness and self-disclosure about personal truths are critical for emotional intimacy. Avoidance of truth leads to emotional distancing.4 Even minor "white lies" erode trust over time and contribute to relationship dissatisfaction and disconnect.5
There are important reasons why talking things out with your partner is important. Within an intimate partner relationship, connecting in conversation to work through something will always be better than isolating yourself and making decisions unilaterally. Involving another person creates a deeper level of accountability. When you can keep something to yourself, even if you are fully honest with yourself (which you probably aren’t), that's easier than having to share it with another person. My guess is, that's exactly why sharing with another is a prescribed part of every 12-step program. Full accountability demands sharing it with someone else.
Another benefit from sharing with someone else is that you get perspectives, feedback, ideas, etc. that you likely would not come up with on your own. By ourselves, we are a closed loop. Left alone, we become like a stagnant pond. We interpret things through our own egocentric filters. We need fresh water, fresh ideas and different perspectives from outside of our own interpretations and experiences, to come in and provide new insights or checks and balances, to keep us honest and keep us healthy.
Most people come into an important conversation with their partner having already determined for himself or herself what the “right” thing is. We are eager to talk about our own feeling, belief, or preference, and try to convince our partner of what we want. It is a very egocentric perspective that does nothing but set up a power struggle. Especially if our partner comes into the conversation with the same orientation. Both partners want to talk to convince the other, and no one is oriented toward listening.
This “talk to convince” orientation is dangerous for a couple of reasons. First of all, when I am completely egocentrically oriented on a particular topic, that leaves me in the echo chamber of my own ideas, stagnant and stunted. In a healthy intimate partner relationship, there is a reciprocity of improvement: I am better for your influence on me, and you are better for my influence on you. You are going to have thoughts, feelings, or beliefs that I would not have come up with on my own. Not opening myself up to those will be significantly limiting to my own development, even if they do nothing more than stimulate critical thinking without significant perspective change.
I will be better off for allowing the potential for some degree of perspective change based on my partner’s input. In order to create that listening-focused conversation, I have to show up with genuine curiosity, eager to hear what she has to say. It’s going to be valuable simply because it’s different from what I think, feel, or believe. I should actually be eager to hear something from her that I’m too limited to come up with on my own. Then, I should intentionally allow that new information the potential for influence on my thinking, feelings, or belief.
Second, the talk-to-convince structure sets us up for an argument. The power struggle nature of that structure creates a back-and-forth conversation dynamic that is based on point / counter-point, each trying to prove his or her point and disprove the other’s. It’s combative in nature and can quickly degrade into a tit-for-tat, emotionally escalating argument. This conversation style is based on an “objective truth” mindset: What I think is what is actually what’s “really” true, and I just need to convince you of that.
But the reality of intimate partner relationships is that objective truth doesn’t actually exist. Everything is based on subjective experience. You have yours, which is unique to you (based on your personality, perspectives, past traumas and triggers, etc), and is true for you. I have mine, which is unique to me (based on my personality, perspectives, past traumas and triggers, etc), and is true for me. The problem with conversations from an objective truth mindset, other than being structurally flawed, is that it creates a win / lose scenario, and nobody likes to be the loser. So, even if you get some degree of resolution in this structure, one person will probably have some resentment about it, not be fully bought in to the “solution,” and thus is likely to not fully follow through.
In a subjective experience structure, each of us is “right” relative to our own experience of the thing in question. You being “right” for you doesn’t threaten me being “right” for me, at all. We can both be right, from our own unique perspectives. Then, the priority shifts to listening to, really trying to fully understand, the other, rather than doing all the talking and trying to convince the other.
Again, the foundational ethos here is curiosity. We each need to show up for the conversation genuinely curious about what the other has to contribute. We are almost sure to hear something that we couldn’t have come up with on our own, and will probably be better off for hearing and thinking about openly and critically. Oriented toward the other rather than yourself, with genuine curiosity, protects the conversation against devolving into conflict. Trying to understand the other person, rather than simply judging or “correcting” the other person, promotes openness and a deeper understanding of each other. It promotes emotional validation and improves connection. Learning from each other leads to both personal and relational growth, and fosters resilience in the relationship.
So dialogue more, listen first, and be curious. Your relationship will be much better for it.
1 - Gottman, J. M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Psychology Press.
2 - Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251.
3 - Cramer, D., & Jowett, S. (2010). Perceived empathy, accurate empathy, and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3), 327-349.
4 - Sprecher, S., & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(6), 857-877.
5 - Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1), 107-129.