Even Healthy Couples Fight — the Difference Is How | Julie and John Gottman | TED

翻译人员: Fiona Ma 校对人员: suya f.

Julie Gottman: So most of us think

朱莉·戈特曼（Julie Gottman）： 所以我们大多数人都

that fighting is bad for romantic relationships, right?

认为吵架不利于恋爱关系，对吧？

How many people do you know who say,

你听到有多少人说过

"Hey, I had a great fight the other day."

“嘿，前几天我吵得很精彩。”

"Oh, yeah. My partner and I fight all the time

“哦，是的。我和我的伴侣总是吵架

and we're super happy."

我们非常高兴。”

John Gottman: Fifty-two years ago, we put love under the microscope.

约翰·戈特曼（John Gottman）： 五十二年前，我们把爱放在了显微镜下

Julie and I are the founders of the Gottman Institute and the Love Lab,

朱莉和我是戈特曼研究所 和爱情实验室的创始人

and we've made the study of relationships our life's work.

我们将人际关系研究 作为我们一生的工作。

And our research tells us that fighting is good for relationships, not bad.

我们的研究告诉我们， 吵架对人际关系有好处，不是坏事。

Julie: In our lab, we saw that almost all couples fight.

朱莉：在我们的实验室里， 我们看到几乎所有的夫妻都在吵架。

In fact, how they fight in the first three minutes

实际上，他们在前三分钟的闹别扭的方式

predicts with 96 percent accuracy

带着 96% 的准确率，

not only how the rest of the conversation will go,

可以预测他们对话的其余部分将如何发展

but how the rest of the relationship will go six years down the road.

和他们未来六年关系的发展。

My God, I know, it's terrifying, isn't it?

天哪，我知道，太可怕了，对不对？

So it's not if we fight that determines relationship success,

因此，决定人际关系 成功的不是我们是否吵架

it's how we fight.

而是我们的起冲突的方式。

John: In fact, our research has revealed that some fighting

约翰：实际上，我们的研究表明，

actually increases connection, and even improves our sex life.

有且矛盾实际上会增加 人际关系甚至改善我们的性生活。

So how do we fight right?

那么我们该如何正确地吵架呢？

Julie: Early on, John and his colleague Robert Levinson

朱莉：早些时候，约翰和他的同事 罗伯特·莱文森 （Robert Levinson）

in their lab simply watched couples interacting.

在实验室里简单地观察情侣之间的互动。

Sounds simple, but nobody had ever done that before.

听起来很简单， 但以前从未有人这样做过。

John: Over time, 3,000 couples came to the lab.

约翰：随着时间的推移， 有 3,000 对夫妇来到实验室。

As they were being videotaped,

在对他们进行录像时

they wore monitors that measured such things as respiration,

他们佩戴的监视器可以测量呼吸

heart rate and stress hormones.

心率和压力荷尔蒙等信息

And then they had a conflict discussion

然后他们进行了一场关于冲突的讨论

and they talked about the events of their day.

并谈到了当天发生的事件。

Julie: Afterwards, they rated how they felt during each conversation

朱莉：之后，他们在回家前

before returning home.

对每次谈话中的感受进行了评分

They would return to the lab every year or two

他们每隔一两年就会回到实验室

and repeat the same procedure,

重复同样的程序

and some were followed for as long as 20 years.

有些人持续了长达 20 年

John: Videotapes were synchronized to the physiological data,

约翰：录像带与生理数据同步了

and then in a split-screen video, second by second,

然后在一个分屏视频中

we measured the couples' words, emotions, facial expressions

每一年我们逐秒地测量了情侣们的

and physiology year after year.

言语、情绪、面部表情、和生理状况

Julie: Over time, we saw that some couples separated or divorced.

朱莉：随着时间的推移， 我们看到一些夫妻分居或离婚。

Some remained together unhappily,

有些人虽然还在一起，但却过得不开心

while others stayed together happily.

而另一些人则幸福地一直在一起。

What made the difference between the couples who were successful

成功的夫妻

and the couples who were unsuccessful,

和失败的夫妻

or as we call them, the masters and the disasters?

或者我们称之为主人与灾难

(Laughter)

（笑声）

The couples in our studies were all ages, sexual orientations

我们研究的夫妻年龄各不相同， 性取向各不相同

and ethnically diverse.

种族也各不相同

After a while, just by watching a couple,

过了一会儿，只要看一对情侣，

we could predict what would happen with over 90 percent accuracy,

我们就能预测出 有着 90％以上的准确率

what would happen in their relationship six years later.

六年后他们的关系会发生什么。

Which meant we never got invited to dinner anymore.

这意味着我们再也没有被 他们邀请一起共进晚餐了。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

John: We found that there were three major styles of fighting.

约翰：我们发现人有 三种主要的吵架风格

Conflict avoiders who just agree to disagree

避免冲突的人，他们只会附和

and would rather wash the dishes than argue a point.

并宁愿洗盘子 也不愿争论一个观点。

I'm a conflict avoider.

我是一个避免冲突的人。

Julie: (Scoffs) He is. Believe me.

朱莉：（嘲笑）他是。相信我。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Conflict validators would bring up an issue

冲突验证者会通过冷静地表达自己的感受

by expressing their feelings calmly

来提出问题，

and then jumping immediately into problem solving.

然后立即着手解决问题

So think of your most patient kindergarten teacher.

联想你最有耐心的幼儿园老师

Then there were the conflict volatiles.

然后是冲突的爆发

They would express their feelings intensely and very passionately.

这群人会强烈而热情地表达自己的感受

Notice I say, just fine, not bad.

注意我说，没问题，还不错。

And then they would leap into trying to prove that they were right,

他就们会努力去证明自己是对的

and their partners were wrong.

而他们的伴侣是错的。

OK, so think of a very expressive basketball coach on the sidelines.

就好像一位在场边非常 有表现力的篮球教练

Or me. I'm a volatile.

或者比如我，我是个不稳定者。

John: And some partners had different styles of fighting

约翰：还有一些伙伴的吵架

from one another.

风格各不相同。

But the good news, we discovered

但好消息是，

that whether you have those three styles of fighting

我们发现，无论你是 这三种吵架的风格

or you're mismatched,

还是不匹配，

you can have a successful relationship

只要冲突讨论

as long as the ratio of positive to negative responses

期间的正面和负面回应

during the conflict discussion,

的比例至少为五比一，

it was at least five to one.

你就能建立成功的关系。

And examples of positive responses were

正面回应的例子包括

head nods, affection, interest, shared humor

点头、有爱意的行为、 兴趣、共同的笑点

and words like "fair enough."

和 “够公平” 之类的词语。

Julie: OK, so what about the negatives?

朱莉：好吧，那么负面的呢？

Were all the negatives equally negative?

所有的负面因素都一样负面吗？

No.

不是的。

There were four big predictors of relationship demise

我们称之为末日四骑士，关系消亡

that we called the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

的四大预测因子

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Alright. The first one was criticism.

第一个是批评

And criticism means blaming a problem

批评意味着将问题

on a personality flaw of your partner.

怪罪于另一半的性格缺陷。

For example, if you walked into a messy kitchen

例如，如果你走进一个凌乱的厨房

and you wanted to be critical,

并抱着一个批评的态度

you would say, "Oh my God, this place is such a mess.

你会说：“天啊， 这个地方真是一团糟。

Why are you such a slob?"

你为什么这么不爱干净啊？”

How do you answer that?

你怎么回答？

John: The second horseman is contempt.

约翰：第二个骑手是蔑视。

Contempt is like criticism, but it has a dash of superiority.

蔑视就像批评， 但它带有一点优越感。

So with contempt, you include scorn, disgust, sarcasm

因此，在蔑视中， 你会加入蔑视、厌恶、讽刺

and nasty insults like,

和讨厌的侮辱，比如，

"You're such a loser. Why did I ever marry you?"

“你真失败。 我为什么要嫁给你？”

Julie: The third horseman is defensiveness.

朱莉：第三个骑手 是防御。

That's the most common one.

这是最常见的。

And that's when we act like an innocent victim.

防御的时候我们表现得 像个无辜的受害者。

"I did too pay the bills!"

“我也付了账单！”

Or we counterattack, “Oh, yeah? Well, you didn’t pay the bills on time.”

或者我们进行反击，“哦，是吗？ 好吧，你没有按时支付账单。”

John: The fourth Horseman is stonewalling.

约翰：第四位骑士是拒绝回应。

When we shut down completely

当我们完全关闭自己时，

and we don't even give the speaker any signs that we're listening.

我们甚至没有给扬声器 任何我们在听的迹象。

In stonewalling, we really wall ourselves off from our partner.

在拒绝回应中，我们真的将自己 和我们的伴侣隔离开来

Hmm.

嗯。

Julie: Hmm.

朱莉：嗯。

The fourth is a bad one,

第四个很糟

but here's another one that may be related to it.

但这里还有另一个 可能与之相关的问题。

It's called flooding, or fight, flight or freeze.

这被称为洪水， 或者战斗，逃跑，或冻结。

So a partner in the middle of a conversation

因此，处于 对话过程中的伴侣

may be sitting there and looking totally calm on the outside,

可能会坐在那里， 外表看起来完全平静，

but inside, their heart rates

但是在内心深处，他们的心率

are rocketing up above 100 beats a minute.

正在飙升至每分钟 100 次以上。

John: They feel like they're being attacked by a tiger.

约翰：他们感觉像 被老虎攻击了一样。

Julie: (Growls)

朱莉：（咆哮）

John: But it's only our partner.

约翰：但这只是我们的伴侣。

And when we're flooded, we can't think straight,

而且，当我们被洪水淹没时， 我们无法直截了当地思考，

we can’t listen very well

我们无法很好地倾听

and we certainly can't creatively problem-solve.

当然也无法有创意地去解决问题。

Julie: If you get flooded, here's what's crucial.

朱莉：如果你被洪水淹没是， 以下是至关重要的。

You stop immediately and call for a break,

你立即停下来并休息一下，

then say when you'll come back to continue the conversation.

然后表达出你会回来继续谈话。

That's really important.

这真的很重要。

And during the break, do not think about the fight.

而且在休息期间， 不要考虑刚才的矛盾。

Instead, simply self-soothe and then come back at the designated time.

取而代之的是，只需自我舒缓， 然后在指定的时间回来即可。

When you're physiologically calm,

当你生理上平静了时，

you look like a totally different person

你会看起来像一个完全不同的人

and it's much easier to be reasonable and to listen well.

理性思考和倾听会容易得多。

Now, what do couples do who fight right versus fight wrong?

那会吵架和不会吵架的情侣会怎么做呢?

The couples who are really struggling and distressed

真正挣扎和痛苦的夫妻

may bring up an issue

可能会在对话的前三分钟提出一个问题

in that first three minutes of the conversation

我们将其称之为

with something we call harsh startup,

严厉的开始

which almost always includes criticism or contempt.

这些问题几乎总是包括这批评或蔑视。

The couples who fight right will bring up the issue

会吵架的夫妻 将通过我们所谓

with what we call softened startup.

的软化开始提出这个问题。

John: So what's softened startup?

约翰：那么是什么软化开始呢？

Softened startup consists of a bunch of "I" statements

软化开始为一系列 “我” 开头的陈述句

that describe you and not your partner at all.

这些陈述描述的是你， 而不是你的伴侣。

You start with what you feel, then you describe the situation at hand,

你先从自己的感受开始， 然后描述眼前的情况，

and then what you do need from your partner

然后你需要 你的伴侣做些什么

to make things better,

才能让事情变得更好，

rather than what you resent.

而不是由你讨厌的东西开始。

Now here's an example of harsh versus softened startup.

现在举一个严厉开始与软化开始的例子。

Julie: Alright, so let's say you've been cooking dinner every single night

朱莉：好吧，假设去年你每天晚上

for the last year.

都在做晚饭。

Now you're a little tired of it.

现在你有点厌倦了。

Alright, so what would a harsh startup sound like?

那么一个严厉的开始听起来会是什么样子

"You're just too cheap to take me out to dinner!"

“你太抠门了， 连带我出去吃饭都做不到！”

Ugh!

啊！

Alright. A softened startup would sound more like this.

而一个软化开始听起来更像这样。

"I'm feeling frustrated..."

“我感到很沮丧...”

There's your feeling.

这是你的感觉。

"… about needing to cook dinner every night."

“... 关于每晚都要在家做晚饭。”

That's the situation. Hear all the "I's"?

情况就是这样。 听见所有的 “我” 了吗？

"Would you please take me out to dinner tonight?"

“今晚你能带我出去吃吗？”

That's your positive need.

这是你积极的需求。

John: At a workshop with 1,200 people,

约翰：在一个有 1200 人 参加的研讨会上

we posed that question to the audience and asked them to come up

我们向听众提出了这个问题， 并要求他们针对这种情况想出

with a softened startup for that situation.

一个软化开始

And one guy raised his hand, and he was competent, but very succinct.

一个人举起了手， 他很可以，但却非常直截了当。

He said, "I'm feeling hungry. I'm going out to dinner.

他说：“我饿了。 我要出去吃晚饭。

Would you like to come along?"

你想一起来吗？”

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Julie: Later on, we gave an example about sex.

朱莉：后来，我们举了 一个关于性的例子。

The entire audience went silent and very shy,

除了刚才那个人之外

except for this same guy.

所有观众都沉默 了，非常害羞。

So I had to call on him, right?

所以我就得问他，对吧？

So he went over the top a little bit,

于是他稍微想了一下，

and this is what he said for a softened startup:

他对软化开始是这样说的

"Honey, I'm feeling horny.

“亲爱的，我想要了。

I'm going to go upstairs and have sex.

我要上楼去做爱。

Would you like to come along?"

你想一起来吗？”

(Laughter and applause)

（笑声和掌声）

John: One finding that really shocked us in our research was this:

约翰：在我们的研究中真正震惊的 一个发现是所有关系冲突问题中有

69 percent of all relationship conflict problems are perpetual,

69％ 是永久性的，

which means that they never go away.

这意味着它们永远不会消失。

They never get fully solved.

它们永远无法得到完全解决。

And so we learn that conflict really mostly needs to be managed

因此，我们了解到， 冲突实际上主要需要管理

rather than solved.

而不是解决。

Julie: In our lab, the couples who came back year after year

朱莉：在我们的实验室里， 年复一年回来的夫妻

kept bringing up exactly the same issue,

即使在 20 年后也

even 20 years later.

也一直在提出一样的问题。

John: Right. So when we think about fighting right,

约翰：对。因此， 当我们考虑正确地吵架时，

whether talking about a perpetual problem or a solvable problem,

无论是谈论长期存在的问题 还是可以解决的问题，

what is the biggest mistake that the disasters of relationships make?

人际关系中灾难犯的最大错误是什么？

The answer is that they fight to win, which means somebody has to lose.

答案是他们为赢而吵架， 这意味着必须有人输。

What do the masters do instead?

相反，高手们在做什么？

They fight to understand.

他们为了理解而去吵。

Julie: Fighting to understand means taking a conversation about an issue

朱莉：努力理解意味着 针对一个问题进行对话，

and going much deeper

并更深入讨论

to understand what's beneath your partner's position on the issue.

来了解伴侣在这个问题上的立场 以及背后的原因。

That builds the connection.

这建立了联系。

John: At the core of fighting to understand

约翰：为了理解而吵架的核心

is asking one another a set of predesigned questions

是互相问一系列预先设计好的问题

that are designed to get at people's thoughts and feelings

旨在了解人们 在这个问题上的立场

behind their position on the issue.

背后的想法和感受。

They don't interrupt, and then they trade roles.

他们不打断彼此， 然后交换角色。

We call this “the dreams within conflict” conversation,

我们称之为 “吵架 中的梦想” 对话，

because it really helps people get at their thoughts and feelings

因为它确实可以帮助人们 了解自己的立场

behind their position

背后的想法和感受，

without feeling judged or attacked.

而不会感到受到批评或攻击。

Julie: There are six questions in all,

朱莉：总共有六个问题

and these questions unearth each person's values,

这些问题发掘出每个人 对这个问题的价值观、

feelings, background history

感受、背景历史

and ideal dream regarding the issue.

和对于这个问题理想的现实。

I'm going to give you an illustration using just two out of the six questions.

我将只用六个问题中的两个 给你举个例子。

So there was a couple who were really fighting

有一对夫妻

over whether or not to get a dog.

在争论是否要养狗。

OK.

好、

There was a woman who we will call Jenny,

有一位女士，我们叫她珍妮

who was adamantly opposed to getting a dog,

她坚决反对养狗，

but her partner, a woman who we will call Alison,

但她的伴侣， 一个我们称之为艾莉森的女人

was all for it.

全力支持养狗

So they decided to try the dreams within conflict conversation.

因此，他们决定在 冲突对话中尝试讨论梦想。

So when Alison asked Jenny,

因此，当艾莉森问珍妮

"Do you have some background or childhood history

“你的立场是否包含着一些

that's part of your position on this issue,"

你的背景或者童年史？”

she said ...

她说...

John: "Absolutely. When I was a kid,

约翰：“绝对有，我小时候，

I got chased and bitten by just about every dog

我几乎被我们附近的每只狗

in our neighborhood."

追赶和咬伤过。”

Julie: Wow.

朱莉：哇。

But the real understanding came with the dream question.

但是真正的理解 来自于关于梦想的问题。

"So what is your ideal dream here regarding this issue?"

“那么，关于这个问题， 你理想的是什么？”

John: "You know, if we don't have a dog, we're not tied down. We're not burdened.

约翰：“如果我们不养狗， 我们就不会被束缚。我们不会没有负担。

We're free to travel the world together and have adventures together.

我们可以自由地 一起环游世界，一起冒险。

That's what I really want."

这才是我真正想要的。”

Now listen to what Allison said

现在听听艾莉森在被问及童年史

when she was asked about the childhood history question.

她会说什么

She said ...

她说...

Julie: "You know, when I was a kid, I was all alone.

朱莉：“我小的时候， 我孤零零的一个人。

OK, so my golden retriever was my best friend.

我的金毛寻回犬 成为了我最好的朋友。

He really kept me from feeling totally alone."

他让我没有感到完全孤独。”

John: Hmm.

约翰：嗯。

And to the dreams question, she said ...

对于梦想的问题，她说...

Julie: "Hmm. You know, I see getting a dog as a practice run for having kids

朱莉：“我把养狗看 作是生孩子

and having a family.

和有家庭之后的预习。

I know that dogs and kids are a lot of responsibility,

我知道养狗和孩子负 有很大的责任，

but they both bring so much love with them into the family.

但它们都为家庭带来了很多爱

That's what I want."

这就是我想要的。”

John: So on the surface, this fight was about whether or not to get a dog,

约翰：所以从表面上看， 这个矛盾是关于是否要养狗，

but beneath the surface it was about leading a life of adventure and travel

但表面以下看，这是关于 过着冒险和旅行的生活，

versus staying home and raising a family.

而不是待在家里养家。

Without the dreams within conflict conversation,

如果没有在冲突中讨论梦想，

they never would have gotten to this level of understanding of one another.

他们就不可能达到这样的相互理解水平。

Julie: In an unpublished study,

朱莉：在一项未发表的研究中，

we found that 87 percent of 600 couples,

我们发现，在 600 对夫妇中，

many of whom were distressed,

有 87％

made major breakthroughs on gridlock conflicts

使用这样的工具 在解决僵局和冲突方面

using tools like this.

取得了重大突破。

So now if we look around our world,

因此，现在，如果我们环顾世界，

we see a world that is caught in win-lose battles

我们会看到一个陷入输赢之战

that are so polarized.

两极分化的世界

So ...

所以...

the same thing we're seeing in our couples

我们在同样陷入输赢僵局的夫妇

who are also locked in win-lose standoffs.

身上也看到了同样的情况。

We've never seen such furious,

我们以前从未见过如此激烈、

uncompromising fighting before.

毫不能妥协的冲突。

It's enough to fill you full of despair.

这足以让你充满绝望。

John: But ...

约翰：但是...

our research has taught us that there are science-based tools

我们的研究告诉我们， 有一些基于科学的工具

that can gentle down a conflict,

可以缓和冲突

scrape the escalations off the ceiling

讲火气降下

and lead people to a mutual understanding of one another's positions,

使人们相互理解 彼此的立场，

ending this win-lose mentality

结束这种追求输赢的心态

and leading a couple to a compromise that honors both people's dreams.

从而引导一对夫妇达成实现 双方梦想的妥协。

Julie: You all know that relationships

朱莉：你们都知道，人际关系

are the foundations of our communities,

是我们社区、

our society and our world.

社会和世界的基础。

If we can all work on learning how to fight right,

如果我们都能努力 学习如何正确地吵架，

even at home,

即使在家中也是如此，

there is hope we can build

我们就有希望， 通过一对又一对的夫妻

a more loving and peaceful world,

建设一个更加充满爱

one couple at a time.

与和平的世界。

John: Thank you.

约翰：谢谢。

Julie: Thank you.

朱莉：谢谢。

(Applause and cheers)

（掌声和欢呼）