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

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: 楊佳穎 118-30

Julie Gottman: So most of us think

茱莉‧戈特曼：大多數人認為

that fighting is bad for romantic relationships, right?

吵架對愛情關係有害，對嗎？

How many people do you know who say,

你認識的人當中有多少人會說：

「嘿，前幾天我吵了 一場很棒的架。」

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

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

「哦，是啊。我和我的伴侶 老是在吵而且我們超快樂的。」

and we're super happy."

約翰‧戈特曼：五十二年前， 我們把愛情放到顯微鏡下。

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

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

茱莉和我創立了 戈特曼研究所和愛情實驗室，

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

我們把關係研究 變成了我們的終身事業。

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

我們的研究告訴我們， 吵架對關係有益，而非有害。

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

茱：在我們的實驗室中，

我們發現幾乎所有伴侶都會吵架。

事實上，

In fact, how they fight in the first three minutes

他們在前三分鐘用什麼方式吵架，

predicts with 96 percent accuracy

能以 96% 的正確率預測

not only how the rest of the conversation will go,

接下來的談話會如何發展，

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

以及這段關係六年後

會如何變化。

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

天啊，我知道，這很嚇人，不是嗎？

因此，

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

決定關係成功與否的， 不是我們是否會吵架，

it's how we fight.

而是我們怎麼吵架。

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

約：事實上，我們的研究發現

有些吵架

actually increases connection, and even improves our sex life.

實際上能增進連結， 甚至改善我們的性生活。

So how do we fight right?

所以要怎麼吵架才對？

Julie: Early on, John and his colleague Robert Levinson

茱：早期，約翰 和他的同事羅勃‧萊文森

in their lab simply watched couples interacting.

在他們的實驗室中 單純只是觀察伴侶的互動。

Sounds simple, but nobody had ever done that before.

聽起來很簡單，但之前 從來沒有人這樣做過。

約：隨時間推移，有三千對 伴侶來過實驗室。

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

As they were being videotaped,

當他們被錄影時， 他們穿戴著監控器來測量

they wore monitors that measured such things as respiration,

比如呼吸、

heart rate and stress hormones.

心率和壓力荷爾蒙。

And then they had a conflict discussion

然後他們會進行一次有衝突的討論，

and they talked about the events of their day.

談論他們那天發生的事情。

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

茱：之後，

在每次談話時他們都要 為他們的感受評分，

before returning home.

然後才回家。

They would return to the lab every year or two

每一、兩年他們會回到 實驗室重複同樣的程序，

and repeat the same procedure,

and some were followed for as long as 20 years.

有些伴侶被追蹤了二十年之久。

John: Videotapes were synchronized to the physiological data,

約：錄下的影片 和生理資料做了同步，

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

接著，透過分割畫面的影片，

我們會一秒一秒地測量 伴侶的言語、情緒、

we measured the couples' words, emotions, facial expressions

面部表情，

and physiology year after year.

以及生理狀況，年復一年。

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

茱：隨著時間經過，

我們看到有些伴侶分居或離婚了。

Some remained together unhappily,

有些還生活在一起但並不快樂，

while others stayed together happily.

其他的則快樂地生活在一起。

What made the difference between the couples who were successful

是什麼造成這兩者的差別：

成功的伴侶和不成功的伴侶，

and the couples who were unsuccessful,

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

或我們所謂的大師和大失？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The couples in our studies were all ages, sexual orientations

我們研究中的伴侶

有各種年齡層，

性取向和種族也很多樣化。

and ethnically diverse.

After a while, just by watching a couple,

一段時間後，

我們只要觀看一對伴侶，就能預測

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

接下來會發生什麼事， 且預測正確率有 90%，

what would happen in their relationship six years later.

六年後他們的關係會變成什麼樣子。

Which meant we never got invited to dinner anymore.

這就表示，不再有人 想約我們去吃晚餐了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

約：我們發現三種主要的吵架風格。

「衝突避免者」只是認同 彼此有不同的意見。

Conflict avoiders who just agree to disagree

and would rather wash the dishes than argue a point.

寧願去洗碗也不要就某件事做爭論。

I'm a conflict avoider.

我就是衝突避免者。

Julie: (Scoffs) He is. Believe me.

茱：（嘲笑聲）沒錯。相信我。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

「衝突承認者」，

Conflict validators would bring up an issue

這種人會用平靜表達 自身感受的方式來提出議題，

by expressing their feelings calmly

and then jumping immediately into problem solving.

接著馬上開始解決問題。

想想你最有耐心的幼稚園老師。

So think of your most patient kindergarten teacher.

Then there were the conflict volatiles.

然後還有「衝突不穩者」。

They would express their feelings intensely and very passionately.

他們會非常強烈且激動地 表達自己的感受。

Notice I say, just fine, not bad.

注意我說的是：

還可以，不錯。

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

接著他們會馬上試圖 證明自己是對的，

and their partners were wrong.

而他們的伴侶錯了。

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

好，這回想像球場邊 有個非常激動的籃球教練。

Or me. I'm a volatile.

或者我，我就是不穩者。

John: And some partners had different styles of fighting

約：有些伴侶在吵架時 會用不同的風格。

from one another.

But the good news, we discovered

但好消息是，我們發現

that whether you have those three styles of fighting

無論你們有上述三種吵架風格

or you're mismatched,

或你們不匹配，

you can have a successful relationship

你們都有機會擁有成功的關係，

as long as the ratio of positive to negative responses

只要能在有衝突的討論中，

讓正面回應和負面回應的比率

during the conflict discussion,

it was at least five to one.

至少是五比一。

And examples of positive responses were

正面回應的例子包括

head nods, affection, interest, shared humor

點頭、情愛、興趣、

共享的幽默，

and words like "fair enough."

以及「這樣說也對啦」這種話。

Julie: OK, so what about the negatives?

茱：好，那負面的呢？

Were all the negatives equally negative?

所有的負面回應

負面的程度都相同嗎？

不是。

No.

There were four big predictors of relationship demise

有四個重要因子可以 用來預測關係的破裂，

that we called the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

我們稱為《啟示錄》的四騎士。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Alright. The first one was criticism.

好。第一個是批評。

And criticism means blaming a problem

批評意味著

將問題歸咎於

on a personality flaw of your partner.

伴侶的個性缺陷。

For example, if you walked into a messy kitchen

例如，

如果你走進亂七八糟的廚房， 而你想要指責對方時，

and you wanted to be critical,

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

你會說：

「我的天，這個地方真是一團亂。

Why are you such a slob?"

你為什麼這麼懶？」

How do you answer that?

你會怎麼回應？

John: The second horseman is contempt.

約：第二個騎士是輕視。

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

輕視就像批評，但帶有一絲優越感。

So with contempt, you include scorn, disgust, sarcasm

輕視的表現包含不屑、

厭惡、諷刺

and nasty insults like,

以及惡毒的侮辱，如：

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

「你真的很沒路用。 我當初為什麼會跟你結婚？」

Julie: The third horseman is defensiveness.

茱：第三個騎士是防衛心。

That's the most common one.

這是最常見的。

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

此時我們會表現得 像是無辜的受害者：

"I did too pay the bills!"

「我也有付帳單！」

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

或者，我們會反擊：

「哦，是嗎？嗯， 但你沒有按時付帳單。」

John: The fourth Horseman is stonewalling.

約：第四個騎士是拒絕溝通。

When we shut down completely

此時我們完全封閉自己，

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

我們甚至沒有對說話者表現出 任何我們有在聽的跡象。

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

我們拒絕交流，實際上 就是把自己和伴侶隔離開來。

Hmm.

嗯。

Julie: Hmm.

茱：嗯。

The fourth is a bad one,

第四個很不好，

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

但還有另一個，可能與它有關：

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

叫作情緒淹沒，或戰逃僵反應。

So a partner in the middle of a conversation

也就是說，在談話進行中，

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

伴侶可能就坐在那裡， 外表看起來完全平靜，

但內在，他們的心率飆升，

but inside, their heart rates

are rocketing up above 100 beats a minute.

衝破每分鐘一百下。

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

約：他們覺得正在被老虎攻擊。 （茱莉發出老虎吼聲）

Julie: (Growls)

John: But it's only our partner.

但那只是我們的伴侶。

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

當我們被情緒淹沒時， 我們無法清楚思考，

we can’t listen very well

也無法做好傾聽，

and we certainly can't creatively problem-solve.

肯定也無法用創意解決問題。

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

茱：當你被情緒淹沒時，

這點非常重要：

You stop immediately and call for a break,

你要馬上停下來，

要求休息一下。

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

接著說

你何時會回來繼續談話。

That's really important.

這部分很重要。

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

在休息期間，

不要去想剛才的吵架。

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

反之，只需要自我舒緩一下，

然後在指定的時間返回。

When you're physiologically calm,

當你在生理面上平靜下來，

you look like a totally different person

你看起來就會像是 一個完全不一樣的人，

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

此時會更容易理性溝通， 也能把傾聽做好。

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

用對的方式和用錯的方式 吵架的伴侶有什麼差別？

The couples who are really struggling and distressed

對此很煎熬又苦惱的伴侶，

may bring up an issue

可能會在談話的 前三分鐘談到一個議題，

in that first three minutes of the conversation

with something we call harsh startup,

而且是用我們所謂 激烈開場的方式提出來，

which almost always includes criticism or contempt.

幾乎都少不了批評或輕視。

用對的方式吵架的伴侶，

The couples who fight right will bring up the issue

會用我們所謂的 緩和開場來談這個議題。

with what we call softened startup.

John: So what's softened startup?

約：什麼是緩和開場？

Softened startup consists of a bunch of "I" statements

緩和開場包含很多 「我」的陳述句，

that describe you and not your partner at all.

用來描述你自己，而非你的伴侶。

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

先講你的感受，

接著描述目前的情況，

再來說明你需要你的伴侶 做什麼才能改善這個情況，

and then what you do need from your partner

to make things better,

rather than what you resent.

而不是講你討厭什麼。

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

舉個例子來說明 激烈開場 v.s. 緩和開場。

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

茱：好，假設你 每天晚上都會做晚餐，

for the last year.

去年一整年都這樣。

Now you're a little tired of it.

現在你有點厭倦了。

Alright, so what would a harsh startup sound like?

激烈的開場會是什麼樣子？

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

「你太小氣了， 都不帶我出去吃飯！」

Ugh!

呸！

Alright. A softened startup would sound more like this.

而緩和的開場比較像是這樣：

"I'm feeling frustrated..."

「我覺得很沮喪……」

There's your feeling.

這是在講你的感覺。

「……因為每晚都得做晚餐。」

"… about needing to cook dinner every night."

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

那就是現在的情況。 有注意到句中都是「我」嗎？

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

「能請你今晚帶我出去吃飯嗎？」

That's your positive need.

這是你的正面需求。

John: At a workshop with 1,200 people,

約：在一場一千兩百人的工作坊上，

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

我們向觀眾提出了這個問題，

請他們針對這個情況 提出緩和的開場方式。

with a softened startup for that situation.

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

有個人舉手了，

他很有能力，但說得非常簡潔。

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

他說：「我餓了。

我要出去吃飯，你想一起來嗎？」

Would you like to come along?"

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

茱：後來，我們舉了 一個關於性的例子。

The entire audience went silent and very shy,

所有觀眾都靜下來，非常害羞，

except for this same guy.

除了剛才那個人。

So I had to call on him, right?

我只好再請他回答，對吧？

So he went over the top a little bit,

他有一點點過火了，

and this is what he said for a softened startup:

他的緩和開場是這樣的：

"Honey, I'm feeling horny.

「親愛的，我現在慾火中燒， 我要上樓去做愛，

I'm going to go upstairs and have sex.

Would you like to come along?"

你想一起來嗎？」

(Laughter and applause)

（笑聲和掌聲）

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

約：我們的研究中 有一項發現讓我們很震驚：

69 percent of all relationship conflict problems are perpetual,

關係衝突問題有 69% 都是永久性的，

which means that they never go away.

也就是說，這些問題一直存在，

They never get fully solved.

從來沒有完全解決。

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

因此，我們了解到，

「衝突」最需要的是被管理，

rather than solved.

而不是被解決。

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

茱：在我們的實驗室裡， 每年都回來的伴侶

kept bringing up exactly the same issue,

都不斷提出相同的問題，

even 20 years later.

甚至二十年後。

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

約：是的。所以， 在思考用對的方式吵架時，

whether talking about a perpetual problem or a solvable problem,

不論是談論永久性的問題 或可解決的問題，

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

關係「大失」會犯的 最大錯誤是什麼？

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

答案是：他們吵架是為了要贏，

那就表示有人會輸。

What do the masters do instead?

換成「大師」會怎麼做？

They fight to understand.

他們吵架是為了了解。

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

茱：為了了解而吵架

意味著針對某個議題進行對話，

and going much deeper

並更深入地

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

去了解伴侶在此議題的 立場背後還有什麼。

That builds the connection.

這樣會建立連接。

John: At the core of fighting to understand

約：為了了解而吵架的核心，

is asking one another a set of predesigned questions

是去問彼此一組預設的問題，

這些問題是設計來了解別人

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

對於議題的立場， 其背後的想法和感受。

behind their position on the issue.

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

他們不打斷對方，接著會交換角色。

We call this “the dreams within conflict” conversation,

我們稱之為「衝突中的夢想」對話，

because it really helps people get at their thoughts and feelings

因為它真的能幫助大家了解

他們立場背後的想法和感受，

behind their position

without feeling judged or attacked.

且不會感到被評斷或攻擊。

Julie: There are six questions in all,

茱：一共有六個問題，

and these questions unearth each person's values,

這些問題能發掘出 每個人在這個議題上的

價值觀、感受、

feelings, background history

背景經歷，以及理想中的夢想。

and ideal dream regarding the issue.

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

我會用這六個問題中的 兩個來舉例說明。

So there was a couple who were really fighting

有一對伴侶，

她們為了要不要養狗吵起來。

over whether or not to get a dog.

OK.

好。

There was a woman who we will call Jenny,

其中一名女子，我們稱她為珍妮，

who was adamantly opposed to getting a dog,

她堅決反對養狗，

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

但她的女性伴侶， 我們稱她為艾莉森，

was all for it.

則全力支持。

So they decided to try the dreams within conflict conversation.

因此，她們決定嘗試 「衝突中的夢想」對話。

So when Alison asked Jenny,

所以，當艾莉森問珍妮：

"Do you have some background or childhood history

「你有沒有什麼背景或童年經歷，

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

和你在這個議題上的立場有關係？」

she said ...

她說……

John: "Absolutely. When I was a kid,

約：「當然有，

我小時候，鄰坊的每隻狗 幾乎都會追我、咬我。」

I got chased and bitten by just about every dog

in our neighborhood."

Julie: Wow.

茱：哇。

But the real understanding came with the dream question.

但，真正的了解發生在 問出夢想問題之後。

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

「那麼，針對這個議題， 你理想中的夢想是什麼？」

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

約：「你知道，若我們沒有養狗， 我們就不會被綁住，沒有負擔。

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

我們可以很自由地 一起環遊世界，一起冒險。

That's what I really want."

那是我真正想要的。」

Now listen to what Allison said

現在聽聽艾莉森怎麼回答

when she was asked about the childhood history question.

關於童年經驗的問題。

She said ...

她說……

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

茱：「你知道， 我小時候都是孤單一人，

OK, so my golden retriever was my best friend.

所以我的黃金獵犬是我最好的朋友。

He really kept me from feeling totally alone."

因為有牠，我才不覺得 自己是完全孤獨的。」

John: Hmm.

約：嗯。而她對 夢想問題的回答是……

And to the dreams question, she said ...

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

茱：「嗯。我認為養狗

是在練習準備生兒育女

and having a family.

和成立家庭。

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

我知道狗和孩子都是很大的責任，

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

但他們都能將好多愛帶進家庭中。

That's what I want."

這就是我想要的。」

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

約：所以，表面上， 她們吵的是要不要養狗，

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

但在表面下，

重點在於要過著冒險和旅行的生活，

versus staying home and raising a family.

還是要待在家裡養育家庭。

Without the dreams within conflict conversation,

若沒有「衝突中的夢想」對話，

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

她們永遠不可能對彼此 有這種程度的了解。

Julie: In an unpublished study,

茱：在一項未出版的研究中，

we found that 87 percent of 600 couples,

我們研究了六百對伴侶，

他們多半都很苦惱，而有 87%

many of whom were distressed,

在僵持不下的衝突上有很大的突破，

made major breakthroughs on gridlock conflicts

他們靠的就是像這樣的工具。

using tools like this.

So now if we look around our world,

所以現在如果我們看看 我們周遭的世界，

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

我們會看到這個世界已經陷入

爭輸贏的鬥爭中，

that are so polarized.

這些鬥爭非常兩極化。

So ...

所以……

the same thing we're seeing in our couples

我們在我們研究的伴侶身上 也看到同樣的現象，

who are also locked in win-lose standoffs.

他們也被困在爭輸贏的對峙中。

We've never seen such furious,

我們以前從未見過

如此激烈、不妥協的吵架。

uncompromising fighting before.

It's enough to fill you full of despair.

這足以讓你充滿絕望。

John: But ...

約：但是……

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

我們的研究告訴我們， 有一些以科學為基礎的工具

that can gentle down a conflict,

能緩和衝突，

scrape the escalations off the ceiling

把不斷惡化的情況壓下來，

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

並讓人可以相互理解對方的立場，

ending this win-lose mentality

終結這種爭輸贏的心態，

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

引導伴侶達成妥協， 兼顧雙方的夢想。

Julie: You all know that relationships

茱：各位都知道，關係

are the foundations of our communities,

是我們的社區、我們的社會，

our society and our world.

和我們的世界的基礎。

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

如果大家都能努力學習

如何用對的方式吵架，

even at home,

包括在家中的吵架，

there is hope we can build

那就有希望，

我們有機會可以建立 一個充滿愛與和平的世界，

a more loving and peaceful world,

one couple at a time.

從一次一對伴侶做起。

John: Thank you.

約：謝謝。

Julie: Thank you.

茱：謝謝。

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲及歡呼）