My previous post addressed conflict styles and safe words. I spoke about calming things down before engaging in argument-type conversations. This article is going to introduce a skill that is of enormous value in good relationships: listening like a therapist.

Most people listen simply to respond. They’re not listening at all, but rather looking for a gap to interject. I encounter this all the time in my practice. In early sessions, before couples have learnt the rules of engagement, there’s often just a flurry of words and interruption and shouting over each other.

These couples have overlooked two fundamental elements of human emotional wiring:

We shout louder when we don’t feel heard.

And the corollary:

We settle down when we feel our partner has heard and understood (even if they don’t agree).

Relationship harmony is just never going to be achieved by shouting the loudest or having the stronger, more articulate argument. That’s high-school debating and playground politics. It’s not real life adulthood. In real life, human connection is superior to being right. You can be right, but still ‘get it wrong’.

I often have cause, in my psychology practice, to spend individual time with both members of a couple. I’m often amazed at how much each of their narratives makes perfect sense, no matter how much they are at odds with each other. And do you know why they make sense? They make sense because they are part of that person’s truth; their history, their personality, their anxieties and fears, and their dreams.  They may have particular sensitivities, because of past experiences. They may have particular aversions, because of childhood hurts. They may have particular idiosyncrasies, because of innate personality type. But the stories they tell, and why they tell them, are coherent.

And then their partner arrives, and tells an equally coherent – but opposing - story.

So what do I do, as a psychologist? I remind them that our journey is not about who’s right, but about their connection. I tell them, quite frankly, how both of them make perfect sense. And then I tell them that they don’t see this, because they’re listening only from their own frame of reference. Every judgement that they issue against their partner is informed by their own worldview and value set. “She is wrong, because I am right”. It’s also informed by the offence that they have personally taken, by being the object of their partner’s complaint.

So then I may suggest that, just for a moment, they each suspend their emotional participation in the problem, and imagine that they were their partner’s therapist. That, just for a while, they listen with a different ear. That they listen for the heart of the complaint, rather than being sensitised only to offence. They search out the story for the injured part… They affirm and validate that injured part, and then try to understand why that part was vulnerable to injury, in the first place. That they realise that their partner has a different experience to their own, and has different physical and emotional constitutions. And they listen to make sense of the person before them. Like a therapist, right..?

Because, when a person feels heard (not necessarily agreed with), they settle down.

And when they don’t, they get louder.

Trust me: it’s in your best interests to hear.

I remember a professor at university explaining that even seemingly irrational behaviour has a core that makes sense to the person exhibiting it. We misunderstand because we imply our own rationality, rather than joining the dots in the other person’s experience.

So how do you do it?

1. I always suggest to my couples that, when they are having a heated conversation, that they make use of a “talking thingie” (whatever thingie avails itself, in the moment). Whoever holds the thingie, holds the exclusive right to speak.
2. The “complainant” in any scenario holds the thingie, speaks first, and speaks to his/her heart’s content about the situation that has upset them.
3. The partner does nothing but listens like a therapist; listening to really hear.

4. When the speaker is finished, s/he announces this, and hands the thingie to their partner.
5. The partner does not get to respond, immediately, with his/her opinion or counter-argument, but rather has to paraphrase back what was just said. As a psychologist, I spend much of my day checking my understanding with my patients… Ensuring that I have heard them, and ensuring that they feel heard. I do not assume that they feel the way I would, in any given situation. Or that their reactions and thoughts would mimic mine. I check

And this is what I suggest that they do, with each other, in this phase of a discussion. And I suggest that you do it too.

This last piece, if done skilfully, should, for the most part, dissolve much of the angry energy initially triggered. What I’ve implied, but not stated, until now, is this: your partner can be offended, even if you were not intentionally offensive. Their offence is still valid, but you are not wrong. But neither are they; they clearly have a vulnerability and sensitivity to a particular behaviour of yours, and it’s your task as their partner to be aware of this.

The goal is to unpack it together, and together to mine for the meaning. Remember: it’s not about right or wrong; it’s about connection. And you’ll connect when you understand, and you’ll understand when you hear. And the name of the game, as always, is:

• Choosing to believe the best about your partner (giving the benefit of the doubt).
• Believing that your partner has your best interests at heart.
• Choosing not to become defensive, when a complaint is raised. It’s possible that you are not at fault, but it is nonetheless important for you to understand where your partner is coming from, and validate that.