Image by lookstudio on Freepik
How a straightforward adjustment in attitude and expectation might help avoid negative interactions when two people need to make decisions…
I have observed an interesting and, I believe, quite common relationship pattern that often causes conflict between people.
My good friend Dave and I get together often. Planning our visits usually involves a number of decisions, e.g. which meal of the day, which restaurant, eastside or westside of Manhattan, and more. When asked his preference, his usual response is “it doesn’t matter to me, “ or “I really don’t care,” thereby leaving all decisions up to me and me only.
Until recently, I found his responses unhelpful and, at times, even irritating. I would press Dave to declare a preference only to discover, time and time again, that a preference was something he simply did not have. I kept insisting that he declare a desire or a choice, but I now realize that all I was doing was creating conflict for my friend who was more than happy to let me decide where, when, and what time we would share a meal at the restaurant of my choice.
What I had been interpreting as unhelpful passivity was really not that at all. Our decision-making interactions are now easier and much more pleasant. I no longer feel that I am ‘burdened’ with sole responsibility for what are most often minor decisions. Further, I no longer feel that I am ‘calling all the shots’ with what I had believed were supposed to be joint decisions since my choices involved someone besides myself.
On a recent trip to visit friends in Canada, I had the opportunity to observe this interpersonal dynamic once removed. Kate is an extraordinary chef who loves to cook for her husband, Mark. She regularly asks him what he would like for dinner and always hears answers similar to Dave’s: “whatever you make will be fine with me,” or, “I really don’t care.” This infuriates Kate who, as I used to do with Dave, presses him to declare his preference, often angrily so. I asked if I might share a few comments that I thought might be helpful to them (I never want to give—or receive—unsolicited advice so I make sure that the ‘welcome mat’ is out before I enter into someone’s personal life). I conveyed my thoughts and recommendations to my friends by describing my experience with Dave.
When asked why it mattered to her that Mark rarely, if ever, stated a dinner preference, Kate, to her surprise, could not say why! Their relief was instant and pronounced and they both agreed that a chronic source of conflict between them may have just been permanently eliminated.
There is an important proviso here that needs to be noted and considered, however. It is illustrated by the following interaction at the conclusion of a therapy session with a couple I am treating:
Bruce: Where shall we go for dinner, honey?
Lilly: I don’t care. Whatever you want.
B: OK, let’s have Japanese food.
L: Nah, I don’t feel like sushi tonight.
B: Okay, how about Indian food?
L: I’m not in the mood for that, either.
B: Italian it is then.
L: Too fattening.
…and so it went. Notice the absence of alternative recommendations from Lilly. The basic principle here is that if you’re not going to vote, you are relinquishing your entitlement to a veto: no vote, no veto. Bruce and Lilly were able to agree to this principle and implement it, thereby eliminating one area of difficulty in their relationship communication.
It is always noteworthy when an understanding like the one described above has an impact that essentially eliminates a source of chronic conflict between people who have been replaying this interaction for—possibly—the entirety of their relationship. Sometimes change can be easy.
How wonderful it would be if all insights and new realizations could so easily inspire instant relationship improvement like this one did!
