As a couple, we are committed to being aware of dichotomous thinking that leads to differences of opinion and to practicing more flexible thinking. We agree that none of us are the sole owner of the truth and that we will both have our opinion on business. We are committed to seeing the other person`s point of view, even if he (perhaps, above all) is radically different from ours. I wrote elsewhere (in “Couples – Stop fighting for money!”) that there is an inevitable conflict if you are a saver (whether by nature or conditioning) and that your partner is a donor (or vice versa). Such differences are common and, in the worst case, can be catastrophic for a relationship. In addition, these preferences are not really changeable. So what has to happen is that each of you explains your perspective on money, without at the same time trying to invalidate the other`s. Indeed, as contrasting as every point of view may be, it has its own subjective validity. The next step, of course, is to negotiate a mutually acceptable compromise. While finding the best way to meet “in the middle” will probably not seem ideal for any of them, as long as you can come – inappropriately – to accept the personal legitimacy of your partner`s monetary orientation, then every compromise you get will confirm the viability of your relationship (i.e.. Your ability to work together to maintain and even increase harmony, trust and goodwill between you. “Based on literature and the exploration of relationships, the idea of contract is not a way to stay in love,” Gottman told Business Insider.
“On the contrary.” I found your site by a reply you left about an article about the thought of Dichotomous (DT) by William Hambleton Bishop. I love your section on Dialectical Thinking Agreement. I have given it a lot of thought (DichotomousThiniking.com), and I suggest that instead of proposing flexible thinking as an alternative to DT, we propose targeted or problem-based thinking. I agree that flexibility is a real opposite, but many people will be afraid of being too flexible. The question is, “How flexible should we be?” I`m sure you`ll agree that DT isn`t always bad, it would be too dichotomous. I suggest that DT be the most problematic when it disrupts problem solving or goals. If we start with the question “What is the objective/problem?” gives us a framework in which we can judge how much flexibility vs. dichotomy is. I hope to encourage a discussion on TD issues, and I would like to hear your ideas. We have both discovered that clear and conscious agreements with people in our lives and with each other create more love and attachment. We are sure that they can also be in your life.
For more information on communicating for connection and agreement creation, see www.StopTalkingonEggshells.com I highly recommend that you review and update your relationship agreement regularly. I noticed that somewhere between 3-12 months is ideal. You don`t want to let him down so long that it becomes obsolete and forgotten in its insignificance… but you probably don`t want to repeat it that often (i.e.