SEVEN THINGS RELATIONSHIP COUNSELORS USUALLY WON'T TELL YOU
By Bill Cottringer
Now I realize that this article is going to rile a few people in the relationship counseling profession, but I will at least try to speak the truth gently and kindly. I have been there, done that and paid my hard-earned dues and do think I deserve to speak with well-intentioned authority from substantial personal and professional experience. Here are seven things relationship counselors should consider telling you outright. But they may not for some reason or another. Maybe this will make some of them uncomfortable enough to improve the flow of the truth fountain.
1. If you need to come to a relationship counselor to save your relationship it is probably already lost.
When a relationship gets so bad (addictions, infidelity, incompatibility, value conflicts, terrible communication, etc.) that both people agree to try the last minute desperation ploy of being counseled, the relationship has probably already gone past the point of no return without either of them seeing that reality. The couple really just wants a miracle or more likely, to prove that the relationship is as unfixable as it feels because it is.
This type of counseling is more separation or divorce counseling in reality. Besides all this, time spent in pre-relationship counseling, relationship enrichment retreats or reading and discussing sensible relationship self-help books would be time better spent. There really isn't any better advice than the many books that are already available, if read in time, before things get so hopeless. Anticipating likely relationship problems ahead of time is always the ounce of prevention that outweighs a pound of cure.
2. If you have a bad relationship and think you can have someone else make it better you are wrong.
Not even the best relationship counselors can fix someone else who doesn't know what is broken within his or herself. Often bad relationships involve one person who is convinced the other person is mostly at fault and that is in fact frequently the case. What magician can resolve that dispute? None. One person needs to get back to a starting point to be more ready for joint counseling. And during that process the other person may see the light and be done with it, needing more quality than they are likely to get.
When two people don't agree upon what is wrong, no relationship counselor will be able to make them see the truth. Bad relationships were probably not meant to be and usually involve a poor mate selection process—not getting the most important things you want, need and expect in a relationship. And sometimes people are just moved together on the chess board of life to teach each other some uncomfortable lesson that they only realize when permanently apart. In the end, though, it is only you who can make you right and if you are too wrong, the other person may not have the patience to stick it out.
3. If you think you will be happy if the other person gets fixed, you are mistaken.
Another person can not make you happy, only unhappy. Think about that. The only way you can be happy is when you focus on yourself and you start making progress at fixing your own faults and becoming more likeable and lovable with the right attitudes and behaviors that lead to happiness. The more you wait for someone else to make you happy by fixing their faults, the longer you will remain unhappy.
In the best relationships, neither person wastes time worrying about the other person's faults, shortcomings and problems because they are each too busy being the best person they can be and loving and accepting each other as they are, not as they want each other to be. They are enjoying being happy about being happy.
4. What starts out badly will likely never finish well.
Simply put, many relationships start out for the wrong reasons or in the wrong way. How can two people who have different definitions and expectations about "love" and get something much different, be turned around? Not likely, at least not without major personality and character transformation which may take as much time to undo as it took to get that way. Incompatibilities in the beginning will just worsen.
The common mistake many of us make in relationships is to quit too soon or to not know when to quit. If there was something wrong with the honeymoon, anything afterwards is likely to go down hill. That may be a dismal way of looking at things, but sometimes the truth will set you free after the disappointment and hurt fade. The best use of effort is in making sure something starts out right, rather than wasting time on trying to build a house on a weak foundation.
5. It's not what you perceive to be happening in the relationship that is important as much as your possible errors of interpretation.
We are so hung up in the idea of perceptions being reality, that we can't see through to what we are really looking at. I say BS to this nonsense. Perceptions can run the gamut of being inches close to accuracy (5%) to miles away with total inaccuracy (95%). It is not at all what you think you see that is important, but rather how you feel about what you think you know you saw that really matters. In other words, the personal editing process.
Consider these two different scenarios: First, Jane thinks she worries too much and Bill worries about Jane's excessive worrying and starts worrying about his own worrying. As an alternative, Jane still thinks she worries too much but Bill thinks she should try to change the things which she worries most about—the things she can change—and then try to let go of the rest. The positive perceptual editing takes infinite, uncontrollable worry to an effective 'control the controllables' action. Which is going to help the relationship improve?
6. Relationship repair is dependent upon mutual agreement of three questions.
There are three basic questions which have to have committed agreement by both parties and no relationship counselor can orchestrate this agreement. The questions are: (1) Can this relationship work? (2) Do both parties equally want the relationship to work? (3) Are both people willing to do whatever it takes to make the relationship work?
The irony of this all is that these questions are all answered as committed promises in the traditional wedding vowels. Maybe all relationships should start with commitment to such a covenant or at least a more accurate understanding of the process? Such questions involve conscious choices that only the involved people can make and carry out, without knowing the possible obstacles ahead of time. But I suspect that the hesitant lack of commitment to the choices, because of anticipating potential problems with undesirable outcomes, has more to do with the relationship failure, than the obstacles and problems themselves.
7. The best and happiest relationships are grounded in religious spirituality not psychological spirituality.
This last one is sure to cause a spirited discussion for and against Focus On The Family and similar relationship philosophies. But, life is all about finding purpose and living the good life and you can't do that until you learn to tune out your psychological conscience (the 95% mental ramblings and personalized feelings) and tune into your moral conscience (the silent voice within that reveals the 5% truth, in simple right-wrong categories).
Spiritual experience is merely unguided experience without meaning unless it has wisely guided theological rules. Sure it is natural to rebel against anything that imposes rules that make you uncomfortable, but you simply cannot escape the reality that life has rules and when you follow the rules you succeed and when you don't, you don't. It really is a whole lot simpler than we make ti.
It seems to me that psychology, religion and spirituality should put aside their petty differences and join their fractured wisdom for better, more whole outcomes. The relationship failure epidemic is worse than the Avian flue predictions. Relationships could use all the help they can get. Talking the truth is always a good start.
William Cottringer, Ph.D. is President of Puget Sound Security in Bellevue, WA. He is author of Getting More By Doing Less, You Can Have Your Cheese & Eat It Too, and The Bow-Wow Secrets. He can be reached at (425) 454-5011 or bcottringer@pssp.net
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 75
7. The best and happiest relationships are grounded in religious spirituality not psychological spirituality.
Bondage, at great cost.
-----
We have known for generations marriage rarely works well for both partners. It is will past the time that we should be focusing on raising the children and admit that MOST relationships will fail.
And unless both partners are on the same path spiritually with the same end goal--to live a good life and help others do that too--that the quality of the relationship won't be equally enjoyable. That is about the only "truth" I am comfortable standing behind.
I don't think freedom from bondage occurs by rebelling against rules because that is just another form of bondage--bondage to the illusion of freedom. make any sense? Hard to explain because it is pure experience the hard way.
I now refuse to use the word. We should be instead, focusing on what it means to be human, and what are our natural and good human characteristics. (These will be universal to all humans.)
It is very difficult to get away from trying to understand true spirituality because it is too important in providing the real success clues of life. I will always have some degree of doubt about what I believe to be true in spirituality, as well as psychology, and I can only feel comfortable with the knowledge I affirm with other people with who i respect for their wisdom and understanding.
I just define spirituality as everything I believe about life and hereafter that I can't prove, but just seem to know. And when I can apply this stuff to help people feel happier and be more successful, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. I am not going to shy away from a world that has great potential even when it is heavy laden with negative connotations. Learn, grow and improve!
What I notice about spiritualism is that it always fails those who believe in it.
Never mind William.
There will be no reconciliation of our thoughts.
Thank you for responding. I am being entirely bratty about the very idea that something as ephemeral as spiritual/spiritualism can be considered useful as a tool for healing fractured relationships.
You are speaking to a person who defines herself as a religious free zone, and who often says "I live a fact based life."
So where would theology or a god fit in to such a thought pattern?
Naturally, I am totally and wholly consumed with the idea/question
What does it mean to be as fully human as possible?
Also naturally, to me, I believe we (humans) are good, but mightily corrupted by our religions and cultures.
By the way I have never, ever uncovered one single fact that didn't involve a huge leap of faith from however the information came in to the degree of certainty I ascribed to it. Besides that it is not really what you know to be true but how you feel about it. Even optical illusions make mockery of the facts that our eyes tell us.
Religion and spirituality deserve the bad reputations they worked themselves into by overstating the truth of facts and denying that in the end it is ALWAYS a leap of faith between an unfactual fact and a proximate factual fact.
Actuall I equate "facts" with truths and I believe all basic truths are part of life's game plan authored by God for us. Whatever you believe, you are meant to believe until you aren't. Then you believe something else. The things that linger through these transitions may be the "facts" you refer to as well as the "truths" I talk about. Make sense?
Spirituality has ZIP to do with this. It is all about making a relationship work. Ours has been working for 46 years. Fuck spirituality.
Congratulation on your 46 years and yes you do not need to be religious or spiritual to have a good marriage. How did you acquire your set of moral values?
William,you are saying that a relationship where two people have the same moral values has a better chance of success.
I have in my experience noticed that many people enter relationships for all kinds of reason that have nothing to do with love.
I believe love is not something you feel but something you will yourself to do. i also believe that if men and women gave themselves the time to get to know eachother in all kinds of circumnstance before they get intimate, there is a better chance of discovering if the characters of the two sort match. The fact that people get in a intimate relationship, the honey moon period, before they really know one another has caused the divorce rate to be what it is. In addition the relative ease to obtain a divorce at a time where people lack the moral strength to be loyal to their spouses has made it even worse. I believe the majority of divorce fail because basically we lack moral conviction and character to stick it out for better or for worse. There are just as many divorce among christians so I am not sure if being a believer helps to heal relationships. Let's face it many of us are self centered and selfish, and pursue our desires at the expense of a long term relationship.
It appears that you are right overall. Well written William.
"...7. The best and happiest relationships are grounded in religious spirituality not psychological spirituality...."
"....but most relationships fail because they aren't grounded in real spirituality--the type that comes from disciplined study and careful discernment of biblical wisdom, aka the practical "rules" that can guide you through life with minimal bruises, broken bones and bleeding...."
Which is it??? "Religious Spirituality" & "biblical wisdom", or "Psychological Spirituality" & "the practical rules that can guide you through life with minimal bruises..."?
I have seen some absolutely disasterous "biblically based" marital advice (the example I have in mind was around the submission of women to husbands in all things). Not to mention that the divorce rate among Evangelical christians is little different than the rest of society.
And Christian good relation advice I have seen would have been equally valid without Jesus--biblical verses do give a cloak of authority, and there is wisdom to be found there--but passages from the Koran, or Confusousism, or etc could have served the purpose equally well.
My conclusion is that spiritual relationship advice "works" because the part that "works" is the psychological spirituality. The religious part is window dressing, metaphor, and an appeal to authority (all important roles, but not fundamental).
Lee asks how I acquired my set of moral values. From my parents, mainly, I suppose, and they were nonbelievers too. There seems to be a feeling among religious people that religious belief is required for a person to have a "moral compass." I adamantly disagree with that notion. I believe society could get along just fine without any religion at all. I realize, of course, that I will never get an opportunity to prove that.
:::::s i g h
I don't want to argue with you, Bill, but I am perplexed by this remark. "Believer" in what? I am a believer in living a sensible life within the laws and generally within the moral codes of society. I say "generally" because some of the "morals" that religious organizations promote are outrageous, in my opinion. But I am not a believer in spirituality, or the existence of God or any other supernatural entity. I consider myself a Secular Humanist.
Most Christians I know and some hold advanced university degrees,
thinks secular to be a dirty word, and they know humanist is a sinful state. (wink)
I think secular activity between consenting adults is still legal...at least for the moment.
I like that quote. Did you mean Thomas Aquinas?
1. Being a newspaper headline.
2. Your mother knowing.
3. Your employer hearing.
Or if that don't work...then try this standard: Make the choice that may be most difficult now, but will give me the most benefit and gain in the long run. Beyond that there is always, Utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number), higher authority (law, religion), The Golden Rule, or pragmatism (what costs the least and gets the best results with the least side effects).
Are you implying that I am not capable of making morally correct choices?
The belief is that God has revealed himself to all in the conflicts of our moral experience. We have a sense of obligation to do good and spurn evil as if we knew that ultimately we will have to answer to someone.
Of course this does not prove God's existence or can be verified by rational deduction.
Bill, I was just reading 2 pages describing morality, universal,descriptive,relativistic..etc. It would be nice if everyone had a good set of parents with common sense who disciplined and loved their children in to adulthood...too much to ask?
Morality is not a universally understood word..or interpreted the same way on everything.
I do agree that when parents are very clear and consistent in teaching right vs. wrong vlaues, attitudes and behaviors, and take the time to explain their reasoning, and then hold to the extablished consequences of violations, they have a much better chance of succeeding at their parebting role and having responsible, happy and contributing children. Of course this is where all the pschological conscience distortions of the truth and our human weaknessed come into play to in our imperfect world that we just have to keep working on to make more perfect. Bill C.
Can we ever get away from the very basic notion of good vs. evil? Are we not just attempting to do as much good as we can for whatever reasons we give and avoid doing as much evil as we can fight given our broken humanness, also for whatever reasons we give? And you can't ever "prove" the absolute correctness of any source or process to arrive at the conclusions we come up with. It always goes from as many facts as you can gather to a leap of faith that they are true, expecially the process you used to acquire them. Bill C.
Some of the higher apes have been observed to act kindly toward their "fellow man." Other animals cooperate for the group welfare...wolves and lions come to mind. They could be said to be practicing "moral" behavior, I suppose.
It seems to me that human codes of behavior...obeying laws, helping neighbors or friends, protecting and supporting family members...could all be learned behavior patterns developed over the last hundred thousand years, since modern man evolved. This is what works. This is what has allowed us to survive. Like all animals on earth, we experiment...if it fails, we die, but others try different things and survive. So their behavior patterns are passed on to succeeding generations...and become laws and informal codes of behavior...morals, if you like.
I don't see a need to introduce any spirituality to explain this process. Religions may well have developed to enforce these codes, and the idea of a supernatural god who punishes wrongdoers is a powerful disciplinary concept.
Bert, good points, it is a practical results from the observation of what works.
Confucius philosophy was based on practical results.
Very wise man, my favorite philosopher.
Why are we still fighting eachother? the weapons seem to get more sophisticated than we are.
Do we need to evolve mentally and emotionally or are we destined to self destruction?
One certainly can have both theological spirituality and psychological spirituality; and theological spirituality without psychological spiritualilty; and psychological without theological. But when it comes to good relationships, psychological spirituality is necessary and theological spirituality is optional. Those who have both, tend to filter their theology through their rationality and so avoid the extremes of fundamentalism.
I think a number of us agree on this point.
The majority of relationship "theory" starts with a theory & adapts to fit amenable facts & ignore inconvenient ones. (Most spiritual based counseling certainly does. (For instance, the bible based teaching that the wife must submit to the husband in all ways, with the glowing testimonies of how it changed their marriage, the pressure to conform --"if it's not working for you, you are not submitting enough"--and abandonment of any who fail to meet that ideal.)
In contrast is John Gottman's work in this area & it is a good example of a scientific (and non-theological) approach to relationships. Basically, he videotaped thousands of couples and carefully observed their interactions (this was scored by trained observers, so as to be objective as possible). He subsequently followed the couples to see which marriages failed & which suceeded, and did some statistical analysis to isolate exactly which interactions were significant predictors, and which did not make a difference.
He did indeed find a small set of traits which accurately predicted that a marriage was going to fail, with >90% accuracy. He
Here's a nice intro to his work:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040316-000001.html
Great interview (a lot of interesting insights)
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gottman05/gottman05_index.html
Some good self help advice:
http://www.gottman.com/marriage/self_help/
Dare I say that I haven't seen a word about theological spirituality in his work? He's definitely into "the practical rules that can guide you through life with minimal bruises...".
I suppose we should debate the meaning of "psychological spirituality"... no doubt it means different things to each of us....
Wilhemine,
I share your wonder and awe...of Mozart's creations, of the beauty and complexity of nature, and the magnificent mystery of the Cosmos. The fact that I do not understand how these things came about does not mandate a spiritual source or cause for me. i recognize and accept my ignorance and insignificance. In fact, I wrote a piece about this for Gather six months ago. Here is the link
Bert- The admission of ignorance in all this stuff leades us to the question of where did it all originate and there is only two choices--it is either purposeful and controlled or it is just a random happening. We picj one explaination from either our heads or our hearts. But the real answer is in our souls. Bill C.
Bill, just because those are the only two choices you know of does not mean there are no other choices about the how and why of the wonders of the universe and of humans.
I think Cena has a point that there are a range of other possibilities. Let's take the origin of life on Earth. Maybe the initial forms of life did not arise spontaneously nor were they created by a supernatural being. Maybe life was "planted" here by aliens, or maybe it happened accidentally during an alien visit, or maybe the planet was "infected" with life from a meteorite. I can't even speculate on the origins of the Cosmos...the Big Bang theory posits a starting point, but what preceded that? A questions we will never answer, but that doesn't say that we have to choose between some arbitrary alternatives.
We can speculate about the origins of life, or the origin of the Universe, but it is just speculation...nothing to get excited about, certainly insufficient to base a belief system like a religion, or even a belief in a god...or so it seems to me.
I really think it is all a matter of how you "define" something you believe, rather than which side of the fence you are on with this fundamental "disagreement." It is really the known (in life) and unknown (in death) outcomes that matter most. I choose to believe and act in ways that both get me right results here and now and also don't jeapardize whatever else that comes later. Congruence here is how I define "living a good life." I actually don't hear anyone here talking about anything that runs contrary to what I know about living a good life. And, as writers, all we have to figure out is how to tell our stories in the most accurate, complete and impactful ways, which we all seem to be doing quite well. Adios and hasta manana but don't get any onya. Bill C.
7. The best and happiest relationships are grounded in religious spirituality not psychological spirituality.
I disagreed and explained why, and attempted to bow out of the discussion.
You needed to continue to press your ideas, directed to me, maintaining that I am wrong and you are right.
When I asked are you questioning my ability to make a morally correct choice, you responded as if I had accused you of calling my choices immoral.
This last statement dissolves any credibility on your part. That it is harmless to believe.
I am a non believer specifically because I found and continue to find that a belief in a god/creator and spirit/spirituality SEVERELY limits ones ability to learn and experience life in the fullest, most loving manner.
I have NOT ONCE maintained that "my belief" is correct,
that anyone else needs to hold it,
nor have I attempted to bring another to my way of thinking.
You have done all of these. I can only say I find this to be disrespectful to me.
I am still refraining from attacking you for what you believe, and I am not trying to get you to believe as I do. I continue to try to tell you that your ideas are only ideas, and yet you are presenting them as facts. To me it is incomprehensible to base my entire life on ideas that have no purpose, provide no comfort, cannot be defined,
and for which there is no supportable or verifiable evidence.
I consider these ideas to be very harmful and limiting, contrary to your statement that "it really can't cause any harm". . .
"...As it turns out most of what Gottman's stuff is certainly in line with moral spirituality, even if he doesn't seem to speak the language..."
Your claim is that Gottman's research has uncovered "theological spirituality" (and don't change that to "moral spirituality" now that you've been caught on it). Now that you've defined "psychological spirituality", I see I cannot use that label. "Moral spirituality" sounds vaguely appropriate...
"Independent" does not mean "exclusive".
My claim is that yes, indeed, he has uncovered some aspects of relationship morality, but those aspects are independent of theological systems. It is not a belief in a particular God that makes relationships work, nor for that matter, that makes a person moral. The accumulated wisdom embodied in a philosophical system certainly can help a person be moral, or to make their relationships work. But one cannot claim the superiority of morality based on the Judeo-Christian theological system without ignoring all of the dysfunctional aspects that have also come along with it, nor without ignoring the morality of many outside of a Judeo-Christian theological system.
Sure, you can argue that the good of others is only because they have inadverdently adopted some aspects of Judeo-Christian theological sprituality. But same arguement can go the other way: elements of Judeo-Christian theological spirituality cause good relationships only in that they have inadvertently adopted some aspects of a moral spirituality that has everything to do with being human, and nothing to do with beliefs about the nature of god.
I like what Socrates had to say (or was it Plato?) when he answered the theological sophists of his day (paraphrasing) if God say something is good, is it good because he has proclaimed it to be good, or was it good and God says it is good only in recognition of it's goodness? (For instance, if God said it is good to burn your first born alive, would that be good?"
Please elaborate, Bill. What evidence do you find that makes the existence of a creator "just seem true?
Besides that I see such perfect beauty in life that represents a quality of art that only someone much greater than all the human artists alive are capable of, along with all the very real miracles before our very eyes (birth of a child for one).
Plus I have had very personal and real mystical expreriences of seeing Christ's face in a tree simultaneously with a close friend, just for one.
Just too overwhelmingly logical, credible and real for me to not believe as much as I believe in gravity. But this is my reality, not anyone else's. What I do is try to validate the truth of my beliefs by comparing notes with other travelors. I think sometimes we let words get in the way of trying to describe our beliefs and experiences. I personally believe that all great music and art is an attempt to capture the eternal nature of the great oneness of the universe which is God operationally defined.
All my observations about this have come from 62 years of trial and error thinking and experiences in trying to get it right...because I think that is very important...at least that's what 95+ year olds have to say.
Bill C.
1. If two people are spiritually and religiously "yoked" are they likely to have a better, happier and more meaningful and satiisfying relationship...or of two people are yoked in their lack of spirituality and/or religious practice, can they have an equally good relationship? My intuition and studies have definately indicated that when their are criss-crosses between these things, there is trouble in Dodge!. Besides this I am writing another article summarizing my own relationship research idenfirying five main "process" perrsonality/character traits, that when present in both people. are highly predictive of success in realtionships and life/work in general. More to come
Remember that the Periodic Table of Elements is a construct of Man. Finding that the symbos for H,O,N and C make a word in Hebrew that means God does not leave me gasping with astonishment. It's not even an interesting coincidence. It might make a word that means "shit" in some other language!
But either way, it's hardly the kind of "evidence" I was asking for.
Oh, here is a web site with some interesting comments on Gregg Braden and the book you mention:
Link
The reviewer calls it "pseudoscience."
There is no "research" that anyone can do that will prove anything on these subjects...maybe someday but I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes. Meanwhile, science continues to whittle away at our ignorance, learning a little here, a little there. The sequencing of the Human Genome was a huge step, but still only a baby step. We may have defined the puzzle, or at least a part of it, but we are nowhere near a solution to that puzzle.
What I have tried to say here is that religions make an attempt to create a certainty out of these unknowable things by ascribing them to a supernatural power. There is no factual or logical justification for this. But it is a certainty to those who accept those "answers" on faith.
I have no problem with anybody believing whatever they want to about these things, but if they espouse these ideas, as you have, I enjoy offering my contrasting secular views. I sometimes get carried away, and use a bit of language that offends some people. It's my style, and I won't apologize for it. I think an occasional "blue" word can help make a point if it's not overdone.
This is my final post in this thread. I have enjoyed our discussion, Bill, but I think we have both said about all we have to say on this subject. From this point on, it's no longer a discussion. It's an argument that neither of us will win.
Thanks for posting this, and thanks for an interesting interchange.
(Laughing) That's funny, Bill!