Get ready for a transformative journey into the world of relationships with Dr. Stan Tatkin, a renowned expert in human behavior and relationships. In our discussion, we explore the critical role of attachment styles and their significant influence on relationships. We delve into the challenges commonly faced in relationships, focusing on how stress-induced reactions, rather than the issues themselves, escalate conflicts.
Our conversation with Dr. Tatkin also covers the complex dynamics of differing relationship structures, examining the principles of honesty and mutual agreement essential for relationship success. We discuss the biological aspects of attachment and how they can be misconstrued as love, as well as the impact of children on a relationship.
Further, Dr. Tatkin sheds light on the "fish bowl effect" and its effect on relationships, revealing how our childhood experiences shape our attachment styles and influence our behavior as adults. We critically analyze the behaviors of people who tend to either cling or distance themselves in relationships, emphasizing the importance of self-reflection and resilience in developing secure, healthy relationships.
In a vital part of our discussion, Dr. Tatkin introduces the concept of secure functioning in relationships. This involves establishing social contracts and agreements to reduce stress and foster harmony and safety between spouses. We delve into the significance of shared principles, mutual respect, joint decision-making, and embracing each other's differences. This enlightening conversation offers valuable insights and practical advice for anyone seeking to understand their attachment style and build stronger, more fulfilling relationships. Join us for these invaluable insights from Dr. Tatkin, and don't miss the chance to enhance your understanding and connection in your relationship. Let's dive in!
Today's Guest: Dr. Stan Tatkin
Dr. Tatkin is an expert on human behavior and relationships and can speak on all topics related to relationships, dating, marriage, love, intimacy, and mental well-being. He speaks and teaches around the world on how to understand, create, and support secure-functioning relationships, along with authoring six bestselling books, and training thousands of therapists around the world.
Dr. Tatkin's TEDx Talk
Get Dr. Tatkin's book!
The PACT Institute
Your Host: Kimberly Beam Holmes, Expert in Self-Improvement and Relationships
Kimberly Beam Holmes has applied her master's degree in psychology for over ten years, acting as the CEO of Marriage Helper & CEO and Creator of PIES University, being a wife and mother herself, and researching how attraction affects relationships. Her videos, podcasts, and following reach over 200,000 people a month who are making changes and becoming the best they can be.
Website: www.kimberlybeamholmes.com
Thanks for listening!
Connect on Instagram: @kimberlybeamholmes
Be sure to SUBSCRIBE to the podcast and leave a review!
WE HAVE A NEW WEBSITE!!
Visit www.itstartswithattraction.com to check it out!
Get ready for a transformative journey into the world of relationships with Dr. Stan Tatkin, a renowned expert in human behavior and relationships. In our discussion, we explore the critical role of attachment styles and their significant influence on relationships. We delve into the challenges commonly faced in relationships, focusing on how stress-induced reactions, rather than the issues themselves, escalate conflicts.
Our conversation with Dr. Tatkin also covers the complex dynamics of differing relationship structures, examining the principles of honesty and mutual agreement essential for relationship success. We discuss the biological aspects of attachment and how they can be misconstrued as love, as well as the impact of children on a relationship.
Further, Dr. Tatkin sheds light on the "fish bowl effect" and its effect on relationships, revealing how our childhood experiences shape our attachment styles and influence our behavior as adults. We critically analyze the behaviors of people who tend to either cling or distance themselves in relationships, emphasizing the importance of self-reflection and resilience in developing secure, healthy relationships.
In a vital part of our discussion, Dr. Tatkin introduces the concept of secure functioning in relationships. This involves establishing social contracts and agreements to reduce stress and foster harmony and safety between spouses. We delve into the significance of shared principles, mutual respect, joint decision-making, and embracing each other's differences. This enlightening conversation offers valuable insights and practical advice for anyone seeking to understand their attachment style and build stronger, more fulfilling relationships. Join us for these invaluable insights from Dr. Tatkin, and don't miss the chance to enhance your understanding and connection in your relationship. Let's dive in!
Today's Guest: Dr. Stan Tatkin
Dr. Tatkin is an expert on human behavior and relationships and can speak on all topics related to relationships, dating, marriage, love, intimacy, and mental well-being. He speaks and teaches around the world on how to understand, create, and support secure-functioning relationships, along with authoring six bestselling books, and training thousands of therapists around the world.
Dr. Tatkin's TEDx Talk
Get Dr. Tatkin's book!
The PACT Institute
Your Host: Kimberly Beam Holmes, Expert in Self-Improvement and Relationships
Kimberly Beam Holmes has applied her master's degree in psychology for over ten years, acting as the CEO of Marriage Helper & CEO and Creator of PIES University, being a wife and mother herself, and researching how attraction affects relationships. Her videos, podcasts, and following reach over 200,000 people a month who are making changes and becoming the best they can be.
Website: www.kimberlybeamholmes.com
Thanks for listening!
Connect on Instagram: @kimberlybeamholmes
Be sure to SUBSCRIBE to the podcast and leave a review!
WE HAVE A NEW WEBSITE!!
Visit www.itstartswithattraction.com to check it out!
Today I'm speaking with Dr Stan Tatkin and if you have ever been interested in attachment styles or how attachment styles affect us, or, goodness even, what it actually means to be in a secure and attached relationship at its core, then you don't want to miss today's episode. We get into so much good stuff and I don't want to give too much away. I just want you to listen to the entire episode. Dr Tatkin is an expert on human behavior and relationships and he has written six best-selling books. He has trained thousands of therapists around the world. He has a very successful TED Talk over 1.7 million views that you can go and check out on YouTube. We'll include the link in the show notes. But overall he is honestly an expert in couples therapy and especially in the field of attachment. Let's dive in to today's episode, Dr Tatkin. Thank you so much for joining me on the show today.
Speaker 2:It's nice to see you, Kimberly.
Speaker 1:It's great to see you as well. I'm going to jump in with a question. Here we go. Why do you believe that traditional marriage counseling has typically about a 30% success rate?
Speaker 2:It used to be even worse once upon a time, before people like John Godman came on and Sue came on and Terry and myself. There was even a lower success rate because most couple therapy was retrofitted from individual therapy. Then we had all different schools rushing to do it psychodynamic and CBT, behavioral communication style, that was Virginia Satir, a lot of that kind of weeded itself out with actually science. As soon as we started doing studies and started to think psychologically and developmentally, then it actually started to work better.
Speaker 2:I think better still is that couple therapy should be thought of a little bit more as training, as workshopping, as education, because it is a different animal than individual or group or family psychotherapy. It has to be dealt with now. It can't spend a lot of time looking into why we do things. We have to really pay attention to what we're doing, Otherwise we burn the house down.
Speaker 1:Can you go a little bit more? For me, for the listeners, the first thing you said is couples therapy was retrofitted from individual therapy. What was it that initially, or maybe even still, some people do when it comes to couples therapy, that really leads to the worst success rates? Then what are the things based on yourself, Gottman, Dr Sue Johnson what are the things that, when that happens in therapy, much greater success is?
Speaker 2:seen. First of all, I am a fan of a lot of the greats. I learned from them Virginia Satir from structural family systems, from strategic family systems from the Milan group. Ivan Bozier-Migninage was a family therapist who came from a psychoanalytic school. His was the only system that I know that focused on justice and fairness social justice in the family. I've definitely taken that from him. I've taken circular questioning from the Milan group. I've taken strategic from Hailey and Peggy Pap and structural from minutiae.
Speaker 2:There is a lot to be said for what has been developed in the area of family therapy. Couple therapy has been more derived from family couples. Having gotten into this, I think one thing is being a specialist, in other words doing only couples. That has to do with complexity of numbers, working with two people. I can get away with things that I couldn't possibly get away with strategically with one person or more than two, like watching a magic show. A third person would see what I'm doing. Two people don't Working in those waters. One gets to understand how to work the numbers in the room. It has to be a specialty.
Speaker 2:I don't think one can do all of it and be very good at it. That's one. Two I think the field has to lean more towards science, towards looking at what actually works and what doesn't and get rid of the things that some of our pet things that we love, but actually isn't that effective Doing outcome studies, but reliable ones. I also encourage my students to do their own clinical research and start tracking for themselves what are they seeing and be, interested in researching couples themselves.
Speaker 2:It's a fascinating field Because I work psycho biologically, that is, focused on infant brain development and brain development throughout the lifespan, the autonomic nervous system.
Speaker 2:My research was videotaping hundreds and hundreds of hours of couples using stop frame analysis, still frame analysis and then slow motion forward, backward scrubbing to watch faces, body movements, somatic reactions, voices, what people are actually doing, frame by frame, and then catching them in the act of being themselves and then seeing how things actually begin way before we think. It's like studying animal behavior, because we are animals. When studied properly, I think that goes beyond what we think of in terms of helping others and really looking at the human primate and looking at our species itself and the problems that are universal with who we are as primates. There are plenty of issues, problems that are actually universal, having nothing to do with gender, nothing to do with sex, nothing to do with culture, nothing to do with any history either. It's just built in problems and features with regard to who we are.
Speaker 1:What have you seen in your years of practice as the top presenting problems that couples tend to come to you for help with?
Speaker 2:Money time mess ex kids. Those five Money time mess ex kids.
Speaker 1:Money time.
Speaker 2:Timeliness, messiness, sex and children. Now there are other things, but those are the top five that I see. Just so you know. It's never really the topic. That's what in each other's care my latest book is about. It's divided by all the complaints that we've seen in my clinic. Truth be told, it's really never the subject matter. It's not the topic. It is the manner in which we interact when one or both of us is under stress. That is what repeats, that's the ghost in the machine, that is what causes us most trouble again as a species, not just with partners, but across the board. That's the second biggest problem. The first biggest problem is couples don't organize, they don't structure, they don't co-create their relationship mythos, because it is a shared mythology.
Speaker 2:It doesn't really exist except in our heads. If you and I are not co-creating the same image, the same idea, and we're not making sure we're pointing in the same direction and we're not going to get along. That's true with any union, any alliance among free people that elect to do something as long and as substantial as a primary attachment relationship.
Speaker 1:You think that's what people mean when they say I just feel like we're not on the same page.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely. I would argue that we're never, ever, exactly on the same page. That's impossible. We only approximate each other when we're in distress. The approximation becomes a problem because we really want exact. That goes back to our childhood. You don't get me. As we get older, sometimes going through midlife, we start to get very finicky about are we known? Can I really connect with you on the deepest level? For me, then we run into an existential reality, which is we're disappointing. There are moments of meeting, as has been said by now I'm blanking on his name, but developmental studying, studying infants, it'll come to me. But moments of meeting become very critical as we start to get into midlife.
Speaker 2:We want something different than we wanted before. Sometimes our partner doesn't meet that standard because we find that we're not always able to meet. We're not able to. For instance, I'll watch a movie and I'll find it extremely rewarding and intriguing. My wife will go. I don't really get it. I'll go. Really, you don't get it, you can't see that. No, those are moments of where we miss a bit, Because we're with a different brain. We're with a different person who processes things differently.
Speaker 2:If you're somebody who expects to be exact. You can be very disappointed and think there's something wrong with your partner when there isn't.
Speaker 1:That's very true that is very true. It's where people begin saying things like I must have married the wrong person, or if I was with someone else, maybe I would be happier.
Speaker 2:Right, that's because we actually have a brain that is built to be aware of what is missing, what we don't have. We're always aware of what we don't have, and that's very good for hunting and gathering. That's very good for finding a place to settle, not good for happiness. We have a brain that's comparing and contrasting all the time. Very good for picking food, not very good for being happy because everybody in your street has this or that car Right, or somebody has a you know, more attractive to you partner for that moment.
Speaker 1:But that's mostly in our heads Right.
Speaker 2:We don't realize how much our mind plays tricks on us and pulls us around, because we've never lived outside of our heads and we never will. It's all an inside job.
Speaker 1:Yeah, do you? I mean, this is a crazy question, but do you think it's even possible to get to a place where we're not constantly to get our brain to a place where it's not constantly looking for the things it's lacking or things that could be better?
Speaker 2:I think it's autonomic, just like obsessing is an autonomic process, but those of us who listen to it too closely become obsessed with compulsive. So the brain has many different functions and a lot of different voices, so to speak, a lot of different messages that have a different purpose for survival, different purpose for doing certain things, and if we don't know that, we'll pay too much attention to the noise, which there's a lot of, and so a lot of growing up is understanding what's noise and what signal what is important, and that is directed by our executive function. In other words, I can get pulled into being attracted constantly to things on the outside and which is a dopamine rush, and so I'm always looking for novelty, never really understanding that that drive doesn't have any other meaning than to constantly get a dopamine head for novelty. But if I were mature enough and understood, by picking one person or one thing I could get the same dopamine head by focusing on the ordinary as if it is novel, in other words, by paying close attention to that which I'm doing, like a career or a person that I pick and commit to. That I find the novelty in the ordinary. I start to see what is familiar and see how it is stranger-ish and constantly, constantly mysterious, constantly exciting, constantly something to know more about, including myself.
Speaker 2:So, if you consider self and other, or intertwine, really knowing my partner and being present is a way to also know myself, and so that's why we commit, hopefully. We commit not because we have to. We commit because we want to broaden our understanding of ourselves and that which we're studying or looking at. In other words, it's a selfish need. It's not done because somebody needs you to commit to something, and those of us who don't commit which I went through a period of life that was true feel lost, feel lost, don't really know anything. But then we know a lot of things, but we don't know anything in depth, including ourselves. There's no discipline, there's no character, there's no higher purpose, there's no Right, and so then we get existentially lonely and alone but that's the price for being like a leaf blowing around in the wind.
Speaker 2:So I think there's a reason to focus on one person, as there's a reason for polyamory or a reason for anything we want to do, but it's good to know your reason. It's good to know why you're choosing one thing over the other. Because that's quality of life, right? I'm doing it for me and it also agrees with you yay.
Speaker 1:Why would you?
Speaker 2:say talk that second one out.
Speaker 1:What would you say is the reason for polyamory? Well, because I'm not oriented that way.
Speaker 2:So I can't personally say what that is. I think it's generational, but it's been around for a long time. I think it's generational, but it's been around forever, I mean polyamory was not invented at any time in our lifetime.
Speaker 2:I think it is a natural outcome of community, a natural outcome of being part of a group. I think it's for some people. It's different for everybody, for some people. Let's get to the more dire first. There are some infants that had a breach in attachment very early and that was never repaired. So what happens is, in the infant life of the infant, when I am abandoned or feel abandoned by my primary, very short amount of time goes by where I feel despair. I feel like I'm dying. Right, it's anaclitic depression. I feel like I'm dying. And then I go into a deep depression which, as a failure to thrive, it may not come out of it, but most do. And when I do come out of it, I come out of it fine. But I will never, ever depend on a primary again, never. And so I look for many people, I don't look for just one person. Why would I do that? That would be nuts and I don't even really remember it. But I'm not oriented towards putting my eggs in one basket, and so that's one type, one reason.
Speaker 2:The other is people experimenting, young people experimenting not being bound to one person having a lot of different influences. That's, there's nothing wrong with that. And then there are people who are curious, and then there are people who are just horny all the time. That's not necessarily polyamory. That could be ethical, non-monogamy, open relationship. But there's so many different reasons for people doing something and the reason really determines how long they will do it right, how long it'll be fulfilling, because we're moving through time and our needs change as we develop.
Speaker 2:Case in point couple that I worked with both of them were clear. They didn't believe in marriage, they were not gonna get married, they didn't believe in monogamy, they were gonna be engaged in ethical, non-monogamy. And that went on until their 40s. They had a child and the female refused to change the deal, refused to change the deal by saying you know, I kind of tired of this, I don't wanna do this and I'd like to have a monogamous relationship now with you. Right, but because they were so dead set on being counterculture, she couldn't say that. She should say if you love me, if you really love me, you wouldn't sleep with other women. But are you changing this? Are we now monogamous? No, I don't believe in monogamy. I don't believe in monogamy, but if you really love me.
Speaker 2:So it gets a little nutty when people wanna change their lifestyle and are afraid to call it right what it is. So I'm a believer in that people can choose and should choose whatever they want to do. They just have to agree. And that's where I come in. Secure, functioning relationships are based on freedom, on choice, on equal power and authority, fairness and justice. Right that we can do anything we want, but we just have to agree, otherwise we won't get along. We just won't.
Speaker 1:And we have to be honest about it otherwise one of us will resent the other.
Speaker 2:So I don't have a fast and hard rule about how people should bond. I will say that our history and our tendency is to pair bond in herds. So even in groups, polyamorous groups there's a tendency to pair bond In polygamous cultures, always a tendency to pair bond so that the primary still exists and then the others are not primary. In other words, they're not the first person I run to when I'm in the most distress or when I wanna celebrate something, I always go to my primary.
Speaker 2:In Africa you can see it in hut sizes Primaries have the largest huts and then it's descending from there and that's how you can tell. So there's our biology and how we're wired, and then there are outliers and then there are everything in between.
Speaker 1:Yeah, in thinking about long-term I don't wanna use the word happiness, but maybe like long-term satisfaction, commitment levels, health of the relationship, things like that what do you see as being the kind of the foundations for those relationships, kind of what I'm saying as you were talking about that, talking about ethical non-monogamy or polyamory or a completely monogamous, committed relationship, like all those things in mind? I could see, with the polyamory or the non-monogamy ethical non-monogamy, similar to the situation brought up with the woman. She has a kid. Now there's more buy-in, there's more need from her part, even just primitively I now have this child that needs to be protected, taken care of. There's kind of this biological drive within her at that point of wanting there to be safety and security. All of that makes sense. Do you think that in some of those types of situations it can be harder long-term to feel securely attached, seen, loved, soothed, understood, as opposed to other types of situations?
Speaker 2:Well, that's a reason we wrote a book called Baby Bomb. The book is intended to prepare couples to remain a couple throughout child rearing because it is a couple's project. So if the couple isn't organized hierarchically in the beginning to put the couple relationship first, above and beyond everything and everyone else, then there's a problem when going from dyads to triads, from twos to threes. That recapitulates a problem in early childhood where we have to share our primary with this other person, it's an interloper.
Speaker 2:And now the baby's an interloper, for usually the secondary parent, male or female, doesn't matter.
Speaker 2:And so there's a preparation process that I think needs to happen, otherwise the couple will disappear and now we're just parents, which is for kids, it's not for us.
Speaker 2:But if you think of the couple as being the creators, the ones that will continue, the ones that made this whole thing and is the constant throughout, they have to remain girlfriend and boyfriend, so to speak, or girlfriend and girlfriend, boyfriend, boyfriend. The spirit of the relationship is what everyone and everything depends on continuing and being in good shape, happy parents, happy kids, and so it's really essential they remain a couple and think that way and not lose that primary unit that has to stay not only intact but happy, satisfied, safe, secure and thriving. That has to happen, otherwise everything and everyone really gets served less. There's less of us to do that. So that's how I think of it. And, by the way, the attachment system is a biology, a glue that nature has built in to keep us together and to keep us from abandoning our children, and that's a good thing, keeps us in groups, but it's also confused with love and this isn't love it feels like it.
Speaker 2:It is an existential threat to our survival, to think that our primary relationship may not exist tomorrow, and that causes a kind of panic that we would experience when we were very young. Mommy dies, I die, and so it's the glue that holds us together. It's the I can't quit you biology, which is great unless we're in a terrible relationship and we really should be quitting each other, but we can't because of the biology. So I'm not a believer, even though I'm really a romantic. I mean, at my core, I don't approach this romantically.
Speaker 2:I believe that love is not enough that pair bonding should not be predicated on emotion.
Speaker 2:It should be, predicated on purpose, vision and terms and conditions. Deal or no deal, because these are two adults moving through time and it's not family, right? We confuse coupling with family. It isn't. You and I are strangers, forever trying to get to know each other better and better. Only our kids are blood, and so there's a lot that we confuse, that get us off track and we treat our union in ways that we would never treat a rock and roll band or dance troupe or cop, car partners or military or any any other union that has a shared purpose of. We want to win, we want to survive, we want to make money, but we want something right and we're in it to win it. We're in it to do it and we know where we want to go.
Speaker 2:As soon as that isn't there, all unions break down. All unions break down because we start to turn on each other, civil war, for instance. Country like ours starts to lose its purpose, central purpose, central vision, and then people start to start to fragment and tribalize Same with partners. So partners really do have to be visionaries, they have to know their purpose and have to keep creating it over and over again, because otherwise the focus on their differences, not how they're the same and where they agree. And this is really crucial, and it's the one thing that couples lack preparedness for, because we all have different reasons why we enter into love relationships, and love is different to each of us in terms of what it really means, but could possibly go wrong, right? Not to mention that, if you really look at the human primate through time, we are nasty creatures. We're wonderful when we're happy. We're not so good when we're not, and if we don't believe in something greater than ourselves, we rob, we steal, we rape, we do terrible things because we can.
Speaker 2:We're warlike, opportunistic, selfish, self-centered, moody, fickle creatures that are xenophobic and racist. That's how we are out of the chute and we are typical two-year-old, except we're just a little more civilized. So, unless we're under too much stress and then watch out which is why I emphasize the problem is how we, the manner in which we will interact when under stress is very important, because we have to maintain a collaborative and cooperative stance or we go to war with each other.
Speaker 1:I want to ask you to go a little bit deeper into the part of purpose knowing your purpose as a couple, being visionaries about that and creating it over and over and over again. There's going to be some people listening to this thinking what does that even mean? Like, what does it mean that we have a purpose as a couple and a vision? What are some things that your clients, as you work with them and help them go through this process, that they end up saying, well, this is our purpose, this is what we got together for, this is the vision that we want to create. What does that mean?
Speaker 2:Well, let's say, you and your partner got together because you've always dreamed of having a family. Now it's your vision. You're going to have a family and you're going to be parents, and so that's where you're pointed. You're pointed towards parenting, having a family, but you left out the couple part, and so down the road, that's all you are is parents, but one of you wants to have more intimacy.
Speaker 2:Well, that wasn't part of the mission. We didn't agree on that and we don't have a vision for that, where we end up recording the rest of our lives that we're still keeping that flare, that light alive by doing things and making sure that happens. Both were on the same page. So then we would put in principles to make sure we do it. We're not going to lose our couple of them. But we go where we point. That's what I'm saying. We go where we point, and you and I should be sure that we're pointing in the same direction or we're going to be very disappointed. We're going to be at odds with each other. If I want a relationship and you want just to be a parent, we're going to fight. We're going to fight all along, because what we are wanting and pointing towards is different.
Speaker 2:We're off If we're pointing towards ourselves. And I want freedom, I want to be myself, I want to develop myself, you want to do that too? Yay, we both agree. But then we start to drift, because if we're siloed, we spend less time together. And then now we start to drift, we lose the reason for being together and we start getting influenced by outside forces. That's natural. The more time we spend together, the more we influence each other and the more likely we'll move in the same direction. When we stopped doing that, we naturally drift into other areas and we're influenced by other things. And now we're I become a Buddhist and you become a Hare Krishna. And how did that happen? Well, we were spending a lot of time together.
Speaker 2:And so this idea of organizing, this idea of dreaming and planning and shaping like a block of clay, this thing called a relationship, with its ethos, with its relationship ethics, created by us, we decide what is good, we decide what is best, we decide what is right, and we put these things in place that are, you know, the bar high. And what is right, what is good, what is best. We believe in the purpose of it and therefore we do it regardless of how we feel. In other words, we decide to do the right thing, the best thing, even though it will likely be the hardest thing to do. That is a higher way of thinking and living than just flying by the seat of our pants and doing what we feel like in the moment.
Speaker 2:That's a recipe for chaos and for fighting. So this idea is really the basis of civilization, and it's been around since the beginning of civilization. Without something higher to believe in and shared principles of how we're going to govern each other, we cannot possibly be safe with each other, because of just being human. So we have to protect ourselves from each other, and that's done by agreement and permission to enforce. Therefore, we're two generals, two bosses, two executives, two leaders, the roof of the house, and we have to be able to work together or nothing works. We have to share power.
Speaker 2:We have to work together and make everything good for both of us or we'll fight. So now we're getting to what's called a two-person psychological system of we and us Still independent, but we're both in charge and we decide what happens and there's no unilateral decision here. It's like a three-legged race. We have to work together or we don't survive.
Speaker 1:It's the law of survival in the groups.
Speaker 2:So I would say one of the biggest sort of at the bottom agreement is that we survive together. We're going to survive together. Therefore, in a world that doesn't care about us, in a world that's fickle and dangerous and opportunistic, we make social contracts with each other. We're in it to survive. We're in it to have each other's backs. We're going to be radically devoted to each other's safety and security because nobody else will. Therefore, our lives depend on that and we're equal stakeholders in it.
Speaker 2:If either of us should screw up. It screws both of us. So.
Speaker 1:I have your back at all times, no questions asked.
Speaker 2:I protect you in public and private, according to what you feel is protected. We make decisions together by first getting each other on board win-win or we don't move because that would waste our time. We'd be constantly litigating the past and looking backwards because you wanted me to, which would be stupid. So we have to work together with our differences, which, by the way, is a feature, not a bug. If we respect how different we are. That's our superpower.
Speaker 2:It is because together we're better than we would be alone. So all of this is about choice, decision. Let's do this together. Let's be a team. It's not a solo sport. I won't screw you, you don't screw me. We're good, I'll make sure you never lose, you'll make sure I never lose. We can do that. We can do that, just as it takes more effort and we have to think differently. We can't think of I, me, my and you, you, you. I have to treat you with respect as a general, I have to work with you as a general and we have to come up with solutions together, because if we fight, soldiers die. You can replace kids with that. So it's basically growing up.
Speaker 2:Growing up and accepting losses and tolerating loss and tolerating disappointment tolerating the idea that our partner is forever, always going to be a pain in the ass, and so are we. There is no such thing as an easy person up close. There's no such thing as a person that cannot or will not be annoying and irritating. That is how we are. That's never been a problem. We just don't want to be dangerous.
Speaker 1:As you're outlining this, I think, yes, of course, this is great for a marriage relationship, but I also see how this parts of this could be very applicable for business relationships. Yeah, I mean, yeah, and kind of a different question from that is and it's shifting topics just a little bit but can you be attached at different levels to more than just your spouse or your kids?
Speaker 2:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:What does that look like? Is it healthy? Is that?
Speaker 2:a good thing I don't think when I think of healthy. I think of whether you're eating well and taking care of yourself when you're getting up to sleep. In unions, I think it's not helpful to think of healthy. It's helpful to think of what will work and what will never work, because that's really the nuts and bolts of it. It has to work, meaning we have to make it right for both of us. That is what will work. If it's a dictatorship, no problem, you do what I tell you. If it's slave ownership, it's obvious. It's good to be the owner.
Speaker 2:But in a free society with equal adults. That's higher complexity. It's not as simple. I have to take care of you and me at the same time, or you'll mistake me for the enemy. That's just how we are. We have a very acute survival instinct. We are very aware of any threat cues around us, and that's in the face, it's in the voice, it's in our memory system. We have to be very careful not to become threatening to each other. If we do, we have to fix it right away, otherwise we start to accrue a biological threat system which will take us down eventually.
Speaker 2:There are different rules of thinking. It's an orientation. It's an orientation. If we're to last and be happy and I mean really happy we have to take care of our selfishly, of the other person as we would ourselves, because anything we do that's unfair to that person or hurtful is going to hurt us in return soon. There's nothing I can do to you that won't come back at me. Therefore, my survival depends on your survival and my happiness depends on your happiness, and vice versa. Therefore, I have to ensure that you're okay. At the same time, I'm okay. I can't surrender. Either of those or the union will be effective. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:So it's a higher level of thinking, it's a higher morality, it's a higher level of operating. It's still selfish and self-centered. Because we're interdependent, you and I should have the same things to gain and the same things to lose. That's what keeps us honest. If one of us has nothing to lose or less to lose, that person should watch their back, because the human condition is that's when we start to get into robbery and resentment and envy and hatred. So there's a reason why it's organized such because of the human condition, because of how it is, among people that want to stay together, not because they simply have a common enemy, because as soon as that evaporates, we're back to war, but because we're constantly finding where we are the same and where we agree. Where we are the same and where we agree, when our tendency is always to look where we're different and where we disagree, and that's lazy and that's energy conserved and that's most human beings.
Speaker 2:Here we're upping the game. You and I, as different as we are, can always find where we agree. You want oranges, I want bananas. We've been fighting about that and one of us suddenly gets it. Hey, we both want fruit, right? Yeah, okay, well, the rest of it's easy. The rest of it can be arranged no problem. That's where we are the same and that's how we've been doing it ever since the beginning of civilization.
Speaker 1:Otherwise we would never rally a group, we would never get people on board on anything.
Speaker 2:It has to be kind of a social emotional intelligentsia that can formulate things that are good for everybody Fairness, justice, sensitivity.
Speaker 1:How does a?
Speaker 2:By the way, this is the ingredients for earned love, earned respect, earned admiration, not the kind that just comes upon us like weather passing through, more substantial. This is irreplaceable. What we're doing for each other on a daily basis we're doing because we're both adhering to the principles we've created and keep putting in place, and that is more than the average bear will ever do. That deserves gratitude, because we're often doing the right thing when it's the hardest thing to do, and that leads to self-esteem. First of all, who doesn't feel good about doing the right thing when it was the hardest? That's character. But then there's gratitude because if we're all easy, why would we be feel grateful we weren't doing anything out of the ordinary for each other in both directions? Why would we feel grateful?
Speaker 1:There's no effort, there's nothing.
Speaker 2:And so why should I?
Speaker 1:Why not take you?
Speaker 2:for granted, and so this is an ethos that I'm trying to, both my wife and I and the people who are in my camp is really the message that we're trying to put out because of, especially now, because of the way the world is. There has to be something in the smallest unit of a society, like a couple, that is together, based on purpose and vision and a kind of morality that is pro-social and pro-relationship, not simply pro-self, not simply pro-self.
Speaker 1:Which of your books talks more about everything you just said?
Speaker 2:I think the latest one in each other's care focuses mostly on it, because I wrote it during a depressing time, during COVID, when I was really seeing systems coming apart, social media becoming ever more hateful and anonymous and people being more marginalized and split off, and I could see how history was repeating itself as it does. Sure, nature always repeats itself and because I'm fascinated in love, love, love couples, I could see it on that micro-level as well.
Speaker 2:And so that is why I started putting more emphasis on top-down organization structure purpose, meaning co-creating something new, not something old, not something your parents built, but what we want, what we want and to get people to start to come together again in a way that is pro-relationship, pro-social, not pro-self, because we live in a very increasingly pro-self culture.
Speaker 1:How does attachment style affect a couple's ability to get to that point where they are living in the higher morality and level of thinking? They're earning the love, respect and adoration. They're going through all the steps that you did, but how does attachment style affect their process through that?
Speaker 2:I think the insecure flanks of attachment and I say flanks because if you were to imagine models, either linear, circular or some other nonlinear fashion but if we just think in a linear fashion and secure attachment is in the middle, flanked by insecure attachment, one side being a distancing side that's oriented towards distancing, the other oriented towards clinging right. If you organize those groups, then anything left or right of center is more one person oriented, based on their adaptation and childhood. So if I am insecure, that means that I'm burdened with an ongoing anxiety that something will happen when I depend on someone. That has happened. So either I will be neglected and then expect it to perform and I will be subject to demands that are unfair in one direction only that I'm just to be used but I was also neglected. Then I'm anxious. When I depend on you, you're going to take my independence and my autonomy, my things, my stuff, and I will feel trapped right.
Speaker 2:Only when I start depending on you, does that memory come up. Therefore, I'll defend myself in ways that are threatening to you. I'm protecting myself from being encroached upon, being co-opted by you, as I felt, and so I'm distancing. I stop coming near you. I want my alone time. I want you in the house, just not in my room. I'm secretive. I'm heart-menalized.
Speaker 2:All of these things are not a personality disorder. They're adaptation. That is how I learned from infancy on, and I don't know any different. I'm not doing this purposely. I'm doing this because I'm sincerely afraid these things will happen, so I protect myself from the get-go. If I'm on the clinging side, I'm just as pro-self, because I'm afraid you'll abandon me. I'm afraid you'll reject me. I'm so sensitive to withdrawal that I'm constantly reactive to it.
Speaker 2:Separations and reunions I'm affected by my inability to claim and grab things for myself. I was trained to wait for things to come to me. Therefore, I'm more whiny and complaining and testing you. I'm more punitive and angry because I just won't grab what I want. I'm always subject victim to the whims of my partner. In my mind, that appears unfriendly to the other person. Secure functioning is a set of social contracts by which all people can work together to find peace, harmony, safety, security and all learn to thrive together by putting in agreements with permission to enforce, that frees up resources for development to move forward and people will likely begin to soften at the edges and start to come more towards the center of security, because all these resources are being used up, like in childhood, to stay safe.
Speaker 2:It's called interpersonal stress. It's ongoing and chronic. I don't even realize how many resources are being used up every day until they're gone?
Speaker 1:I mean until they're available rather. That's what we're working toward.
Speaker 2:We're working toward taking threat off the table completely and lowering interpersonal stress to a hum so that we can handle the slings and arrows of the real danger, which is outside, should not be inside, that's why we're organizing it this way, Otherwise how do you get out?
Speaker 1:How do you get out of?
Speaker 2:insecurity. My behavior towards you pushes you to react to me in a way that confirms why I should be afraid of you. I don't realize I'm doing that. I don't realize that I'm making you cling by being so distancing. I'm not realizing that I'm making you distance by so much grabbing and intruding. I'm not trying to do that. But it's coming back at me like see, I knew it, it's always this way, it's self-reinforcing, unless we put a system in that allows them to experience something they haven't before by agreement. That seems to be a way out through behavior, through agreements.
Speaker 1:You can't do that.
Speaker 2:I can't do that. We agreed so don't, I've got to do that, you have to do that. We said we wanted that, do it. It gives us both the same power.
Speaker 1:Is it more difficult on one end of the spectrum of the other? The person who tends more towards clinging tends more towards distancing. Is it more difficult for them to trust an agreement that would make it a safe place again?
Speaker 2:It does. It is more difficult because I'm always looking for how I'm going to get screwed. The idea of fairness and justice logically makes sense to me Historically. I don't believe it because if I've never had that, why should I believe it? If I've never had equity, parity and I don't expect it, that's another problem. What if I don't want to be equal? What if I want to be a passenger? What if I want to regress and have you just take care of me but then complain about it?
Speaker 2:It's not just what we do to each other. It's what we're prepared to take as our position of power. Some people really are afraid of it. They want it but they won't grab it and they don't like it when they're in it, because it takes a lot of responsibility to be a general to be an executive no more can I be a child as if I'm in my family of origin.
Speaker 2:There are challenges here, but with guidance and training and coaching, people can get there. We know this because people enter systems that demand engagement and demand equity. They have no choice, otherwise they get kicked out of that system. Like a team or the military You're oriented towards, your life depends on the person to your left and right. You don't matter. That ethos, that culture is what keeps everyone alive, because we're doing it to keep our friends safe. No longer is it just me. The culture demands that. We don't have a greater culture that demands that kind of pro-social behavior. We have to co-create it. I've heard.
Speaker 1:I'm sorry, did I Do you?
Speaker 2:want to ask does that make sense?
Speaker 1:It does. I've heard, though, and I don't know where, that people who are more in the dismissive avoidant if we're going to look at it in the quadrants in the dismissive avoidant quadrant is more difficult for them to move into secure. Is that true?
Speaker 2:Only in one sense Developmentally, they're behind the clinging people. The clinging people, developmentally, theoretically, are just a few months ahead of them, because they're more pro-relationship whereas the distance are pro-self. Here's the problem the fish bowl effect. If I've lived without things that you got, your wanting them makes me think there's something wrong with you, because why would you be so demanding and needy when I never got those things? I never got those things. And look at me, I'm crying. Why are you crying? Because I can't know what I'm missing. It's a greater problem If I had something and then it was taken and had and taken, which is what's going on with the clinging group. I've been in the Garden of Eden, then kicked out, then brought in, then kicked out, then brought in, then kicked out, and what the f***? I'm pissed. I know what I had and I want it and you won't give it to me, whereas you never had it and go. I don't know what you're talking about. There must be something wrong with you. From their position, they're correct, because I can't know what I didn't have, I can't know what I don't know.
Speaker 2:From their position, they think the other person is unreasonable, when the other person actually is more along the line of our species. We are more clingy than distancing as a species. We are more dependent than independent. As a species, it is just the way we are. We're not part of the animal kingdom. That goes it alone. We're not lone wolves. We're not wired that way. There are outliers perhaps, but just outliers. We tend to deny that and unfortunately the world is filled more with the distancing group of people than the clinging group or the secure group. We may look to certain tribes where they do it properly and those kids aren't burdened by the same kind of fears of engulfment or abandonment that people in the West are. Remember, it's not a pathology, it's an orientation based on nature repeating itself. I'm just doing what I saw, what I experienced as my parents did.
Speaker 2:That's it. It's not personal, just feels personal. To answer your question, is it harder for people in the distancing group to realize their distancing? What they're doing is self-harming? Yes, because it is self-harming. What the clinging people do in their defense is self-harming. They don't realize it. They think it's self-protective, but it's actually getting in the way of what they want.
Speaker 2:Getting them to be aware of this is really half the battle, half the battle of being aware of what is driving me to protect myself that creates an unfairness with you. I want my justice from my injustice in childhood, but what am I going to do? Create a new injustice by making you pay for it.
Speaker 1:That's not going to work.
Speaker 2:Yes, there's a lot of growing up to do With the distancing group, and I can speak for myself. We become aware when we've suffered multiple losses and we can no longer say it's the other person. We start to get it that I think it's me. I think there's something. If I look at this trail of dead soldiers, there's something in common that's me.
Speaker 2:Suffering is what makes us look at ourselves. If I'm not suffering, I don't care Really. If I'm not suffering, I will never look at myself, because who has time for that? That's normal. But if I start to suffer through loss and regret, then I'm forced to and then I can start to see what I'm doing and start to be curious instead of furious. That, unfortunately, has to be lived. I can't be just told. Sadly, we're all learning suffering and becoming better people for it, but not everybody wants to suffer or wants to feel pain. That's why I say to be secure, functioning, you have to tolerate pain. You have to be able to grieve losses. First, you have to recognize you, that you've lost, grieve your losses and accept that everyone is a pain in the ass, disappointing, contradictory and annoying, including you. Right, you have to see yourself. If you're a human primate, you have to accept the idea that you're also an asshole just by dint of your species. And if you don't think that, you're dangerous.
Speaker 2:We have to see ourselves as we are and then build from there and become better, because we know our devils. We know what we can damage what we can do to another person and ourselves. Let's not do that. Let's agree not to do that. Let's agree to do this.
Speaker 1:Dr Tattkin, this is so good, I have written two pages of notes. As you've been talking and just sitting here, I could ask you another hour of questions and maybe ask you to come back.
Speaker 2:In other words, you should know, and your audience should know, I'm not an easy person to live with. I am a pain in the ass. I am as selfish as they can be Really I am. I am as lazy as they can be. I am everything of that and I can tell you that this is not easy, but it's so worth it. Yeah, it makes me want to cry. Actually, it's so worth it, but it's hard to convince people of that because if you've not done it, then you don't know the rewards, because it just seems impossible and it seems so hard when it's really hard, like apologizing, when you think the other person is dead wrong. Yeah, and if that's your agreement, we fall on our swords completely regardless and you do it, even though you don't want to. There is a reward there, a big one, and it's interpersonal and it's personal. So hopefully that'll encourage people.
Speaker 1:I believe that it will, Dr Tattkin. I encourage everyone listening to go and get any of Dr Tattkin's books, but especially the one he recently wrote in each other's care. You can get that on Amazon, probably wherever books are sold. Dr Tattkin, is there any other place that people can connect with you and learn more about what you do?
Speaker 2:Yeah, go to thepactinstitutecom. It's the PACT Institutecom If you're a mental health provider. This started off as training therapists to do this work, or psychiatrists anybody in the mental health field, if you are just part of a couple or not a couple. We do couple retreats around the world and we have one coming up in Porto, portugal, next year. Yeah, I've come. I would love to do that actually these are five-star retreats with lots of sightseeing and everything, and plus we spend eight days together workshopping.
Speaker 2:We're going to have to look at that Then tracing my love of my life, tracing my partner. We do couple workshops throughout the year online and you can find those there as well.
Speaker 1:That's awesome. I will include the links in the show notes as well to the PACT Institute, as well as link to get your latest book in each other's care. But Dr Tattkin has several other books that you can explore and look into, getting after you've read that one and go even deeper Even today, as I was looking at the reviews of those on Amazon in each other's care book the top review I don't know if you've seen it, but it said this is the best relationship book out there. It's the top review.
Speaker 1:There, you go Dr Tattkin.
Speaker 2:By the way, kermit, thank you for all that, you and your husband are doing too right, because you're doing lots of great work.
Speaker 1:I appreciate it. Kudos, thank you so much for joining me today. It was a blessing and an honor to get to speak with you.
Speaker 2:Same here.
Speaker 1:There are so many takeaways that I have from today's episode, and especially once we really got into the meat of what we were talking about, I could not stop taking notes. There's so much from the conversation we had that is just directly applicable to having great relationships. I mean, he gave us a high-level view of the overarching concept of what a mature, stable, satisfying relationship looks like and the agreement that it takes from both parties. And here are my key takeaways, as I'm processing all of it and just putting pen to paper. Here are the key things that I took away from today's episode, but it's not going to be everything because, honestly, there was just so much. The first one is this Having a vision and purpose for your relationship, which is so key, is not just about what you want to do together, but it's about continuing to keep that vision and the purpose of you being together forefront of mind over and over and over again.
Speaker 1:In business and in leadership. That's one of the things we know works. It's in thinking about me being the leader of Marriage Helper. One of the things that is my job as the CEO, as the visionary, is to communicate the vision and connect the vision to what people are doing day in, day in, day in and day out. It's the constant communication and creating the vision and the reason and purpose for it over and over and over. But we don't really do that as much in our marriages. But it's absolutely necessary because when we know what the purpose is and the vision is is when we can create the habits and principles to make sure that we actually do it and uphold our ends of the agreement over time. My second key takeaway is that really, when we look at how stress affects our relationships, stress will either force us to collaborate or to go to war that's how Dr Tatt can put it and when we go to war, people get hurt ourselves, our kids, other people. So when stress comes, the collaboration aspect of it goes right back to what is the vision, what is the purpose and how can we communicate together and work together in order to get that to happen.
Speaker 1:One of the notes I wrote down is I have to take care of you or you will mistake me for the enemy. We tend to go into our relationships thinking what can I get, what will this person do for me? But when we begin to shift our thinking into I need to take care of this other person number one, because it's the right thing to do. But then, according to Dr Tatt, can we have this selfish, undermining, underlying reason for it, which is I don't want you to eventually mistake me for the enemy. So it's actually a little bit of a selfish reason that I'm wanting to take care of you and make sure that you are getting what you need, because if the relationship is to last and to be happy and to be healthy, then it is because we take care of each other, constantly finding where we agree and working from that being our starting place, instead of always just looking at where we disagree. There's so much to go into in there, but the bottom line of it for me and my takeaway is my spouse is not the enemy, and in fact it's my job and my calling to look at how I can ensure that my husband feels loved and taken care of, my kids feel loved and taken care of. The other important relationships in my life, how do they feel loved and taken care of? Because that's going to be what leads to the best possible outcome for the relationship.
Speaker 1:And then, finally, is the conversation of attachment. Which, man? We could have gone way deeper into that, but ultimately, wherever someone is on the attachment scale, it's all under the basis of self protection. We are either clingy or we are distancing because we are looking to protect ourselves and to not get hurt in the way that we've gotten hurt in the past. And it's difficult for people who have never had a secure attachment, never had a person always there for them, especially as a primary caregiver, to even wrap their mind around how they're letting the other person down. Which just goes back to the very first point of a great relationship starts with understanding the purpose and the vision and then creating the agreements together to get that vision to happen, to work together to make that vision happen. It's very in depth, though, like all of these things, just put into buckets the high level concepts that make relationships work, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's easy to do. Overall, though, here is the hope for the entire episode Doing the work to become the best version of yourself, to show up the best you can in your relationships, to honor your end of the deals, is worth the hard work that it takes for the long, lasting, satisfying happiness of the relationship. Because, even as Dr Tathkin said and it's something I have known and said for decades. The couple is where change can happen in the world in a family, in society. We need to start seeing more people working together in a pro-social way, as he put it, but in a way that's loving, in a way that's good.
Speaker 1:I had a podcast guest several years ago. His name was Dr Matsumoto and he researched microaggressions and it was a fascinating episode. I encourage you to go back and listen to it. But one of the things that he said when he was contracted by the government to actually go and do research in the Middle East on what it would take to end terrorism, and what he ended up finding was this If we wanted to end terrorism in the world, it's going to start in the home, because it's in the home that people learn to hate or learn to love, and that is what a marriage can do. It can teach people how to love and not how to hate. If you found benefit from this episode, I would love for you to share it with someone who you think would also love it. And, of course, please leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps to spread the word of the podcast and to get to even more people. Until next week, stay strong.