Silly Arguments May Mean More Than We Realize

In 30 years of meeting with couples, I have often heard the explanation “it was just a silly argument” in explaining why they came in. I believe we fall into these because of our lack of knowledge, the source of our suffering and confusion, according to Holy Scripture. This lack of knowledge saliently refers to not knowing our partner’s mind, but it also belies our own lack of self-awareness. 

In fact, all of us naturally bring into our relationships biases, visual encumbrances, and auditory filters. These stem from the everyday praxis of rules and styles of communication imprinted in our families of origin. These are not endemically good or bad, yet sometimes they are weighted down by rigidity and myopia, or undefined by permissiveness and inconsistency. However, one thing is consistent: the ways these are conveyed, and the ways these are perceived, are determined by the family styles that permeate our current language, in the form of non-verbal communication (NVC).  This aspect of talking creates more misunderstanding and confusion in our daily dialogue than just about anything that comprises it.

To the point, NVC is based on affectations that comprise any part of communication that is outside of basic verbal information (digital versus emotional). Things such as volume of speech, the temper of attitude, inflection of words or sounds, body language (arm placement, head movement, etc.), rhythm of words, facial gestures, and even body placement (sitting, standing, reclining, etc.), all play a part in this messaging miasma. In fact, it is believed by experts (and in some circles, demonstrated) that NVC makes up over 80% of the actual message that is conveyed and received (whether intended or not). These “accidental” communications may well hold the key to what is really happening inside the speaker. Sometimes, if ignored, they add up to other behaviors that betray deeper issues and can lead to passive-aggressive actions, which can be more destructive.

For instance, I can wake up and say “good morning” to a wonderful, caring, and smart spouse of 38 years, and if my inflection is bright or positive it will come across as encouraging. However, if it is said in a halting or distrustful way, with my arms crossed and eyebrow raised (like Spock), it will more likely be rebuffed with a query (such as “who diddled in your cornflakes this morning?” or “what did I do?”). Then, of course, I would further the “silly argument” by denying any ill feelings, even though I have just given her a double message (my verbal words do not match my NVC). This is called a dichotomy and typically leads to shutting down of communication, deeper frustration on the receiver’s side, or, at the very least, internal emotional confusion (is he upset, or is he just unaware?).  The person talking may feel misunderstood, and the person receiving may feel somehow manipulated. Typically, one or both start to realize this is a pointless discussion as we argue over what the hearer assumes the other person is feeling (the fallacy that I can read her mind), and the speaker deflects what is patently obvious to them as being an unintended result they defend (she may say “that is not what I meant”). This is called a circuitous or vicious cycle argument that just creates more ill feelings and fixes nothing. Any hurts that are left in either party tend to pile up over time.

At some point, these pointless arguments feel like they are silly and foolish. Most of us tend to dismiss them (although some will grab hold like a Pitbull and not release, that is a different issue for a different blog ☺) and thus leave the unseen wounds to fester like a burr under a saddle. It is quite unfortunate as these stupid arguments may very well belie a deeper, more insidious problem to address.  Am I really listening to my spouse, or do I tend to run tapes in my head (about NVC she is projecting at me) that are based on my family-colored perceptions of what she is actually meaning?

While growing up, for instance, when my mother spoke in a halting voice, or when dad gave me a raised eyebrow, I learned that it meant they were angry at what I was doing. Whereas, in my wife’s family, these NVC’s may have meant that her parents were confused or doubtful about what she was saying. These individual assessments of NVC happen in milliseconds, as if almost reflexive, but can develop while the other person is talking. Either way, my perception can easily be vitiated by assumptions I make when I see or hear NVC that I do not clarify with the speaker what they mean. Do I actually ask, “hey, when I heard your tone change, it seemed you were angry at me? Is that true?” This is a much better response than blurting out, “get off my back; I did not do anything wrong!”. Am I really listening, or do I just dismiss her as being short-sighted in her approach to me? I can easily start to feel like she really does not know me.

Clearly, not feeling known or understood can also feel like being devalued or even unloved if this is a common tendency in communication. We should take notice of this and pursue professional help so these irrational skirmishes do not create deep-seated prejudices against the other person. Of course, we also ought not to over-analyze each little fit of frustration that we all experience from time to time. I am more concerned about daily or even weekly dust-ups that stay unresolved. Even if they feel silly, they may be indicators of deeper past hurts that are creating these sensitized filters that could come from earlier family issues or earlier relational problems that were ignored. Frankly, it is better and easier to apply the Barney Fife therapy model: “Nip it in the bud? Bud nippin’, that’s what we need to do!”.

So, as we look at our silly arguments, instead of only focusing on what was assumed to have been said by the other person, maybe we should take an introspective gander at HOW I perceive what was said. Maybe the problem lies in the combination of my subjective NVC filters and my mindreading of the other person. These revealed NVC personal biases may help us better understand our spouse, and maybe even ourselves. I wonder if that is what our Heavenly Father meant in Ephesians Chapter 4 when He reminds us to be ‘Quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry”. He wants us to engage our ears, our mouths, and our minds in a tempered way. We should not let the tapes in our heads keep rolling while the other person is talking (slow to speak) but focus first on clarifying what they actually meant, instead of what we are reading into it. This will help us hear their message better, and not filter it through biases set by our past issues.  This refocusing may very well enable us to become more patient and understanding listeners. So, quite possibly, addressing those silly arguments isn’t so silly after all.

— Jeff Bercaw