Relationship Principles

Through the ups and downs of my own relationship experiences, and those of my close friends, I have noticed some common themes about what makes them work. At the same time, when they run into issues, several underlying principles emerge despite how varied the problems may seem superficially. After highlighting what is important at the outset of a relationship (the preconditions), I will describe the four principles I rely on and my reasoning for them, and then outline how those principles must be used to build a future together.

The Preconditions

Relationships are as old as time, so unsurprisingly, much ink has already been spilled on this subject. For the modern relationship though, especially when you are first getting to know someone, Mark Manson's article on compatibility and chemistry in a relationship lays out what to focus on quite well. He notes:

Compatibility usually corresponds to the long-term potential between two people. High compatibility between people comes from similarities in their lifestyles and values. Educated and liberal people usually date other educated and liberal people. Hedonists usually date other hedonists. Insane religious nuts usually date other insane religious nuts. For no other reason than people of opposite moral values, quite literally, repel each other. And sometimes violently. 

Chemistry on the other hand, represents the emotional connection present when you’re with each other.

To start though, you must know yourself well. You should have a good sense of who you are, what you are willing to give to a relationship, and what you need in return. Once you know that, and you find it in another, these two simple C's of compatibility and chemistry are enough to spark a romance.

The Present

Once you get into a relationship though, knowing that you have chemistry and compatibility is not enough. You will encounter problems, as surely as you will encounter death and taxes. How you deal with those problems will matter more than how highly you score on the two C's. After a breakup where I felt I had all my ducks in a row, had that spark of chemistry and the deep sense of belonging borne of compatibility, I wanted to come with principles that helped me explain to myself how I had failed *within* the relationship. Here are the four principles I landed upon:

1. Categorical imperative 

2. Co-existence 

3. Communication 

4. Compassion

I'll admit that #2 is a shoe-horned way to make my principles be the four C's. Still, when I look back on ways that I have failed, I can often find at least 1 if not all four of these principles explaining what I was doing wrong regarding the things I can control. Let's go through each one, why I think it matters, and why I think it matters in this particular order.

Categorical imperative

This concept is most associated with Immanuel Kant. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he lays out his view of actions that can be categorized as absolutes. Many concepts become murky the more you look into them, leading a kind of moral relativism. For example, lying to your partner is bad. Lying to cover up an affair? Bad. Lying to cover up a surprise birthday party for them? Hmm... sounds okay.

Kant wanted to formulate a principle by which any action can be judged independent of the context it is in. He formulated this as:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Breaking this down, Kant argues that you should act only in a way that could be followed by anyone at any time (the "universal" part). For a relationship, this means that act only in a way that your partner could act in the same way without issue. For a much deeper dive into this and how it can apply to your entire life and not just your relationship, check out Mark Manson's views on Kant.

A simpler way to remember this conceptually is simply The Golden Rule: do unto other as you would have others do unto you. This should be paired with what Black Swan author Nicholas Nassim Taleb has termed The Silver Rule: One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.

Co-existence

The second principle is better stated simply as being there. Even when things are tough, when they are mad, when you are tired, when there are a 1000 other things to do. To me, this is both a literal and figurative principle. Imagine you are having a fight with your partner - what's worse: hashing it out even if upset, or one person storming out? The first option requires literally being there, so there's at least some chance of a solution. If one leaves, guess what? Unless it was 100% their fault and 100% on them to solve it (rare), nothing will change when they return. If anything, things may be worse. If you are not physically able to be present, modern technology makes it fairly easy to still show that your partner has your attention. Being there in a relationship is a state of mind, and if you approach your relationship with that from the get-go, you will be better able to weather the storms life tosses at you.

Communication

This one is seemingly straightforward but falls into that category of things which are "simple but not easy". Communicating well requires layering multiple skills.

First, the old adage that God gave you two ears and one mouth and you should use them in that proportion applies. Listen.  Truly listen. Pay attention to your partner when they tell you about their day. If you are having an argument, try to first understand their position and literally restate it in terms that they would agree with. This way they absolutely know that you get their point of view and are not confused or intentionally not understanding what they are saying.

When you do speak, try to remember that you both willingly chose each other. You both want the best for each other. Make any comments about the person's actions not who they are or what their intent is. Remember that generally: less is more.

Compassion

I initially had this principle as empathy, but over time, I came to agree with the argument that LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner, author Brene Brown, the Dalai Lama and others have made that compassion is the higher norm.

Empathy manes to truly embody another's feelings. But if your partner is down, what does it mean for you to fully empathize with them? Do you just both feel down now? Have you made your partner's life better?

Animation, with audio of Brene Brown speaking on Compassion

Compassion starts with empathy but only goes halfway. At some point though, instead of meeting the person where they are, one retains some separate-ness in order to help one's partner through whatever obstacle they are facing.

Looking Ahead Together

This would be seem to be enough. If both you and your partner are there for each other, communicate well, and truly care about each other's well-being, what more could one want?

And truly, in any given moment, it probably is. However, the short runs becomes the long run over time. The only constant over the long run is change. Succeeding in the long run means being on the same path through life, which can be quite challenging since no one knows what the future holds.

Imagine that couple that everyone thought was perfect for each other. But then you hear after being married 7 to 20 years or so, they divorce because "they grew apart." This is where values and vision come into play.

Values can be defined as "broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes." Remember that partner and relationship you were so certain about? What happens when it encounters the unknown, a near certainty in the future? If you and your partner are well-aligned in your values, you are less likely to react by how your partner might respond in the face of job loss, major illness, or any of life's other severe trials.

Values by their nature though are somewhat reactive. They are preferences on how you will respond when prompted by external cues. Vision though is proactive. It looks out on the future not as a dark place full of unknown but rather as a bright field of possibility.

What do you want out of your life? What does your partner want? In a romantic context, basic almost obvious questions should include: do you want to get married? Do you want children? Where do you want to live? How will you integrate your families? How will you handle finances? I am not saying you have to have perfect answers for all of these but if you are aware of that you are incompatible on a major axis, do not assume you or the other person will change.

For example, if you want kids and your partner does not, that's a really really important issue to hash out early. If it is irreconciliable, it is ir-re-con-cil-able: do not take up any more of your time or theirs. It is easy to avoid conflict and have wishful (if not truly magical) thinking early on during the honeymoon phase of a relationship, but this too will pass. If your partner is not on the same journey with you, eventually your paths will diverge. No matter how great the early experiences are, you are potentially foregoing spending that time with somehow who is aligned with you in the short-term and the long-term.

This is a lot to consider, which is why it is best to consider these principles before entering a relationship. The emotional rollercoaster that ensues potentially once a relationship starts means that all bets are off if you do not come prepared beforehand to deal with what you will and will not accept out of the relationship. If you cannot do the work early on, you will certainly be forced to work things out later at much greater cost.

I cannot say if these principles are generalizable, but they are what make sense to me. They are not a static set of rules but rather a dynamic guide to what we all strive to do everyday: work and play well with others. Make your own principles, and they will make you better, in relationships and in life.


For more articles on how to approach relationships, check out:

• Mark Manson's Relationship Advice
• How To Pick A Life Partner - by Tim Urban, author of WaitButWhy
• Your Broken Idea of Fairness - by Oliver Emberton

Disclaimer

Decisive by Chip and Dan Heath

Chip and Dan Heath are brothers who are also co-authors. They have written several books about behavioral economics, including one focused on decision making called (unsurprisingly) Decisive. While many books tackle how to improve your life, this book is the best that I have read that specifically focuses on the decision making process. They proceed by looking at factors that lead to poor decisions, how to optimize deciding, and dealing with the uncertainty that accompanies any significant decision.

They start the book off by defining what they call the four villains of decision making: narrow framing, confirmation bias, short-term emotion, and overconfidence. Narrow framing makes you miss options. Confirmation bias leads you to gather self-serving info. Short-term emotion tempts you to make wrong choice (optimize for short-term instead of long-term). Overconfidence gives you unrealistic expectations of the future. They recommend countering these with WRAP method:

• Widen options to avoid a narrow frame. 
• Reality test your assumptions to avoid confirmation bias
• Attain distance before deciding to overcome short-term emotion (10/10/10 Rule)
• Prepare to be wrong to avoid overconfidence

The framing of a question as "Whether or not" to do something is a sign of a narrow frame. One must consciously consider opportunity costs. To fight this, consider the vanishing options test: you cannot pursue any of the options you are currently considering. Then what would you do?

Another approach to avoid a narrow frame is to consider multiple options simultaneously. This has to be tempered against adding in too many options. One can risk 'decision paralysis' by looking at too many choices; likely only one or two more options are needed.

Most problems are not truly novel. Humans tend to encounter similar problems over time. Instead of focusing on what makes your situation unique, look at what it has common with problems others have faced. Find someone who has solved your common problem. Look at competitors for best practices. Look at your past successes for "bright spots." Look for local analogies, then broaden the problem to look for regional analogies. Then ladder up, broadening analogies over time, to find more solutions.

Inverting the problem and considering the opposite is also a useful approach. Instead of arguing about who was right, ask: What would have to be true for this option to be the right answer? This switches the frame from arguing/defending to analyzing. The search for disconfirming info seems thoroughly negative, poking holes in your argument or others, but what if our least favorite option were actually the best one? What data might convince us of that? In a group setting if dissent is not looked upon favorably, this helps make it seem like you are problem solving.

One can also set a 'tripwire' that triggers team to look at issue again later. Ask for specific disconfirming info. The best question to ask to discover the truth was: "What problems does [the product / situation ] have?" because it signaled confidence and experience in the asker. However, in situations with a clear power dynamic (e.g. Doctor-Patient), the doctor is better asking open-ended questions. Confirmation bias affects not only the questions asked, but what is noticed in the first place.

Decisions in relationships can be even more challenging due to the emotions involved. In a troubled marriage, labeling the other's shortcoming becomes self-reinforcing, making the shortcomings easier to spot and positive acts unnoticed. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) founder Aaron Beck recommends couples keep a "marriage diary" of things that their partner does that pleases them. Assume positive intent. When you assume negative, you are angry. Assuming positive intent, you do not get defensive; you try to understand and listen because at your core, you feel like "Maybe they are saying something to me that I'm not hearing."

Sometimes stepping back from the problem is also helpful. You need to seek out 'outside view' of people who have experience in similar situations. An expert here is simply someone with more experience, not necessarily someone with a particular title or status. But be careful what you ask. Ask for base rates of success, not a particular prediction. The more detail you give, the better The authors refer to the Japanese term Genba, meaning the real place, or more loosely the place where the action happens. To decide,  you need detailed info from the scene, which helps reveal nuances that are not visible in the numbers. Zooming out is taking the outside view. Zooming in is taking a close up of the situation that can help inform our decision.

Once you have a sense of the scope of the problem, the authors introduce the idea of "ooch." To Ooch means to test an idea with a series of small experiments before fully committing ("Ooch before you leap"). We are bad at making specific predictions about the future. Applied base rates are better than expert predictions. "The best way to predict the future is to build it." This approach is not a panacea though: Ooching is lousy for situations that require commitment (e.g. whether to get married) but great for something like trying a new gym.

You are your own worst enemy when it comes to decision making. Specifically, your emotions. What happens when your future self disagrees with the decisions of the present? One way to mitigate this bias is the 10/10/10 Rule: How will you feel about decision in 10 minutes? Months? Years? By imagining yourself looking back at the present, you may be able to step out of some of the short-term emotions driving your actions. We analyze differently when thinking about others, so thinking about the future slightly shifts the frame so that you are thinking about you, but as a separate notion. We see the forest for others, the most important factor, but get stuck in the trees of many variables for ourself
Another way to put it: "What would I tell my best friend to do in this situation?" Short term emotion can make us both too quick to act but more often leads to delay because we focus too much on complexity.

None of this matters though if the decision is not in line with your core values. The goal of the WRAP process is not to neutralize emotion but rather to reveal what truly drives you in the long run
This is ultimately an emotion question speaking to passions, values, and beliefs. There's no rational machine underneath -- it's just who you are and what you want. The buck stops with emotion. Define and enshrine your core priorities. Create a "stop doing" list of activities to avoid. An extreme suggestion by the authors is to create an hourly timer to check if you're staying on task for the thing you most should be doing during that hour. Establishing core priorities is not the same as honoring them. One must clear out non-essential tasks to focus on core priorities

As the decision-making process proceeds, not enough time is spent envisioning the range of possible outcomes. The future is not a single scenario to predict but rather a range. Estimate a dire and rosy scenario (not necessarily best and worst outcomes). People using prospective hindsight, thinking deductively from a certain future, are better at generating explanations for why that outcome occurred. The author introduce the idea of a "premortem" - imagine the idea you had failed, then figure out why. To a lesser degree, one should also consider a "preparade" - to prepare for outsized success.

At some point after deciding though, one should set a tripwire. The tripwire is a combination of a deadline and a metric that causes you to reassess whether the path you are on is the right one. Tripwires do not minimize decisiveness but rather encourage risk taking because they create a safe space for experimentation. Tripwires can be especially useful when change is otherwise gradual.

Instead of viewing decisions as a singular up/down type decision, they are better viewed as a spectrum. Compromise / bargaining is valuable in and of itself as a way to limit risk by including a diversity of opinions. Bargainers come to the table with different options which helps the group dodge a narrow frame. Bargaining takes more time up front, but yields buy-in for a more durable solution. Not everyone will end up happy, but if those who lose consider the process fair, more likely to be okay with it.

What does one mean by 'fair' though? The authors define two forms of justice to address this issue. Procedural justice is a system in which the process of making a decision was just. Distributive justice is a system concerned with whether the spoils of a decision are divided up fairly. People feel better about outcomes where procedural justice was followed.

To enact procedural justice, listen, use accurate information, give people chance to challenge incorrect info, apply principles consistently, avoid bias and self interest, explain why decision was made, and be candid about risks / concerns. You need to be able to argue other side's position as well as they can to show that you truly understand and the decision is reality-based. The authors state,  "That's what a good decision process looks like. It's not a spreadsheet that spits out "the answer" when we plug in numbers. It's not a tallied list of pros and cons. It's a guardrail that guides us in the right direction."

A process provides confidence, which lets you quiet your mind because you know you made the best decision you could. Trusting the process gives you the confidence to take risks. Over time, people regret things they didn't do, regret hesitating, and regret being indecisive. Decisiveness is way of behaving, not an inherited trait. Better to try and fail than to delay and regret

Disclaimer

A Word About Pragmatics

I renamed the blog from "Ajit Anytime" to "Pragmatics" because I wanted the site to better reflect a focus on practical advice. From the idea that the posts would be practical, or pragmatic, I figured the collected ideas would be "Pragmatics."

I had heard the term before in this pluralized form, but knew that it did not actually mean a set of practical ideas. Looking into it more, I like the (improper) usage even more. The proper meaning of pragmatics is the branch of linguistics that studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on linguistic knowledge but also the context in which the speech occurs. This is opposed to semantics, which looks at how meaning is encoded in the words themselves and how they relate to each other, free of any external context or prior knowledge.

I'm no linguist, but I liked this notion. Meaning requires context.

As a practical matter, every concept we encounter and incorporate has to be incorporated into a larger set of knowledge, akin to Charlie Munger's lattice framework. Each piece of knowledge connects to every other piece.

The people who become outsize successes are the ones who can connect disparate pieces of knowledge together either where no one is looking or no one believes the connection will hold. Steve Jobs gives a great example of this in his Stanford commencement speech, when he describes how a calligraphy class earlier in life inspired him to advocate for variable width fonts in the nascent Macintosh OS.

Will this blog rechristened will live up to its new title? Time will tell but hopefully by at least defining the term, we have a clearer model for its goal.

Disclaimer