Yes, I learned about Imago dialogue through a book called "Getting the Love You Want" (which sounded gimmicky, but it was recommended by a therapist friend, and I've found it surprisingly practical, not just for intimate relationships but also just relationships with friends and coworkers). The book Nonviolent Communication also basically teaches a similar structured conversation technique. It's the stuff that most marriage therapists teach, but it was a revelation to me.

I'm a brutally direct communicator (and I justify myself by saying "I'm honest and expect honesty from people") but I also tend to damage relationships (surprise! communication is not about 1 person's preference but 2). After many relationships that didn't work out, I decided to take a step back and ask myself what I could be doing better, and one of the things was learning to communicate in a way that others found less alienating, without compromising my own style. I stumbled upon the Imago technique and it has worked really well.

One of the major takeaways for me that it is important to validate people and be curious, whether you agree with them or not. I used to think this was a contradiction, and that bad ideas need to be corrected immediately, but I've since learned that it's possible to validate people without agreeing with them. The point is to make them feel heard first, and then I can present my own view. Here's an example of how validation works (without agreeing): https://www.onsolidgroundcounseling.com/post/2015/08/31/crea...

When many people describe themselves as brutally honest, they seem to believe that being honest is a license for brutality.

Oddly I quite like these people -- provided they're internally and externally consistent. It's refreshing to say, "you're being an asshole" and have a friend go, "oh my bad, I do that sometimes."

Most young folks can't imagine having been an asshole and they call themselves emotionally intelligent without realizing their feelings are a tyranny. They've unsubscribed from anything that ever brought them even minor discomfort. Their social contract basically amounts to "lie to me and I'll lie to you." They are huge wusses.

If a friend asks you if their hair looks nice, it's kinder to say, "your hair looks like my nana's and she's been dead for 10 years" then it is to let dozens of folks think the same thing of them. I have a couple friends who would tell me the first thing -- they're whose opinion I trust. If they told me that, I'd piss my self laughing even if I just paid $70 for the haircut. Modern day stoics IMO. They're smart enough to know how to be like-able, they understand the fluff-each-other's-shared-delusions game, they just don't want to play. When they tell you something kind, you know it was real.

Most of my friends who are brutally honest try to say the things they're thinking as much as possible. They want that from others too. It can be super off putting, especially if you need to believe certain things about yourself.

> provided they're internally and externally consistent.

People claiming to be "brutally honest" is usually a red flag because they are almost never consistent about it. Its usually a phrase used to self-justify brutality with little regard for honesty.

Its sort of like the whole "if you dont accept me at my worse you dont deserve me at my best". There is nothing wrong in principle if it is taken literally - everyone has bad days and its unreasonable to expect perfection all the time; humans make mistakes, etc. But pretty much everyone using that phrase uses it as a self-justification to do what they want without regard for who they hurt.

Idk, im always wary of any phrase that can be twisted to justify behaving badly towards others. Some people hurt other people, and they'll take any turn of phrase, twist it, in order to self-justify to themselves that what they are doing is ok.

All aphorisms are dismissings in a wisdom hat.

> It's refreshing to say, "you're being an asshole" and have a friend go, "oh my bad, I do that sometimes."

Would the apology not be more effective if it didn't include the attempt at excusing one's behavior?

> Most young folks [...]

Would your argument not be more effective if you made an attempt to avoid unnecessarily painting a broad, diverse demographic with one brushstroke, especially given that your argument doesn't actually hinge on the people being young specifically?

> If they told me that, I'd piss my self laughing even if I just paid $70 for the haircut.

What about the things you don't realize you're sensitive about? Is it possible your friends are merely the same brand of insensitive as you, and therefore insensitive in a way that is acceptable to you? Is it possible that you're demanding that everyone around you have precisely the same flavor of insensitivity as yourself?

> Most of my friends who are brutally honest try to say the things they're thinking as much as possible.

Isn't this a really ineffective and imprecise way to communicate? Won't this lead to a pile of followup questions from folks who don't understand the implicit social cues you share with those you're close with?

Being honest doesn't have to mean being unfiltered and brash. Being an effective communicator means taking into account how your message might be received and tailoring it so it's not easily misunderstood.

And calling people "wusses" for merely not subscribing to your brand of communication is itself an ironically cowardly act, a running away from the responsibility you might have for the words you say. It is exactly the kind of thing someone who needs to believe certain things about themselves might say instead of growing up and treating others with respect.

> it's kinder to say, "your hair looks like my nana's and she's been dead for 10 years" then it is to let dozens of folks think the same thing of them. I have a couple friends who would tell me the first thing -- they're whose opinion I trust.

Honestly, you seem extremely naive with a very basic take on this situation. Your friends can say this stuff to you, _because_ you trust them, not the other way around. If a stranger were to make that comment to you, it would be unbelievably silly to take it at face value and not assume they are trying to sabotage you or get one over you in some way. And what exactly is the point of the insult, do you just go around assuming that everyone has the same sense of humor as you, and everyone who doesn’t is wrong? Haha.

Just take my comment for example. Am I being constructive or simply being condescending to you to make me feel better? Hard to tell because you don’t know me, isn’t it?

Sorry, but a little bit of brutal honesty for you. If this is how you're living your life, you are leaving a trail of people behind you that think you're an absolute dick.

The people you responded to spoke about conversations where they didn't attack their friend/partner ("you're being an arsehole"), they spoke honestly about how they felt ("Whoa, that hurt"). Both are honest, but yours is defence through attack. Their's is laying themselves bare. It's very different.

You probably like people with thick skins because they are the only people that stick around you.

...and yes, I realise I'm attacking you, but hopefully you'll take it as a friendly gesture.

Like the “but I’m an asshole, so it’s ok” get out of jail free card. No dude you’re right, you are an asshole, but that doesn’t mean I’m ok with you being a dick.

Brutal honesty is just being an asshole. You can also be an asshole dishonestly. The part that makes you an asshole is the brutal bit.

I was introduced to Imago therapy many years ago, back when I was still just dating the woman who is now my wife. I've recommended the book "Getting the Love You Want" to several people.

I can tell you this much -- of all the things I've done in my life, and all the various types of pain I've suffered, the "active listening" part required of Imago is the very hardest thing I've ever done. And probably the most important.

Personally, in a past relationship, I found this to be incongruent to a functioning relationship where every single feeling felt by my partner were valid and I was responsible for managing all her triggers. Example was yelling followed by "you held my hand too firmly, and it made me feel trapped like I were in my childhood". I believe there should be a degree of moderation and assignment of responsibility and repair that is not only designated to the other person.

I mean, you halfway got there. Your partner's feelings definitely were valid, but the latter part of that sentence, where you were responsible for managing all her triggers, that's not fair to you, and that's not what anybody is advocating.

In fact, it would have been perfectly fair for you to respond and tell her that. It definitely sounds like not every time she brought these things up, it wasn't resolved mutually satisfactorily, and PLENTY of scar tissue built up instead.

You get to advocate for yourself just as much as she did for herself. And sometimes during these conversations, you uncover irreconcilable differences, sure. Some relationships just aren't meant to be. But boy is it ever nicer when you discover these differences earlier, after honest and reciprocal conversations, as opposed to years later when all the suppressed argument come bursting forth at once. (Speaking from personal experience.)

Some people aren't worth it. Some people are just miserable. Not depressed, just miserable. Some people are insecure, vindictive, manipulative, querulous, disagreeable. Having a relationship with them will be as much as 100x more difficult than another person. This is the hard lesson I learned after 4 years in a thoroughly depleting relationship where I tried everything to make it work. When I look at my friends in their 40s, some have great partners and some don't, and the ones that don't have a truly execrable life despite good health, jobs, income, cars, holidays etc. Choosing a good partner matters more than almost anything else.

Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating we put all the bad partners in a camp somewhere. They are fundamentally in a state of suffering, and benefit from help and support. But the way to deliver that support is not by being in a romantic relationship with them.

If you are good partner material, consider the following asymmetry: A good partner can be in a relationship with a poor partner, but two poor partners will almost never be in a relationship together. This means that being a good partner increases your chance of ending up with a poor partner.

Part of being a functioning, emotionally mature adult is being able to self-regulate. It sounds like your partner relied on you for regulation, which is exhausting.

Sometimes we have to help other people co-regulate, especially young children. It's a useful skill - basically table stakes any time you're talking to someone having a hard time.

But if you're spending a significant amount of energy co-regulating a partner, check out YouTube videos related to codependency and speak to a therapist about the situation if you're able.

[...] yelling followed by "you held my hand too firmly, and it made me feel trapped like I were in my childhood" [...]

That sounds a bit demanding and maybe even blaming. I think the point is to tell about your emotions, and just lay them on the table. Nothing needs to be done directly, first you both want a conversation. If anything would need to done or changed, you might agree on something. But demanding sounds wrong.

Yeah the first part was good, but he second part was dysfunctional.

They way my wife and I do this is we dig into the why’s of the feeling to understand where it's coming from and to work though past issues if needed. We do this by talking about how we reacted and using the other person to calibrate wether a reaction is useful or over/under-reacting. Then talking through what we think a healthy response would look like. As a simple example.

Otherwise this is avoidance and putting all the burden on you which turned into what you mentioned walking on eggshells.

While this might work for you, I caution others from taking this advice. Why’s tend to be accusatory and puts the responder on the defense. Try to re-word your Why question by using the other Ws (what where when and how).

Sure, I'm just describing the general approach, not the specifics on how to execute it. No matter how you word it you're trying to understand the whys.

> "you held my hand too firmly, and it made me feel trapped like I were in my childhood"

That's just basic manipulative technique.

You don’t get to decide whether someone else’s feelings are valid or not. Sounds like you were just in the wrong relationship. I would argue this type of communication helped you realise that sooner - imagine if your partner bottled that up without telling you.

> You don’t get to decide whether someone else’s feelings are valid or not.

This is a dangerous thing to tell people dealing with an abuser/a psychopath/BPD whatevertheyrecalled. I'm willing to state many people's feelings are not valid.

(Stronger statement: true selves don't exist and other people's opinion of you is often more correct than your self-identification.)

They’re not wrong though, they just left out that it’s two way street and just because you feel something doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible for your actions.

The feeling is valid, but the action could be inappropriate or damaging and that’s not okay.

“I feel Z so you need to stop X or do Y for me” is not okay.

I think the phrase "feelings are valid" have ended up being... less than ideal for communicating the backing idea. When I talk to mental health professionals they tend to say "your feelings are valid" relates to two fairly incontrovertible things

1. You feel what you feel

2. It is not a moral failing to have a particular emotional reaction in the moment since these are not within our control (acting on the emotion is)

The word "valid" ends up granting connotations that the rationale a person applies to why they're feeling their feelings is somehow reasonable or correct. Many emotional reactions are not reasonable or justifiable and the most reasonable course of action may be figuring out how to repress that emotional reaction in the future - phobias are an excellent example here.

I think you're seeing that exact miscommunication here, others are reading "valid" in the normal use of the word while you're using it in this more colloquial fashion.

Sure, that's a problem in almost every form of communication.

What I mean is you don't get to choose what emotions you feel. So making someone feel wrong/bad for feeling them isn't useful.

> two fairly incontrovertible things

You say this, but neither my wife nor I took either as incontrovertible until the last few years.

I don't have a better way of discussing it or bringing it up though. Do you have a phrase that works for this, but isn't prone to misunderstanding?

> Do you have a phrase that works for this, but isn't prone to misunderstanding?

Not a single phrase because there's a decision matrix around the reaction:

1. Do I think I understand why the emotional reaction is happening? 2. Do I think the emotional reaction is healthy? 3. Do I think the emotional reaction is reasonable?

And how I respond depends on the answers to these questions. When the answers to the questions are "no" I fall back to building a space of emotional safety things like:

"Thank you for sharing your feelings with me", "it's ok that you're feeling that way", "feeling that way doesn't make you a bad person". These statements tend more conservative if I'm feeling it's important to remove misunderstanding.

Sure, that's in an interaction, but that kind of phrase is a good starting point when talking about the situations in the abstract. As in any conversation, you then adjust and clarify as needed.

Exactly. Telling someone that holding hands isn't your thing is fine. Making them feel like they're abusing you if they do it is not.

I tend to agree. There is no true self.

However, does this claim not fly in the face of "identifying as" a particular gender, race, tribe, etc?

And what of opinions formed on the basis of incomplete and/or insufficient information?

> However, does this claim not fly in the face of "identifying as" a particular gender, race, tribe, etc?

Yes, but it also implies people identifying as cis might be wrong about it, so it's a pretty equal if unpopular standpoint. Nevertheless.

There are a lot of real life self identification situations that aren't accepted by society - mostly ethnic groups. Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Warren[0], Europeans who get mad when Americans claim to be sixth-generation Irish, are different cases here.

[0] her situation is not that unique btw - it's actually very common for white people in Oklahoma to believe they're part Cherokee. Since they believe this because their parents told them so, I don't think they're doing anything wrong, but it's the kind of unpleasant surprise you get when your 23andme results come back.

Thank you! My wife and I stumbled upon this technique on our own, but there’s a lot more details and things needed to make it work smoothly.