Stan Tatkin: Wired for Love
Stan Tatkin, an author, therapist, and researcher who guides couples toward more durable relationships. He developed the Psychobiological Approach to Couples Therapy (PACT), a non-linear approach that explores attachment theory to help couples adopt secure-functioning principles: In short, Stan and his wife, Tracey, train therapists to work through a psychobiological lens. Often, our brains get away from us when we’re in conflict in our relationships—we lose ourselves to our instincts. He has trained thousands of therapists to integrate PACT into their clinical practice, offers intensive counseling sessions, and co-leads couples retreats with his wife. Tatkin is also an assistant clinical professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.
Stan wrote Wired for Love: How Understanding Your Partner’s Brain and Attachment Style Can Help You Defuse Conflict and Build a Secure Relationship more than a decade ago and it became an instant classic. It was due for a refresh to encompass the wider range of relationships we’re now experiencing and it’s just been re-issued, better than ever.
In today’s conversation we talk about the table stakes of a good relationship: Nobody cares about your survival more than your partner, something we easily forget. As it were, we get into a fascinating sidebar on Pre-Nuptial Agreements, which in Stan’s estimation cause many relationships to founder. I’ll let him tell you why.
MORE FROM STAN TATKIN:
In Each Other’s Care: A Guide to the Most Common Relationship Conflicts and How to Work Through Them
Stan Tatkin’s Website
Follow Stan on Instagram
TRANSCRIPT:
(Edited slightly for clarity.)
ELISE LOEHNEN: All right. Let's talk about Wired for Love. I mean, reissuing, new chapters, updated, classic. I'm assuming this is your primary book, right?
STAN TATKIN: It was the second book on, first one was with Marion Solomon, which was sort of my coming out book, Love and War and Intimate Relationships, but Wired for Love was the first book I did you know, for the public, right, for the lay person. And then I just kept going from there, but it still is one of the most popular books. But like anything else. And, you know, now as an author, you know, after you have some years under you, you go, Ooh, did I say that? And it's just kind of want to go back and correct the record, if you had a racer or white out, but also I realized that when I was writing then, I was writing about heteronormative dyadic systems, and I got a lot of criticism for that, and rightly so, and so I was able, with this edition, to go back and talk about ethical non monogamy, or consensual non monogamy, and transgendered non monogamy couples and polyamorous couples, you know, I was able to to do what I didn't do. And now hopefully it's more inclusive.
ELISE: Mm.
STAN: plus I grew a lot since then.
ELISE: Yeah, I'm sure. And you have however many more couples under your belt. Not to take us on a massive tangent, but since he brought it up, and it's been having its cultural moment or in the zeitgeist for a while now, do you feel like polyamory and ethical non monogamy is more common? Like is that very present in your practice or is it still somewhat niche?
STAN: I can't say for sure because I'm not sure how accurate statistics are, I know that I've had my share of polyamorous groups and ethical or consensual non monogamy, but also non consensual monogamy and in all different kinds of configurations. So I think it's always been that way since there's been human primates on the planet, we're not especially monogamous creatures. We can be. But, today there should be a reason for being a monogamous or non monogamous for that matter. And that's what I expect partners to be able to defend this, why is that a good idea for you and why is that a good idea for everyone involved and so I don't care how people organized, I just care that they organize and that they make social contracts based on fairness and justice, right? That they know what they're doing and they're not just acting as if, bending reality because they're afraid of losing somebody. That's what I'm concerned about.
ELISE: Yeah or having it marketed to them as maybe a growth opportunity or something that they should be able to withstand, you know, or endure and and yet like, I'm just thinking of this woman's book Molly Roden Winter who I interviewed. She wrote this book called More that hit the New York Times list. It's one of those books that I think you write and you're like, Oh, I hope people read it. And then maybe when it actually gets a ton of attention, you're probably like, Whoa, I didn't quite expect this. And I interviewed her not for the podcast, but essentially, it was like this read as like an unendurable experience for you that you were submitting to in order to strengthen or like because you felt like you should somehow be able to endure it, but she still defends it and she's still in an open marriage but it wasn't making it compelling to me I'll just say that but I think I'm wired for monogamy.
STAN: Some people are wired for monogamy, you know, whatever that means, have a lot more perhaps oxytocin, vasopressin you know, in your bloodstream, in your brain. But there's nothing to say that anyone will stay that way, which is why I want people to make conscious agreements based on reality and based on where they are today, where they could be at another point so that they're not fighting, they don't feel like they've been duped or ripped off. The main problem is the attachment system, I think. It's not the main problem. It's a feature, of course, because without it, we wouldn't group together, we wouldn't pair bond, we wouldn't stick around for raising children. But because it's a biological mandate of, I can't quit you based on a very primal survival instinct, people confuse it for love. And many times people will make agreements that they really ought not to make because they don't agree. But they're so afraid of losing the gig that they'll say yes. And that's, you know, for me, you know, when I see couples, that's a sad affair because they're opting into a relationship that may last a long time, but I don't think it's going to be happy.
ELISE: Yeah. One of the things that I admire so much about your work is that I feel like your work operates on multiple levels where yes, we get to be these self authoring, content driven, story driven creatures in our romantic lives. And we're animals. Right? So the fact that you distinguish sort of the social parts of being in relationship and then the biological parts I think is so essential because of course I want to believe that I am in charge of all of my bodily reactions and instincts and appetites and desires and having worked with you in therapy and just professionally, I recognize that I'm deluded.
STAN: We all are, you know, we're so much more determined than we would like to think. We're determined by neuropathways, by myelination, by history, by genetics, by our experiences, by years and maybe centuries of culture that have been handed down. You know, and so we'd like to think that we're in control of things, but only somewhat controlled, only somewhat controlled. But we're blessed with minds that are able to do things that other mammals can't like invent things that don't exist and make and manifest them, like a relationship doesn't exist, but we make it up and then it does. But we also are able to predict the future and plan for it and prepare for it. And many times we don't even do that. Well, these couples do that, business people do that.
ELISE: Yeah. I feel like, and maybe it's just my own experience of the world or my own self education, but it feels like people are far more aware of attachment styles than they were even five or ten years ago, I don't know when I met you, somewhere then. Do you feel like that's true? That people are really starting to understand this? Or do you feel like we misunderstand it?
STAN: I think we misunderstand most things because there are nuances that we live at a time when the language that's used in psychiatry and psychology and medicine are used now by lay people, many times to "otherize" their partners or people, you know, "Oh, I'm married to a narcissist" or "this person's codependent" or "they're on the spectrum," you know, we have the disorder of du jour. And so what I feel a little guilty about because I'm part of that problem with Wired for Love coming out with Island Anchor Wave as a kind of a friendlier terms to use for avoid an angry resistant and a secure autonomous, that it's intended to help you understand a little bit about yourself and a little bit about your partner so you can get along, not as a cudgel, not as a way to beat yourself up or to pigeonhole your partner. And I'm afraid that is part of the human nature, is for us to categorize and classify. And, you know, even when we shouldn't, even when we don't understand what we're categorizing. So there's good and bad about understanding about attachment. But all this stuff is meant to get closer to people and to love people and to understand ourselves, not to otherize, which unfortunately is a feature of the human primate, you know, it's sort of wired into our DNA to be xenophobic and racist and otherize people that are too familiar to ignore but too different to live with, says Harari, which I love that line you're all too familiar to ignore, too different to live with.
ELISE: Sounds about right. So yeah, and I learned attachment styles from you. As you mentioned, you mentioned them briefly, but maybe you can take us through anchor island Wave. And it's funny because I remember at the time I was like, oh, I'm an anchor and one of my co workers was like, you're an island. Are you deluded? I don't know what I am at this point.
STAN: If you don't know and nobody knows what you are, then you're secure, probably.
ELISE: Oh, good. Is that a good proxy?
STAN: Yeah, well, all secure means is that we're not overly burdened by a hard and fast fear that when we depend on somebody we'll get rejected, we'll get abandoned, we'll be punished, you know, we'll be left, right? Or we'll be smothered, we'll have our autonomy taken from us, we'll have our stuff taken from us. I mean, these are the the things that insecures are preoccupied with based on experience, most of us, though, have all of it, but we're not locked in, you know, we're not a one trick pony and but if we are, that's not a death sentence. It is based on memory, right? I'm just remembering on what to watch out for. The problem is that as I remember what to watch out for, my behavior changes to protect myself. And the way it changes is probably going to appear threatening to you. That's the problem. Right? Because you're not understanding why I'm behaving either distancing or ambivalent or angry or whatever. You don't understand why I'm doing this. You just are feeling it and reacting in kind. So that's basically the trouble, is we don't understand each other, take the time to understand each other. We're too busy reacting and protecting our interests.
ELISE: Yeah.
STAN: that's more of the human condition than it is attachment.
ELISE: Right. Well, we're going to get to that in a second, because I feel like that's like part of your core wisdom offering. But in relationships, if we think about these as more mutable and less fixed, where if you're an island, you're not necessarily always avoidant, or if you're a wave, you're not always sort of overwhelming and needy. But do we tend in different relationship patterns to stake out a position? And as a couples therapist, like if you end up with someone who's an island and they're a little distancing and avoidant and cold, does that tend to put the partner into more of a potentially, or maybe it's even a perception that the partner is more engulfing or needy? And then are you trying to get people in that dyad to something that's mutually more stable or secure? Is that the goal?
STAN: The goal is to be secure functioning, which is a term made up that isn't about secure attachment. It isn't a state. It is a series or set of social contracts that you and I would make to create in a relational environment that makes the way for healing and secure attachment, right? If you and I don't have any kind of way to protect each other from each other, we're likely going to increase our experience of fear and threat because of our survival system, it's indiscriminate and because we're memory animals and we're energy conserved, we're walking around every day using cheap kind of memory, like a pattern recognition and that's sweeping up all these cues that we're concerned about that reminds us of getting hurt. And so if we're just natural, my behavior affects you, your behavior affects me. I am not thinking about that. I'm thinking about I'm unhappy and I know why. It's because of you. It's not because of anything I'm doing, right? And so the likelihood of us getting worse together than getting better is high. So secure functioning is organization, you and I are creating this. We're the creators of this thing called our relationship. Therefore, it is what we want it to be. It is what we say it is. It's nothing more or less. And like anything else we would do to unionize, we would have to make sure we're on the same page. That we agree. Let's not do this. That would hurt. That would be horrible. That would just be destructive. And let's do this. This would be life affirming. This would be a worth everything, right? This would make us awesome. And those are social contracts based on collaboration and cooperation and parody. You and I would have to accept each other as, you know, Zeus and Hera. We're in charge of everything. We created this thing, this culture. And then we would have to make sure we're doing it consciously and, and, and staying true to it, because otherwise we'd harm each other just because we're human primates. Right. And so having those social contracts, organization, architecture, having agreements, and building a culture of our own is the only assurance we would have to become more resourced, less encumbered by threat and less encumbered by interpersonal stress, which we know leads to wear and tear on the brain and the body and doesn't allow for complexity to move forward, right? Development stops when we feel traumatized or when we're burdened by threat, where all of our resources are going to maintaining our sense of capacity of dealing with the slings and arrows of life we but that's expensive right so we want to make the relation our relationship is safe and secure as we possibly can as easy as we can because nothing else in life will be easy.
ELISE: Yeah.
STAN: so it's a union and alliance.
ELISE: And I can probably speak from personal experience, and I'm assuming that this is your experience as well, that we vaguely sign on for this idea of a social construct or that marriage requires work every single day or partnership in any version requires work every single day and we get to that wedding or the party and we're like, we did it. We found our person and we're good. And then we spend very little time establishing and you write a lot about this and all of your work about sort of what are your core values and what are you trying to do here, right? What is this about until we get into distress and then you're really not equipped when you are feeling threat to remember why you're doing this in the first place. Is that fair?
STAN: That's true. I mean, you and I, we're athletes. We're ice skating team. We want to win the Olympics. We're different people. We're annoying and irritating and disappointing like all human beings, but we have to work together. And what makes us the same and in agreement is we both want to win. And so we have a shared purpose and a shared vision and that keeps us in line and keeps us working as a two person system instead of a one person system, right? We're a team, it's not a solo sport. And so we're more likely to work collaboratively and cooperatively because we have a common interest and a common reason for being together. Couples are the only union that they don't do that. They don't think about that and that's dangerous. Right? We come to the table in love relationships with a set of expectations, dreams, fantasies, and entitlements from childhood. If we're not on the same page with that, imagine what will happen. You know, my expectation is in this area, yours is in that area. We're violating each other and we're going to be mad. Right? We're not going to get along. But we would never start a business that way. Right? Hey, I'm in love with you. Let's have, let's start a business. No, you don't do it for that. You do it because deal or no deal. I like the mission. I like what we're going. I like how we're going to protect each other from each other. I'm in, I'll sign in. But as soon as it becomes too unfair or too unjust then I'm thinking, Maybe it's no deal, right? It's not about love. It's about lifestyle, safety, security and purpose, purpose, you know, and if it's not based on purpose, watch out, because as a species were shiftless, opportunistic, moody, fickle, and very aggressive and selfish. Smart people plan for their devils, not their angels because we're sweet on a good day, but we don't know how bad we'll be on a bad day, right? When it comes to protecting ourselves or interests and if we feel threatened, so couples don't organize.
ELISE: Why do you think? Sort of relationally that love and hate or love and enmity or whatever it may be are so close. I mean you think about people who are no longer together, who are sort of sworn enemies, right? Maybe they've been through a divorce or otherwise, why are those two emotions so close when they're so far away theoretically
STAN: a lot has been written on this subject in that love and hate have to be accepted equally. A child says, you know, Mommy, I hate you, has to be, well, doesn't have to be, but if you really want a good relationship, has to be accepted. I know you hate me. I love you. You know, hate is the other side of love. Indifference is what you don't want. But why do I hate you? Because there's something I feel you did that's unjust or unfair. And that's the source of much of our anger. Right. Our anger is I'm angry because something happened that I feel was unjust or unfair. And if it continues, then I want my justice and you know, our injustices from childhood turn out to be society's burdens because I want payback here, even though you had nothing to do with it. So, hate and love go together because they're both strongly bonding connection, right? But really bond us in order to hate you I've got to feel a lot about you, right? You did something to betray me, to violate me, to say, no, I can't do this, whatever it is. And so both are really strongly bonded, you know, just like anger is bonding. When we're angry with each other, it's a way to stay bonded and connected, even though it's unpleasant. So I think that's why they're both in line with each other. A lot of therapists will end up telling their patients when it's all over you know, there were times I hated you. And some think that's actually quite healthy because despite that, we stuck with each other. Right?
ELISE: Mm.
STAN: They loved you, and they hated you, and you were a burden, and I wanted to punch you sometimes, but I'm invested in you. You know? The same with parent child, the same with siblings, the same with all that. So people are inherently frustrating. There is no way around that. People are inherently a pain in the ass. And to be sure, everyone's disappointing. Because that's actually in our own heads. So the chance of us being disappointed are a hundred percent. That's normal. That's normal. What we don't want as partners is to be threatening...
ELISE: mm.
STAN: to play it unfairly. You know, when we're expecting a free and fair union of equals, right? It has to stay that way and has to be played that way or there will be trouble. And in any fair and free union where there's no lack of parody, the person who has less to lose, should probably keep one eye open at night.
ELISE: The person who has less to lose should keep one eye open. Wait. So say more about that?
STAN: You have more to lose than I do, then we don't have parity.
ELISE: I see. Like if you're more financially dependent on your partner?
STAN: Yeah, yes. And we started that way where I've got the money and you don't. Or I've got the say and you don't. Or, you know, anything with adults, unless it's agreed upon, you can agree. I'll be a passenger and I want you to be the driver. That's fine. I can't complain then. But most people want parody and most people in an attachment, primary attachment relationship want to be viewed as the primary, not the secondary, right? They don't want to be you know, a third wheel, they won't tolerate it. And so it's in both people's interest to make sure that neither allows the other to feel like they're losing or to feel that they're less important. That would be suicide in that kind of union, right? Because it will breed resentment.
ELISE: Yeah, but there is often a lack of parity, right? Is that something that has to be addressed in the early days or can that be revisioned over time? And are people conscious of it? Is it more how you leverage that lack of parity over your partner or is it just the very basic reality of it?
STAN: I think it is often tacit, which is a problem, that we go into something where it's good to be king, and we didn't talk about it, but I start to play it such that I make the money and so I have the privileges you don't or I am by dint of my sex I have more power than you or by dint of my culture my family has sway over your family or you and all of these things don't bode well for happiness because in actuality we're equals, you know, we're adults it's not slave ownership, it's not, it's supposed to be a dictatorship, so if I'm losing at your hands, you're gonna probably pay for it. Right, and no bad deed goes unrepaid in a system like this. So I like to think of this as like a three legged race, you know, when your legs are tied together. That image, two separate, independent, autonomous people, different, but they must work together in order to go anywhere. In order to be successful, they have to actually work together cooperatively and be allies. Otherwise, they can't create anything. They can't solve problems. They won't go anywhere and that's just a fact. So it's a team sport and I have to play it. As a two person system, I have to think of me and you at the same time, or you will confuse me for an adversary. That's across the board, no matter where you are in the world between humans. That's the way it is, right?
ELISE: Yeah.
STAN: Unless there's a different arrangement.
ELISE: This is maybe a left field question, but I've been watching a fair amount of 90 Day Fiancé, Stan which is a fascinating show and so well cast. But when people come into a union and they want something like a prenuptial agreement, I'm sure you get those people landing in your office, because typically that's raised at the very last minute, right? It's usually the play. Do you feel like that's a dooming exercise? I mean, I'm sure it's highly dependent, but I've never really heard a therapist talk about it, actually, when I think about it. Maybe because you guys don't want to.
STAN: No, it is a conundrum because all of that's predicated on agreement. So, I mean, if it's going to work, so there are a lot of people who feel and will report that they had no choice. They did, of course, but from their point of view, they had no choice. They wouldn't have gotten married had they not signed the prenup or postnup. And so under those conditions, stated in that way, that's going to be a gift that keeps on giving. That person's going to, and they do, refer to this as inherently unfair forever, right? It's never forgotten. And that's because they shouldn't have actually said yes. That's what I mean by the attachment system. You know, I can't afford to lose this opportunity. So I'll say yes to something, even though it's not in my best interest. And if it's not in my best interest, nobody wins because I am going to make you pay for that. There's no way I can't. It's not possible. And so both people are making an unwise decision, right? Let's say it's me that wants the prenup. I'd better make sure you're a hundred percent okay about that. Otherwise I'm signing on for something that's going to be miserable for me because now I've got someone who really sees me as the enemy because I've created an unfair platform. You know, the field is not leveled and so it can't work. And I think this is where couples make mistakes. It's not about love. It's not about attraction. It's not about any of that stuff. It's not about healthy, unhealthy. It's about what can work and what will never work. There are things that we know will never work. All you have to do is look ahead look downstream. If I win at your cost that's gonna come back because you'll remember it as unfair. And if I keep doing that, I become more and more threatening to you. Therefore, it can't work. It just can't. I mean, wanted to, but that doesn't mean it will. If I, if we don't tell each other things and we're not fully transparent with each other you know, we may like that, but what are we in for? Well, what could go wrong if you don't have information that you believe down the line you should have? I decided you didn't need to know, but that's good for me. But you've now been violated. You were left out of information that you had a right to know, and you could have had agency, right? So, you know, in thinking about policies of how we're going to do business, all we do have to do is just talk and think about it and think, is this good? What do you mean by this? Is this a good idea? What could go wrong with this? Is this going to save us down the line? Or is this going to cost us down the line? If only people would do that, they'd be much better off. We're too lazy.
ELISE: I know.
STAN: Too lazy.
ELISE: Or romantic or too scared. I think so much it's sort of what you mentioned and knowing people who have had the last minute prenup dropped in their lap, they're like, what am I supposed to cancel this whole thing? Like you're just sort of feel like your back is against the wall. I wonder, I mean, there's probably studies about the success rates of those types of...
STAN: from my own experience, that's very bad.
ELISE: Very It's very bad. It's sort of death now?
Yeah. Yeah, creates like a self fulfilling cycle, right? Where you're like, thank God I got a prenup.
STAN: Well, yeah, right. Exactly. Exactly. It's just like you said, you know, under those circumstances, that's kind of aggressive, right? That's a predatory act to sit to at the last minute say, Oh, by the way sign here or no deal. You know, it's a fire cell and I'm an idiot for doing that, for setting it up that way. I'm not talking about the person who signs it. I'm talking the person who played it that way. You know, I just ensured a miserable life by doing that because I'm only thinking about myself. This doesn't work that way. Anything I do to you in this system is going to happen to me. There's no extricating ourselves from it. We're psychobiologically connected. Our fates are tied. Unless we imagine this differently. Again, it's how we imagine the relationship. It's a picture. It's made up. It's a fantasy. But it's a shared mythology. So we can make up anything, but it's got to be to our delight. Otherwise, you know, it's like, why would you join a union of cannibals just to be killed? Nobody would do that, right? I'm not going to join an outfit that where I'm going to get murdered. I'm going to join an outfit where I'm insured to be safe. My money is safe and I'm not going to get screwed. Right. I'm going to be treated fairly. I'm going to get what I'm told I'm going to get. In other words, people have to think of this in the same way, that their lives depend on fealty to each other's ideas. Otherwise it won't work. It won't. They'll fight, they will war, they will split up. And the landscape is littered with the bones of people who did not do this. And they're just in frozen, pointing fingers at each other.
ELISE: Well, I'm so glad we're actually having this conversation, unexpected, but in part because I think that projecting myself into the consciousness and I feel like it's, I'm sure it's split, but my perception in a heteronormative relationship is that it's usually a man delivering a prenup to a woman. And I recognize that there are opposite instances. In fact, I heard a great story from a friend, she was delivered a prenup. And she was like, Oh, you want to play this game? And then was like, Oh, and then it turned out that she was worth like, 20 times as much as he was which is amazing, but I don't think they lasted. But I think what happens psychologically for women is the implication, because we have so much shame and anxiety about money and about securing our own needs and about being perceived as selfish or interested in self preservation in any way right? In a culture that insists that we be selfless on caring and nurturing and all of that, is that to resist the prenup I think culturally is coded as like, oh, you really only want the money and you're really only here for the money and to be a gold digger. That's the lens through which we tend to look at this dynamic and it's actually so messed up.
STAN: Well, it's kind of a scam, isn't it? It's a trick. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you don't do this, then you'll only want money. And if you do this sucker, but anyway, I digress.
ELISE: But it's true. It's like another example of where I think our language and the way that we think about these things socially is so messed up rather than saying, how are we as co equals investing our time and all of our resources. Everything we're putting into this relationship to ensure our safety, security, livelihood.
STAN: when I think of you and I being interdependent, interdependent means that you and I have the same things to gain and the same things to lose, which means we're stakeholders, which means we both have the burden of responsibility for what happens to us. I prefer that. I prefer a teammate who is going to worry about things that I worry about having to do survival and thriving rather than someone who's just taking a ride with me. So there's a reason to have parody. And that is because you're both in it to win it to survive together. I have to stick to the plan, otherwise, I hurt myself by hurting you, right? That gives you permission to hurt me. So we're playing a fair and square and we're in it together as a team, there's something not only more. Safe about that, but also that I think works better, that we're in charge of everything, we've set ourselves above. We believe in something greater than ourselves. This union that we've co created and now we can do anything we want. All we have to do is dream it and get each other on board and make sure that we're both win win, right? Because that's how we're going to play it, just like that three legged race. It has to be win win or it will not work, period. People have to understand that.
ELISE: Yeah.
STAN: Is that hard to do? It's harder than doing whatever we want, yes. But when we're confined to win win, I have to figure out a way for you to be whole. Otherwise, I can't move. If we know we're confined to that, we will do it. It's a creative process. It's a higher level thinking of moral reasoning, right? I have to please you and me, right? I have to protect you and me. Right? That will work because we're now moving forward and creating things without having to always look back and litigate the past, right? We're not creating a dead weight that's going to, you know, kill us, right? All these things that we have to make up for, we're doing it rightly. And that's how teams work. That's how the military works. That's how paramilitary organizations work. That is been done throughout the history of civilization. So we're not inventing anything new, but we're putting people sites on. This is not a luxury. This is a serious matter of fealty and co creating something, a set of social contracts that the rest of the world wouldn't does not have with us. Therefore, we are not safe. We think we are, but we've never been safe. The world is dangerous place. You and I create a home in an environment that does ensure safety for us. And we can protect each other as we move from the world that is never safe. interested in the end, whether we live or die, right? We do.
ELISE: Yeah.
STAN: The very essence of coming together based on a shared purpose of together we survive and thrive.
ELISE: It's so so interesting like even listening to you say that I'm like, oh my god, duh. But I don't think any of us think about, besides my parents and my brother, right? Like who is particularly interested in my life in my livelihood and my thriving this right? Outside of Rob.
STAN: And but yeah, but your kids, your kids, it's not really their job. It's the two of you are the couple that started the whole thing. You two are the juice, the engine that creates all the energy to be able to do what you can do, right? Without that, if you guys aren't happy, everyone suffers, everyone, everything. So the two of you make everything possible. Right? Including being able to deal with the slings and arrows, the vicissitudes of life, because you're time travelers, you're partners that are holding hands in heaven and hell. If people don't think that is a huge feature, they're nuts, because it is. That's a great thing and you can build it. You can make it, but it does take discipline. It does take impulse control. It does take being able to tolerate pain because if you can't tolerate pain, you won't play fair. It does require that you tolerate differences. This person isn't you, never will be, never was, different animal. You've got to learn that animal that you picked, right? And be confident, right? It means one has to recognize their losses and be able to grieve them. Otherwise, I'm not going to play with a full deck. I'm going to constantly deny my loss and get you to make up for what I should have. Right? That's not fair. So it requires growing up.
ELISE: Yes.
STAN: which I'm still doing. And it's hard to do. No, it is hard to do because our pride, our righteousness, our belief in our thinking is right. And fairness and justice that we have in our heads that are not pro relationship, right, have to be rethought. And now we're talking about character. Now we're talking about you and I deciding what's good, what's best, and what's right. Just the two of us. And be able to do it when we least want to. Right? Doing the right thing when it's the hardest thing to do is what we want. Because that's better than the average bear. That's a good life.
ELISE: Yeah.
STAN: But it's hard.
ELISE: It's hard. No, but one of the things that I value about you, all of the sort of like preeminent couples therapists in our midst, you and the Gottmans and Esther and Terry Real is...
STAN: all lovely people
ELISE: the the best people, truly, like some of my favorite people to talk to is, and Rob and I have had experiences with you, which I've described on the podcast before, but that you're so good as we are looking to align ourselves with you, individually, right, with our content and our stories and our slights and our like, this is what he did and this is what she did. And you are so good at saying no, no, no, I don't care, like, boring irrelevant, you know, everyone has their content. But like, let's look at the context. Let's try to understand the animal, the reactions that are happening underneath this. It's an essential reset, I think, because it's so we get so caught up in our stories and wanting to justify ourselves.
STAN: We're so annoying as humans and we really are annoying and we're so selfish and self-centered, which is why we make agreements based on what appeals to us, selfishly, it has to, otherwise we won't do it when we least move to. I have to adhere to what I believe. is the best thing for me. Otherwise, you can't be safe because who knows whether I'll do it when I don't like you, right? Agreements really is all we have to stay civilized. Otherwise, it's the wild west. And that's what we're avoiding, right?
ELISE: Well, thank you, as always, for your time and your wisdom.
Stan is wonderful. I wanted to share with you, this is actually from In Each Others Care, and today we were discussing Wired for Love, all his books are excellent. But in Each Others Care, Stan talks about visioning that’s required for being a secure functioning couple and why he encourages people to make shared principles of governance, he calls them SPGs, and he writes: “Without shared principles by which to govern people in union, there is unfairness, injustice, social insensitivity, and misbehavior along with a lack of
accountability, safety, security, and prosperity in that union.” And he offers some to get you started, but it’s a really good practice, and as I list these, I think you will relate: “We have each other’s backs at all times, without exception. We repair, correct, fix, or make amends without explanation, condition, excuse, or defense when the other experiences hurt, misunderstanding, or any other injury—and we do so within one hour without exception. We make all decisions that would affect each other together by getting each other fully on board before acting. We protect each other’s interests in public and private at all times. We do loving, romantic, and affectionate deeds for each other throughout every day without exception. We consider our own interests, concerns, and troubles as we consider the other’s interests, concerns, and troubles, and we do so simultaneously.” Those are some that he offers, and it’s hard, bit I think when we can align on things like SPGs, then maybe we don’t deviate so far from our partners concern. We stay on the court, rather than ending up in some other stadium, where there’s so much distance. He also said in our conversation that love and hate are not opposites, it’s actually love and indifference, indifference is brought. Well, thanks for listening, I will see you next time.
