By Stan Tatkin, PsyD, MFT

As a clinician specializing in the psychobiological approach to relationships and human behavior, I have found that communication is truly frustrating, even on a good day. It really is. We tend to misunderstand each other much of the time.

The brain relies on memory, speed, and energy conservation for ordinary tasks. Communication is considered ordinary when it comes to couples. The exception to this rule is when dating or courting.

In the beginning, we are extremely cautious—more formal—about our communication. We do not want to lose the gig, so we don’t introduce risk by taking shortcuts—approximating what the other person is talking about or expecting them to understand what we mean.

Unmindful communication in the beginning can mean the end. All this changes once we assume we understand each other and start getting complacent (less attentive and curious, and more reflexive and automated). As our lives get busier, we don’t take the necessary time to check and recheck on either the listener’s or the speaker’s side.

While unmindful communication is one of the most common errors in communication, it is easily avoidable by returning to the formality likely present at the beginning of the relationship. I often recommend making an extra effort to clarify using micro-communications and check-ins—simple, non-threatening questions or requests.

Communication Pitfalls

When it comes to communication, both partners must take responsibility for making sure that their speech is clear and understood by the other person. Just because you say something, doesn’t mean your partner is translating it as you intend. Here’s an example:

Partner A: I want more intimacy in our relationship.

Partner B: I want that too!

The problem here is that to Partner A, intimacy means “more sex.” Partner B, on the other hand, thinks that agreeing to intimacy will mean more “interpersonal talk.” What’s more, interpersonal talk might actually mean “more questions about how I’m doing.” 

That is how we talk to each other—as if the other person knows exactly what we mean. Much of the time, we don’t know exactly. 

Check-Ins:

“Are you saying…?”

“I want your eyes because this is important.”

“Let me make sure I understand.”

“Say back what you heard.”

“Let me repeat that.”

“What do you think I meant by…?”

“We may not be talking about the same thing. Are you saying…?”

Checking and rechecking are vital for effective interaction and the proper running of a two-person system. If you were two astronauts communicating out in space while tethered to the mothership, would you be incredibly careful with your communication? You bet you would. If you were two generals discussing combat strategies, would you talk in shorthand or assume you were on the same page?

Not very likely.

 Your relationship is no different. While less dramatic and consequential than the former examples, if you and your partner don’t put in the necessary effort, the relationship may suffer, as I have seen in my practice. Be precise. Take responsibility. Articulate check-ins and micro-communications. Be a two-person system.

Micro-Communication Skills

Micro-communications are quick explanations intended to fill in blanks that would otherwise be filled by the observing person’s negatively biased brain. For example, if I get up in the middle of a conversation without telling my partner what I’m doing, she is left to fill in the blank about my motive. 

Since my partner and I were born with brains having a negative bias tendency, she will now fill in the blank with a negative possibility, perceiving my behavior as possibly rude, inattentive, uncaring, disinterested, or bored. This may inadvertently turn into a disagreement unless I close the communication gap. 

“I’m still listening, I’m just grabbing my coffee,” I say before I move. I have foreclosed on my partner’s ability to fill in a blank by filling it in myself with micro-communication. 

As another example, if I’m thinking about something upsetting, I may not be as attentive or responsive while in conversation with my partner. She may very well misinterpret that as my being upset with her. “Honey, I am just thinking about something that has nothing to do with you,” I say, thus forestalling any hurt about my silence or aloofness. 

Micro-communications are small but significant bridges in communication that make relationships safer, happier, and less likely to turn into a back-and-forth that often takes valuable time and energy. Whether in an intimate or professional two-person system, the minute and discrete interactions are respectful, thoughtful, elegant, and considerate—micro but with macro impact. 

Psycholinguistics 

Speech used to be simpler. We would just say “Duck!” or “Eat!” or “Sleep!” or “Run!” or “Lion!” Fast forward to today’s linguistic complexities and consider for a moment all the nuances in our talk, all the new lingo, all the changing meanings for regular words. Take the word sick for example. Today it could mean physically ill, mentally ill, disgusting, or amazing. 

The language couples use can seem even more confusing. “I want you to say what you really feel” can be interpreted as a trap or an insurmountable task. We use a great many words to mean a great many things, many of which partners don’t clarify sufficiently. 

The human brain tends to conserve energy; it does as little as possible. In that sense, making the extra effort to clarify can feel frustrating or unnecessary. “You should know what I mean,” a partner might say. “My meaning is obvious; everyone knows what I mean.”

According to George Miller, a professor of psychology at Princeton and one of the founders of cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics, the listener could radically change the way people get along. 

Miller’s law instructs us to suspend judgment about what someone is saying so that we can first understand them without infusing their meaning with our own personal interpretations. Miller’s law states that “in order to understand what someone is telling you, first it is necessary for you to assume the person is being truthful, then imagine what could be true about it.”

With this collaborative and cooperative approach to communication, you can get a lot accomplished, protect the safety and security of the two-person system, and help promote peace, love, affection, appreciation, and respect.

—

Stan Tatkin, PsyD, MFT, is a clinician, researcher, and author who integrates neuroscience, attachment theory, and current therapies. He is co-founder of the PACT Institute and directs training programs throughout North America and globally. His books include We Do, Wired for Love, Your Brain on Love, and Wired for Dating. For more, visit StanTatkin.com

Well Being Journal adapted the above excerpt from In Each Other’s Care by Stan Tatkin, PsyD, MFT © 2023 and reprinted with permission of Sounds True.