I am fortunate that I know how to distinguish good science from bad science. Oftentime, we are fooled by the numbers and statistics. Good science should have 1. a hypothesis, 2. design key experiments to address the unanswered questions, 3. use appropriate statistical analysis to determine if the findings are significantly different/similar from the null hypothesis, and 4. is reproducible.

To ensure that the research work is scientifically sound, one should also check the impact factor (# of articles cited per year)of the journal even if it is peer-reviewed. In general, the journal within a particular field is considered secondary if the impact factor is below 5, and is considered prestigious if the impact factor is above 10.

p.s. first time visitor for Psychology Lounge.

Did the control group have two “mock” therapy sessions in which these rules were not discussed?

Simon

This is a very valuable article – even thought i’ve previously taken a 5-session sex therapy class previously, I learned some new things from your article, including the Internet Porn info.

Have you read Spousonomics? this is a book from my discipline, Economics, but links with yours i.e. Behavioral Economics. They have wonderful tools to deal with spousal issues, including sex.

This is a very complex question. First of all, I totally agree that the first job of non-defensive listening is listening. Jumping to solutions or problem solving too quickly can further annoy the other person. That said, just empathizing without any apology, problem solving, or effort to resolve the problem will also tend to annoy most people. So it’s a delicate balance.

Your second question was about how to respond non-defensively to an accusation of “I can’t ever trust you again.” First of all, you have to look at the truth behind the criticism. Is there some way in which you have been genuinely untrustworthy? Or is this an over-generalization? If the former, an honest acknowledgment of truth in the criticism might start the conversation. If the latter, I’d find some truth in the criticism and acknowledge that. I’d certainly want to hear more details about how the other person has come to this conclusion…”tell me more.” can be a good way to get at this.

Remember, acknowledging some truth can be as simple as “I realize I let you down when I did ________.”

These skills are subtle, and that’s why I teach them in therapy and role-play them extensively with both couples and individuals.

Here’s a couple examples to maybe help clarify:

Imagine your friend/wife/etc says the following after you have let them down a number of times in the past…
“How can I ever trust you again!?”
“I told you I could never trust you again!”

Those seem hard to disarm to me without affirming your untrustworthiness. If you say, “You know I am untrustworthy at times” that doesn’t seem like it’s going to encourage people to change their perspective, but saying “I am trustworthy just give me one more chance!” also obviously isn’t going to make too much headway either. This is also a place where the difference between problem solving early vs. waiting could be important. If someone is as upset as they likely would be above, how are you supposed to get them back on your side? Does early problem solving trivialize what they might be feeling?

Generally these skills are best used with people that you have a relationship with that you care about. If someone’s just being a jerk, you can simply ignore them or to avoid them. If anything I think nondefensive responding is more honest and less manipulative than most of what people do.

The other issue that a lot of people worry about is the whole doormat issue. But the truth is is that getting defensive typically makes people more critical and more abusive towards you. Unless you escalate into high-level hostility, you’ll probably end up being a doormat anyway. If you instead respond non-defensively you stay calm and can certainly be assertive. So that’s really the opposite of being a doormat. Non-defensiveness is never about apologizing at its core. Sometimes an apology is appropriate, but most of the time it’s better to actually suggest problem-solving or problem resolution. Talk is cheap, and most people prefer to be heard and for a solution to be proposed rather than a simple apology.

Your comment at the end about perfectionism is an important one. Most of us are really remarkably perfectionist about ourselves, so it’s very hard to admit openly and are flaws and weaknesses. We assume that people will attack us if we do so. But getting defensive about these flaws almost guarantees that people will counterattack. The truth is we are all very flawed human beings. The sooner we accept that, the happier we can be. The core of non-defensiveness is a lack ego and a loss of perfectionism. Thanks for encouraging me to think more about this.

Your response

Is the “grain of truth” approach dishonest? For example, if someone calls you “the biggest loser in the world” and you say, “You know I agree. I have been rude and inconsiderate to you lately.” You don’t really agree with their global criticism. So when you say you agree are you being manipulative or is it reasonable in this case because their initial criticism was an irrational global label anyways? I guess I have had a few stumbling blocks and the “manipulative, dishonest” part was one.

Another was that I fear that the non-defensive approach sets you up to be agreeable. It seems like people have free reign to say whatever they want to you and you are just going to agree in some fashion. Does this set you up to be a doormat?

I guess I just have this inclination that non-defensiveness is passive and agreeable or even apologetic. But perhaps this is just ego and the perfectionistic influence in me crying out for the status quo.

I also think it’s important to find your own style of non-defensive responding. You don’t need to say “I hear you saying.” Instead a simple direct paraphrase, or “Sounds like you are angry about X,” will suffice. Find your own style, rather than copying anyone else’s.

Mostly what your comment suggests is that some coaching or therapy is helpful to fine tune the use of these skills, and that just reading about them won’t produce miraculous changes. I completely agree with this.