Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.98 AVERAGE
3.98 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Helpful though written for therapists
Summary: A super dense, incredibly detailed discussion on the mathematics behind trust in relationships. If that sentence intrigues you, read this book; if it was boring, this is not your book.
If you haven’t heard of John Gottman, he is the founder of the love lab, and institute that has spent over 14 years studying relationships and predicting (with a 95% accuracy) whether a relationship will last. So, when he decided to write a book on the science behind trust, it was something I was super interested in reading.
I’ve read a several other books by John Gottman, so I wasn’t really prepared for how mathematically dense this book was. Most of his other books center around explaining the principles behind an effective relationship like you would explain them to any normal person. This book is focused on explaining in precise detail the mathematical game theory models they used to actually measure trust between two people in a relationship.
The idea that you can use mathematics to measure trust might sound wild at first, because I promise it sounded crazy to me too, but by the time I was done with this book I was pretty sold. They were able to study several interactions between couples and using some precise, mathematical modeling built on game theory, determine the levels of trust and untrustworthiness between two people in a relationship.
It’s worth saying that the book is incredibly well written, and Gottman does take the time to explain the principles of game theory to people that don’t already understand it, but it’s still pretty complicated. To enjoy this book, which I did, you really need to like the idea of reading a book about the intersection of relationships and mathematics. If the premise of measuring trust in a relationship, using math and game theory is intriguing to you then you should definitely read this book. But if that sounds super frustrating/boring/mind numbing then I would direct you to one of his other books instead of this one.
If you haven’t heard of John Gottman, he is the founder of the love lab, and institute that has spent over 14 years studying relationships and predicting (with a 95% accuracy) whether a relationship will last. So, when he decided to write a book on the science behind trust, it was something I was super interested in reading.
I’ve read a several other books by John Gottman, so I wasn’t really prepared for how mathematically dense this book was. Most of his other books center around explaining the principles behind an effective relationship like you would explain them to any normal person. This book is focused on explaining in precise detail the mathematical game theory models they used to actually measure trust between two people in a relationship.
The idea that you can use mathematics to measure trust might sound wild at first, because I promise it sounded crazy to me too, but by the time I was done with this book I was pretty sold. They were able to study several interactions between couples and using some precise, mathematical modeling built on game theory, determine the levels of trust and untrustworthiness between two people in a relationship.
It’s worth saying that the book is incredibly well written, and Gottman does take the time to explain the principles of game theory to people that don’t already understand it, but it’s still pretty complicated. To enjoy this book, which I did, you really need to like the idea of reading a book about the intersection of relationships and mathematics. If the premise of measuring trust in a relationship, using math and game theory is intriguing to you then you should definitely read this book. But if that sounds super frustrating/boring/mind numbing then I would direct you to one of his other books instead of this one.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
informative
slow-paced
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
emotional
informative
slow-paced
I read this a few months ago but I didn’t get many clear takeaways from it. That may well be my fault rather than the book’s. But the only thing that really stuck with me was the impression that the book spent way more time talking about the history of game theory than I was expecting. Anyway, here’s a grab-bag of interesting bits.
1. This finding definitely plays to my biases:
(Reining in one’s emotions during an argument can be difficult and I don’t think any of us can expect to succeed all the time, but sometimes it seems like our culture denies that there’s value in even making the effort.)
2. How a successful relationship can naturally drive itself toward the situations that will endanger it:
3. On the importance of taking breaks to deal with flooding:
4. Summarizing a result from Schwartz & Russek 1998:
5. I think this comment, suggesting that a sense of responsibility for another person’s state of mind can inhibit us from accurately understanding their state of mind, is insightful:
6. Another suggestion which plays to my biases:
7. A hard but plausible piece of advice:
8. Gottman is definitely selling me on this guy:
9. Gottman directly pushes back against one popular relationship-advice book—Esther Perel’s Mating in Captivity:
10. I find the first part of this to be easy to believe but hard to accept:
11. This sucks:
12. Bad news for the Internet era:
Gottman also refers to a book called The Porn Trap and summarizes an interesting claim it makes:
[1] John Mordechai Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples, 1st ed (New York: W.W. Norton, 2011), 64, emphasis added.
[2] Ibid., 66.
[3] Ibid., 76–77, emphasis added.
[4] Ibid., 125–26.
[5] Ibid., 144.
[6] Ibid., 194.
[7] Ibid., 219, bold added, italics in original.
[8] Ibid., 219–20, emphasis added.
[9] Ibid., 249, emphasis added.
[10] Ibid., 253.
[11] Ibid., 282.
[12] Ibid., 349.
[13] Ibid., 387.
[14] Ibid., emphasis added.
(crosspost)
1. This finding definitely plays to my biases:
…neutral affect is a good thing during conflict.[1]
…couple therapists should work toward moving couples into a less emotional exchange during conflict, not just on getting them out of the nasty-nasty cell of the matrix or on increasing positive affect.[2]
(Reining in one’s emotions during an argument can be difficult and I don’t think any of us can expect to succeed all the time, but sometimes it seems like our culture denies that there’s value in even making the effort.)
2. How a successful relationship can naturally drive itself toward the situations that will endanger it:
…In the beginning years of a new relationship, couples work to see if they can trust each other in various areas of their lives. They are setting up a secure relationship as a base for building a life together.
Once they have established this security, they work harder, or they decide to remodel the kitchen, or they decide to change jobs, or they decide to have a baby. In fact, with regard to the decision to have the first baby, it was the newlyweds who were doing better in their marriages who “progressed” to that decision.
…
The overall life pattern is that people in our culture continually increase complexity in their lives until many live at what mathematicians call the “cusp of a catastrophe.” That word “catastrophe” doesn’t mean disaster; rather, it has a precise meaning for mathematicians. A catastrophe state means that people keep slowly increasing the complexity of their lives until they are at risk for entering a new qualitative state. Mathematically, catastrophe means that small increases in a parameter (like complexity, or stress) can suddenly, once a precise threshold of stress is passed, completely alter the qualitative nature of their relationship.[3]
3. On the importance of taking breaks to deal with flooding:
We now know that taking breaks and creating a way of saying, “Stop, I’m flooded,” is very important for couples. Nothing else will do. Couples who are in a nasty-nasty interchange have to stop talking immediately when one person claims to be flooded and asks for a break….
…The break must be at least 20 minutes long… [b]ecause of the slow decay of [certain] neurotransmitters…
Also, it cannot be a break that gives people time to rehearse “distress maintaining” thoughts like, “I don’t have to take this” or “I’m going to get even.” It must be truly relaxing, like a pleasant walk around the block. That’s not an easy thing to accomplish.
…People need to…schedule a precise time to get together again so the request for a break doesn’t seem like an excuse for avoiding the issue or avoiding the partner.[4]
4. Summarizing a result from Schwartz & Russek 1998:
Ninety-one percent of participants who did not have a warm relationship with their mothers were diagnosed with a serious medical disease in midlife, compared to only 45% who said they did have a warm relationship with their mothers.[5]
5. I think this comment, suggesting that a sense of responsibility for another person’s state of mind can inhibit us from accurately understanding their state of mind, is insightful:
Somewhat counterintuitively, understanding is facilitated by taking no responsibility for the partner’s feelings, except trying to understand. When one’s partner is crying, for example, the response should not be, “Please stop crying,” but something like, “Please help me understand what the tears are all about.” The goal is understanding, and that is enough.[6]
6. Another suggestion which plays to my biases:
Another very important principle in Rapoport’s theory is that to make conflict safe, we first need to postpone persuasion until each person can state the partner’s position to the partner’s satisfaction.[7]
7. A hard but plausible piece of advice:
No one can listen nondefensively to a perceived attack. The speaker cannot begin expressing negative affect with blaming or criticism. There appears to be no such thing as “constructive criticism.” Instead, the speaker must state his or her feelings as neutrally as possible, and then convert any complaint about his or her partner into a positive need.[8]
8. Gottman is definitely selling me on this guy:
Hence, Rapoport suggested two things. First, when we identify a negative quality in our partner (or adversary), we try to see that very quality in ourselves. That is a truly amazing suggestion. Second, he suggested that when we identify a positive quality in ourselves, we try to see that very quality in our partner (or adversary). Another truly amazing suggestion.[9]
9. Gottman directly pushes back against one popular relationship-advice book—Esther Perel’s Mating in Captivity:
The Perel hypothesis is that boundaries between people and emotional distance create great sex and intimacy. The alternative hypothesis, which I favor, is that emotional attunement creates intimate trust and makes intimacy personal.[10]
10. I find the first part of this to be easy to believe but hard to accept:
When we compare cognitively based repairs that appeal to logic and rational problem solving, we must generally conclude that these repair attempts are quite ineffective. However, repair attempts that are based on increasing emotional closeness (taking responsibility, agreement, affection, humor, self-disclosure, understanding and empathy, and “we’re okay”) were highly effective.[11]
11. This sucks:
Harvard professor Robert Weiss’s classic book, Staying the Course, qualitatively analyzed the relationships of 100 successful men. He reported that these couples had about two serious arguments a year. Furthermore, he reported that, after an argument, women generally said that even though it was an unpleasant experience, it was constructive because issues became raised and were now out on the table. In contrast, most of the men had serious thoughts of leaving the relationship after the same argument.[12]
12. Bad news for the Internet era:
Habitual pornography use promotes unfavorable CL-ALT comparisons and supports denigrating rather than cherishing the partner.[13]
Gottman also refers to a book called The Porn Trap and summarizes an interesting claim it makes:
Some images are highly disappointing but some are very exciting and surprising, so the hunt continues, resulting in the porn user being on a variable ratio schedule of reinforcement, which is highly resistant to extinction.[14]
[1] John Mordechai Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples, 1st ed (New York: W.W. Norton, 2011), 64, emphasis added.
[2] Ibid., 66.
[3] Ibid., 76–77, emphasis added.
[4] Ibid., 125–26.
[5] Ibid., 144.
[6] Ibid., 194.
[7] Ibid., 219, bold added, italics in original.
[8] Ibid., 219–20, emphasis added.
[9] Ibid., 249, emphasis added.
[10] Ibid., 253.
[11] Ibid., 282.
[12] Ibid., 349.
[13] Ibid., 387.
[14] Ibid., emphasis added.
(crosspost)
The emphasis in the title is „science“. It is not a handbook.
I really loved the extended parts about the fundamentals of behavioral game theory and the statistical functions of couple interactions.
I really loved the extended parts about the fundamentals of behavioral game theory and the statistical functions of couple interactions.
This was a very interesting book. It builds on Gottman's 20 years of research on what makes marriages work and fail by adding a new component of trust and attunement. I found it incredibly interesting and insightful.
The book is long and the ventures in game theory and lengthy discussions of trust metrics and his research methods were less interesting. And it is not really for general audiences - it is written more for couples therapists and academics. Chapters 1, 4, and 6 were the highlights.
Overall the book gave me a lot of new information for my teaching and for my clinical practice so it was definitely worth it.
The book is long and the ventures in game theory and lengthy discussions of trust metrics and his research methods were less interesting. And it is not really for general audiences - it is written more for couples therapists and academics. Chapters 1, 4, and 6 were the highlights.
Overall the book gave me a lot of new information for my teaching and for my clinical practice so it was definitely worth it.
I think this has a lot of interesting and useful things to say about making a relationship work. I also think that the author seems to forget sometimes that the book is (presumably) written for laypeople. There's just a slight disconnect between presentation & target audience. It's also clear that this research is being done with a particular kind of partnership in mind. Would like to see more inclusive language and research.