Want to transform your relationships? This powerful episode brings together three conversations with world-leading experts who share research-backed insights and practical tools for building deeper connections. You’ll learn the exact ratio of positive to negative interactions that successful relationships maintain, how to navigate conflict in ways that strengthen rather than strain your bonds, and why personal growth might be the secret ingredient to better relationships.
Relationship researchers Drs. John and Julie Gottman reveal the patterns they’ve discovered from studying thousands of couples, including the “four horsemen” that damage relationships and how to replace them with healthy alternatives. Yung Pueblo shares how meditation and self-awareness create the foundation for meaningful connections, while friendship expert Danielle Bayard Jackson offers strategies for nurturing lasting friendships through both smooth and challenging times.
Whether you’re looking to strengthen your romantic partnership, deepen your friendships, or simply understand the science of human connection better, this episode provides concrete tools you can start using today to create more authentic, resilient relationships in every area of your life.
You can find Julie & John Gottman at: Website | Instagram | Listen to Our Full-Length Convo with The Gottmans
You can find Yung Pueblo at: Website | Instagram | Listen to Our Full-Length Convo with Yung
You can find Danielle at: Better Female Friendships | Instagram | Listen to Our Full-Length Convo with Danielle
photo credits: Shaniya Clarke
Check out our offerings & partners:
Join My New Writing Project: Awake at the Wheel Visit Our Sponsor Page For Great Resources & Discount Codes_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Episode Transcript:
Jonathan Fields: [00:00:00] So what if you could look inside thousands of relationships and identify the exact patterns that determine whether they flourish or fade? And what if understanding these patterns could transform nearly every relationship in your life, from romantic partnerships to friendships? Here’s what’s fascinating to me about this. After decades of research and working with real couples, we know now that there are specific, measurable behaviors that can predict with over 90% accuracy whether a relationship will thrive or struggle. And today’s conversation brings together three brilliant minds who’ve dedicated their lives to understanding what makes connections work. My guest today, our relationship pioneers doctors John and Julie Gottman, who spent over 50 years studying thousands of couples in their famous love lab, along with meditation teacher and author Yung Pueblo, who shares his powerful insights about self-awareness and connection, and friendship expert Danielle Bayard Jackson, who reveals the science behind stronger female friendships. And you’ll learn the surprising ratio of positive to negative interactions that healthy relationships maintain. Why conflict isn’t the real problem in relationships, and how personal growth creates a foundation for deeper connections. We explore why conversations that we most fear having with friends might actually strengthen our bonds and discover practical tools for building more authentic relationships in every area of life. So excited to share this conversation with you! I’m Jonathan Fields and this is Good Life Project.. So our first guests have spent over 50 years studying relationships, conducting breakthrough research with thousands of couples in their famous love lab, and developed practical, science based approaches to building stronger relationships. World renowned relationship researchers doctors John and Julie Gottman are the co-founders of the Gottman Institute and creators of the immensely popular Art and Science of Love workshops, and together they’ve authored numerous bestselling books, including the Latest Fight, right. How Successful Couples Turned Conflict into Connection. And today, they’re here to share their most important discoveries about what makes relationships succeed or fail, and teach us practical tools that we can all use to build stronger connections. Here are Julie and John Gottman…
John Gottman: [00:02:15] In a great relationship. Even during conflict, the ratio of positive emotions to negative emotions was 5 to 1 five times as much positivity as negativity, even when they’re conflicting about something.
Jonathan Fields: [00:02:31] Tell me what you mean by positivity and negativity though.
John Gottman: [00:02:34] Well, all the positive emotions like interest in one another, amusement, shared humor, empathy, understanding, kindness, compassion, calming a partner down, reassuring your partner all kinds of things that people do to be nice to one another. Kindness and generosity. All those positive emotions, including joy and ecstasy and things like that, which we rarely observe in a laboratory, and all the negative emotions like hostility and belligerence and domineering and anger and disappointment and sadness and hurt feelings and all those negative things, and those come out in conflict as well. But an unhappy relationships, it’s like negativity is like one of those whirlpools that just spiraled down and people can’t dig out of it. They’re caught in this trap, this whirlpool of negativity. But in good relationships, they have so much of a cushion of positive emotion that they can easily escape. When negativity hits, they can exit as well as enter. And in unhappy relationships, they can exit, they can enter, but they get sucked into it and they can’t get out. So that was a real surprise. In a way. Those findings are really very simple and describing the differences between happy and unhappy marriages. Mhm.
Jonathan Fields: [00:03:54] So the things that we need five of these positive experiences. For every negative experience to reach. You know like however we describe healthy.
Julie Gottman: [00:04:06] Well that’s only during conflict.
Jonathan Fields: [00:04:08] Okay.
Julie Gottman: [00:04:09] During non conflict it’s 20 positives to one negative.
John Gottman: [00:04:13] Right.
Jonathan Fields: [00:04:14] What’s the how do you define conflict versus non conflict.
Julie Gottman: [00:04:17] Conflict is when you’re trying to solve a problem and you have a disagreement.
Jonathan Fields: [00:04:22] Okay.
Julie Gottman: [00:04:22] That’s what we mean by conflict. So you’re discussing a problem. You have different points of view about it. And you’re trying to figure out how to solve it. That’s how we’re defining conflict. So during that phase of discussion the good couples 5 to 1 positive to one negative. And when you’re just going about, you know, your everyday interaction, you’re cooking in the kitchen, you’re, you know, just having fun with the kids, you’re hanging out together. That’s 20 positives to one negative.
John Gottman: [00:04:56] Or when you’re just hanging out right, and your partner tries to get your attention, and the other person really, you know, doesn’t respond. It seems like a small thing, but it kind of hurts when people are trying to connect, you know, and just say something like, oh, Jonathan, look out there. You know, that looks like that’s a hawk, isn’t it, on that ledge. And there’s no response. It hurts a lot more because you expect nice interaction when you’re not conflicting. So when there’s a turning away, you know, during one of those moments, it’s much more painful.
Jonathan Fields: [00:05:34] Yeah, that makes sense to me. And I guess that also introduces this concept, um, from the work that you do of bids, tell me more.
Julie Gottman: [00:05:44] Mhm. So John and I created on the University of Washington campus an apartment lab. And in this little apartment, we created a room that was very much like a B&B. So people stayed there for 24 hours. They were, you know, bringing groceries in. They would make meals. There was a TV and so on, and we watched them for 24 hours. So it was just like a B&B, except that we had three cameras bolted to the walls. We took their urine, we took their blood, you know, but other than that, it was a perfect B&B experience, right? And what we noticed in all of the tape we were watching was that people would make these little tiny bits for connection. So at first, you know, we couldn’t figure out what were the differences between the successful couples and the ones who didn’t do well because we were following these couples for years after they came to the apartment lamp. And finally John and a colleague of his figured out that there were these little bits for connection, meaning you might just call your partner’s name and see if your partner said, yeah. That’s a good response to a bid for connection. Or one person would look out the window because there was a beautiful view outside and might say, wow, look at that fantastic boat going by. And the other person could do one of three things they could either turn against which look like, stop interrupting me, I’m trying to read, or they could turn away, meaning nothing. There’d be no response whatsoever, or they could turn towards. And that would just look like this, huh? Wow. That’s all it took and it made a huge difference. We found that when we followed these couples, the successful couples turned towards each other’s bids for connection. 86% of the time. 86. That’s a lot. The disastrous couples who ended up really unhappy or divorcing turned towards each other only 33% of the time. See that difference? 53% difference in whether they turn towards or turned away or against. So we saw that this was an incredibly powerful factor in what made relationship successful or disastrous.
John Gottman: [00:08:32] In couples where there wasn’t much turning toward. There was also not very much bidding. There was not pretty much attempt to really connect as well. But of course, you know, in all of these findings, these are correlational findings. So we don’t know what’s causing what right is it the happy relationship that’s causing this. So we had to do experiments. And it turns out when you increase the amount of turning toward noticing bids, you know, which is an important part of that and the willingness to really meet the need that’s being expressed. Sometimes it’s nonverbally expressed. Then a lot of other good stuff increases. So we could really measure and assess whether these things were causally related or just correlations of being in a happy relationship. So it turns out that these things really are skills. If you build the skills, you’ll change the nature of the relationship.
Julie Gottman: [00:09:30] Because we studied over 3000 couples, what we could do is look at the successful couples, see exactly what they were doing, because there were really very clear patterns about what they were doing to make their relationship successful. Then we could create exercises and interventions to help those who were distressed to do the same things in their relationships that the successful couples were doing. So we very carefully analyzed what were they doing, created exercises, tested those exercises to see if they actually worked. And sure enough, they did. And then we began teaching those to couples who came to our workshops, who came to therapy.
Jonathan Fields: [00:10:19] Yeah. So it’s almost like if, John, as you describe the when you notice in the the problematic relationships that there were just very low level of bids happening in the first place, and then you do the the research to figure out causation versus correlation, then you can start to understand maybe this is actually more of a learned helplessness that you just give up. Right. And then if you can see that you reverse it, say okay if people are learning helplessness, well then maybe they can also relearn.
John Gottman: [00:10:48] Exactly.
Jonathan Fields: [00:10:49] To be constructive.
John Gottman: [00:10:50] Exactly. Yeah, exactly.
Julie Gottman: [00:10:51] Beautifully. Beautifully put. Jonathan, what we were really trying to do is create the safety for those couples to actually make more bids for connections so that they could slowly build trust and teaching the other partner how to respond to those bids. It didn’t take a lot. It was just a small, little tiny response like, yeah or aha, that’s all it took. And they could change the whole course of their relationship over time.
Jonathan Fields: [00:11:26] Which seems so almost so counterintuitive. You know, it’s it’s that hard yet that easy.
Julie Gottman: [00:11:32] Yes, exactly. Yeah. You’ve got it.
Jonathan Fields: [00:11:34] You at some point along the way also, I know in in the work that you did, you identify these things that you call the Four Horsemen. I think it’s the it’s Four Horsemen of the apocalypse, right?
Julie Gottman: [00:11:44] Right, right.
Jonathan Fields: [00:11:44] Right, right. Can you sort of, like, walk us and walk me through those a bit? Sure.
Julie Gottman: [00:11:49] So we found very clear patterns of negative behaviors, negative emotions, and how they were expressed that were the big problem. It wasn’t the emotion that was the problem. It was how they were expressed. So let me talk about each one. Criticism is when you put the blame for a problem on a personality flaw of your partner. Right. So an example of that might be something like you’re just too lazy. There’s the criticism. You’re too lazy to clean up the kitchen. So the emotion is frustration that the kitchen is dirty. Right. You’re blaming a personality flaw. Lazy. You’re blaming the problem on that personality flaw of your partner. You’re too lazy to clean up the kitchen.
Jonathan Fields: [00:12:44] So it’s like an identity level thing.
Julie Gottman: [00:12:46] It’s a character thing. Okay. Yes. So there’s a character trait that you’re seeing in your partner that’s very negative, very bad. And all problems come back to that particular flaw in your partner. Okay. You’re too selfish. You know, you’re so thoughtless. You’re so inconsiderate. Those kinds of words are criticisms. And when you express your anger, your frustration, your resentment, and so on, by describing your partner negatively that way, that doesn’t work. It creates defensiveness. Defensiveness is the second one. Defensiveness. Um, looks like I did to clean up the kitchen. So it’s kind of righteous victimhood, right? Don’t don’t get mad at me. I’m such a good person. So that’s one form of defensiveness. Another form of defensiveness is counterattack. So you say something like, oh, yeah, well, you didn’t pay the bills, right? So you’re attacking back. All right, so defensiveness doesn’t work. You’re not taking any responsibility for the problem at all. You’re just saying, no, it’s not me or no. You’re bad. I’m good. Right. Right. All right. The third is contempt. And contempt is the worst. It’s like sulfuric acid on a relationship. So contempt is when you’re also criticizing your partner, but you’re doing it from a place of superiority, of moral superiority. And contempt manifests through sarcasm, through mockery, Sometimes through a facial expression, like if any of you have teenagers, right? And you see that roll of the eye, you know, or the, the, you know, left cheek, left lip corner going up, you know, like with an eye roll, that is contempt and contempt makes the other person feel ashamed. It shames them. It’s saying, you know, you’re you’re so disgusting to me that I can barely look at you. That’s contempt. And not only does contempt create demise in the relationship. It’s also been found in our research to really destroy the immune system of the listener. So the number of times a listener in a relationship here’s contempt correlates with how many infectious illnesses they’ll have well in the next year.
Jonathan Fields: [00:15:37] So there’s a whole secondary immunology thing happening.
Julie Gottman: [00:15:39] Yes that’s right. So it’s really hurting the immune system. The other person is probably secreting cortisol and adrenaline when they hear that contempt which erodes the immune system. So that’s the third.
Jonathan Fields: [00:15:53] So content literally quite literally causes physical harm to the other person in the relationship.
Julie Gottman: [00:15:59] Psychological harm and physical harm. You’ve got it. That’s right. So the fourth horseman is what we call stonewalling. And it looks exactly like it sounds. The other partner turns into a stone wall and doesn’t give any response whatsoever to what the speaker is trying to say. Now, we found out because John and Bob measured physiology in the lab. We found out that stonewalling, which typically happens more in men than it does in women is a way that that person is trying to go inside and self soothe.
John Gottman: [00:16:41] Hmm.
Julie Gottman: [00:16:42] What we found is when that stone Waller was actually really questioned later on about their experience, they felt like they were facing a saber toothed tiger who was attacking them, and their heart rates would jump above 100 beats a minute, even though they were sitting there quietly listening to their partner. They’d be aerobically escalated. They’d be in fight or flight because they felt so attacked and powerless at the same time.
Jonathan Fields: [00:17:16] If these are the the four things that are massively destructive, what can we do about them?
John Gottman: [00:17:23] Well, we when we look at the masters of relationship, we see we get additional information. So instead of criticism, most of the time the masters are reassuring their partner and pointing their finger not at their partner, but at themselves, and having a very gentle beginning to the conflict discussion where they say, hey Jonathan, don’t get upset about this. You know I love you. You’re a great guy. I love this relationship. You know, we’re you know, we’re doing fine. It’s just that every now and then at dinner, you know, you’ll be doing your email and that kind of. That kind of makes me feel unimportant. And I wish you wouldn’t do your email during dinner.
Julie Gottman: [00:18:06] So I did need.
John Gottman: [00:18:08] A positive need, is there? You know, it’s what you’re asking for. You know, let’s have conversation during dinner instead of you doing your email and us being disconnected. So very gentle startup. But even when the partner was critical among the masters, they would be communicating okay. You know, well, that makes sense. Sometimes I am kind of selfish. Sometimes I am really thoughtless. You’re right, you know. Tell me more about what you feel and what you need. If they’re taking responsibility for the problem. Unlike defensiveness, where they’re pushing it back and accelerating and counterattacking or acting like an innocent victim, they’re saying, you know, you’re probably right. There are times when I’m not a very good listener at times, and I’m not a very good partner. Tell me more. I want to hear more. I want to know what you need. A totally different reaction than defensiveness creates. And then instead of contempt in the apartment lab, we saw them in very small moments, building respect and affection, saying things like, you know, you really look sexy this morning I’m having all these lewd thoughts about you, or thanks for getting me the butter, or thanks for doing the dishes.
John Gottman: [00:19:21] Or I enjoy the conversation at dinner. They’re doing that. And when they do get physiologically aroused, they’re talking about what they need and what they feel. Okay, so they’re repairing effectively when things aren’t going well. Rather than stonewalling. So it’s a whole different kind of configuration where they’re communicating to their partner. You know when you’re upset the world stops and I listen and I’m not defensive. I try not to be defensive. So that was kind of what we learned from the good relationships. And part of our research strategy was to over sample unhappy couples and over sample happy couples. So we had enough power statistically to describe what they were doing. And you get all these wonderful recipes that can be useful in therapy from these good relationships. It’s not just that they’re not doing the Four Horsemen. It’s that they’re doing additional things that actually build that positive climate of acceptance, understanding, shared humor, all those kinds of things that really work to make understanding much more likely.
Julie Gottman: [00:20:31] Let me add a little bit more to that. So for both criticism and contempt, you know, typically there’s anger and resentment. There’s sadness and so on. There’s typically a need that’s going on, okay, that they’re trying to express, but they’re doing it the wrong way. So we saw there was a formula actually, that John is describing. Here’s the formula. I feel something I feel upset, I feel stressed, I feel angry, I’m worried. I’m threatened. I’m frustrated, I feel I feel about what they describe the situation objectively. I feel angry that the kitchen is a mess. I feel frustrated that there’s a new dent in the car. Then they say, here’s what I need. And when they express their need, they’re expressing it positively. So they don’t say what they don’t need, what they don’t want. I don’t want you leaving the kitchen a mess. That’s a negative need. The positive need. They flip it on its head. They say, I would love it if you would wipe down the counters after dinner. They tell their partner what their partner can do to shine for them. You see, and that’s a whole nother message. Doesn’t make the person feel defensive. They’re describing themselves, their feeling, then the situation and the positive need that can help the partner shine for them.
Jonathan Fields: [00:22:25] Mhm.
Julie Gottman: [00:22:25] Now another thing about stonewalling that’s very important is that when somebody is what we call physiologically flooded they stonewall and that flooding means they’re in fight or flight.
Jonathan Fields: [00:22:40] That’s just overwhelm at that point.
Julie Gottman: [00:22:41] They’re overwhelmed. Their heart rates are high. They’re in fight or flight and physiologically inside they feel awful.
Jonathan Fields: [00:22:50] You probably can’t even hear or see what’s really going on at that point.
Julie Gottman: [00:22:53] Exactly. That’s exactly right. All you perceive is attack. So what really needs to happen when somebody is stonewalling is that they need to take a break. They need to take a break. They need to call for a timeout. You know, just like sometimes we give our kids a timeout. They need to give themselves a timeout. And the best way to do that is to say to the partner, you know what, I’m flooded. Then they need to say when they’ll come back. I need to take a break. I’ll be back in an hour. And typically, a break should last at a minimum 20 to 30 minutes. No longer, though, than 24 hours. So they tell their partner when they’ll come back to continue to talk. Because the partner will feel, you know, abandoned. Right. And then when they go away. A really important thing to do when they separate is don’t think about the fight. Don’t figure out what you should say when you come back. Because if you keep thinking about the fight, you’ll keep yourself around. That’s right. So what makes better sense is to do something that’s self-soothing, something that takes your mind off it. So you can read a magazine, you can watch TV. You can take a walk. You can meditate. You can do yoga. You can listen to music. Play music. All those things that are self-soothing for us and come back at the designated time. If you need more time, that’s okay. Come back at the designated time and ask for more time and say the second time you’ll come back. Hmm.
John Gottman: [00:24:40] Also, there’s a different goal for the Masters in conflict. The goal for the Masters is mutual understanding. For the disasters, the goal is to win.
Jonathan Fields: [00:24:53] That’s huge.
John Gottman: [00:24:54] Yep.
Jonathan Fields: [00:24:55] Yeah. I mean, that shift alone, right? Seems like it’s everything.
John Gottman: [00:24:58] It’s everything.
Jonathan Fields: [00:24:59] Yeah. Because one of it is adversarial and the other is collaborative.
John Gottman: [00:25:04] Right. Exactly.
Jonathan Fields: [00:25:05] Yeah.
Julie Gottman: [00:25:06] Not only is it collaborative, but it’s curious. It’s cooperative and it’s compassionate. You’re trying to understand with compassion where your partner’s coming from, with.
John Gottman: [00:25:20] Their partner as they are.
Julie Gottman: [00:25:23] With their position on the issue.
Jonathan Fields: [00:25:26] Yeah. Um, so as we come full circle here, uh, the name of this is Good Life Project.. If I offer out the phrase to each of you to live a good life, what comes up?
Julie Gottman: [00:25:35] Oh, well, um, what that means to me, uh, is keep living your purpose. So I’ve spent a lot of time figuring out what’s my purpose when I was in India. The problems there that I witnessed were so overwhelming. But eventually, as I wrote and wrote and wrote in my journal, I realized if I could just help one person, uh, to heal, by golly, you know, it would never offset all the luxury. I grew up with all the advantages and privileges I grew up with. But, you know, I’ll try. By reaching out and trying to help other people. That’s my purpose. So live a good life for me means continuing to do what I do and throwing a little nature in there every now and then.
John Gottman: [00:26:38] Well, for me, uh, I think one of the really big realizations is that a really good love relationship is your best guarantee of health, longevity, happiness, success in life. And the emphasis is always so much in love relationships on getting the love you want. But I think what you really gain in a love relationship is you gain the ability to love. The joy is the opportunity to love fully, and that emphasis is what makes for good living. I think that ability to love your children well, to love your partner well. And that’s what you get.
Julie Gottman: [00:27:22] Hmm. Can I just modify that phrase to fit what you’re saying? Which is give the love you want. Right.
John Gottman: [00:27:31] Mhm.
Jonathan Fields: [00:27:33] Thank you both.
Julie Gottman: [00:27:35] Thank you.
Jonathan Fields: [00:27:37] And we’ll be right back after word from our sponsors. Good Life Project. is sponsored by Wild Alaskan Company. So you know that moment in the grocery store when you’re staring at the seafood counter wondering where those fish actually came from? I used to spend way too much time trying to decode seafood labels and figure out what’s really good, until I discovered something that transformed how I think about seafood. Wild Alaskan Company delivers premium wild caught seafood right to your door. The first time I seared that Pacific halibut with just a bit of olive oil and herbs, I mean, the clean, pure taste reminded me of meals I’d enjoyed in some of the best seafood restaurants, and what makes this special is their commitment to truly sustainable fishing practices. Every piece is wild caught, never farmed, which means no antibiotics, no GMOs, just pure, nutrient rich seafood frozen at peak freshness. Each portion arrives perfectly sized, making it simple to create nourishing meals. It actually tastes amazing. So ready to transform your seafood experience? Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to Wild Alaskan GoodLife for $35 off your first box of premium wild cut seafood. That’s wild. Alaskan GoodLife for $35 off your first order or just click the link in the show notes. Thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode. Our next guest is Diego Perez, who is widely known by his pen name Yung Pueblo, a number one New York Times bestselling author who has touched millions with his writing about self-healing relationships and inner wisdom, with an online following of over 4.5 million people and recognition as one of time 100 creators of 2025. He draws inspiration from his 13 year journey with meditation to share profound insights about human connection and his latest book, How to Love Better The Path to Deeper Connection Through Growth, kindness, and Compassion became an instant New York Times bestseller. Here’s Yung Pueblo.
Yung Pueblo: [00:29:40] I went into meditating because I needed to save myself. Like I needed to find a way to really sort of reformat my mind and almost, like, hit a reset because I, I had been working towards developing better habits and I had been already started, you know, that self-love journey. And and this was before, like the self, the self-love word even like erupted into the world. But I was improving my habits. But I still felt the heaviness of mind. And I went into meditating as an opportunity to see, you know, let’s see what happens. Like, I have nothing to lose. And I was shocked that the same skills that I was developing to really help myself, you know, compassion, understanding, listening, patience, acceptance that immediately those skills transferred and I was able to use them almost to like start a new chapter in my relationship, that where I was personally able to show up better. And as my wife started her own journey with meditating, she saw the same thing. But so I knew that this there was a bridge there, but I wanted to instead of immediately writing a whole book on it, a whole non-fiction book. I wanted to wait and see. I wanted to see how building our self-awareness was going to continue developing and enhancing our relationship. And I also needed time as a writer to continue, just like, you know, I was working only in the poetry and prose format and like short essays back then when we first talked, and I needed the time to just, you know, learn how to write chapters like, you know what? What really like is clear writing. And that takes time to develop.
Jonathan Fields: [00:31:12] Yeah. I mean it is really interesting that time. Thing a couple of years back, I had the opportunity to sit down with Daniel Kahneman, who this legendary behavioral economist and researcher, and wrote this massive book, Thinking Fast and Slow. And we were talking about a book that he had worked on called noise at the time. And later in the conversation, we were talking about some of the ideas of it, and he kind of started hedging on some of the ideas. And I was kind of like, I asked some version of what’s going on here? And he looks at me and he’s like, I wrote the book too soon. And he’s saying this about a book that’s out there. And then the sentence that came after it floored me. He’s like, I’ve only been working on this topic for about five years, and you need a good 20 years before you’re ready to write a book. And I’m just like, oh man, I’m completely busted because nothing I’ve written, like no book ever written have I taken 20 years to really digest things. But, you know, in truth, it feels like this is something where maybe you’ve been focusing on the form for 4 or 5 years or something like that, but the topic and the practices and the skills. This has been a part of your life for a really long time now.
Yung Pueblo: [00:32:13] Yeah, absolutely. I think it’s, um, you know, the relationship with my wife. I think we’ve been together now for 17, 18 years, and we’ve been meditating now for almost ten of those years. And it’s now a little more, I think, actually 12. And it’s been a long journey, and it’s honestly been nice to be able to see the two different sides of our relationship, because it’s the old part of our relationship. Before we started, meditating was quite chaotic. It felt like we were living in a hurricane together, and we were really fortunate to be able to, you know, build the emotional skill set that it needs to be able to even hold a relationship, to be able to hold your own tension and not immediately project it onto another person and place the blame, which is what the mind really likes to do. It just doesn’t really want to accept responsibility for itself.
Jonathan Fields: [00:33:00] Yeah. Um, let’s dive into some of the ideas in this new book here. And one of the opening moves is really this notion. And this I’m going to quote you back to you. Love is not something small. It’s the energy of love that often changes lies and even history. There’s a bigness that you really bring to the conversation around love. Take me into this.
Yung Pueblo: [00:33:20] Yeah, I feel like love. When we use that word. It will denote anything that we feel is really important. So that can be an idea, a person, just something, you know. I love this TV show. I love, you know, these set of values, whatever it could be, but it shows how much we really feel for a particular thing. And I think we’ve seen that where people will just rise to a whole different occasion to be able to keep living in love. And I think I’ve seen that in my own relationship where I was like, we, you know, we were together, but we didn’t know how to care for each other. We wanted to maintain our love and we wanted to, you know, be able to hold each other better. But we were in this constant stream of arguments because we just didn’t know how to take care of ourselves as individuals. And I think that was one of the initial energies that pushed us into even having the the strength to be able to see ourselves and keep digging deeper. And we did it for ourselves as individuals, but we kept seeing the results in our relationship.
Yung Pueblo: [00:34:22] And that was definitely something that kept encouraging us to go back, to keep doing longer meditation courses and benefiting from it. But I see it throughout all of, I don’t know, history. Like I love studying history, and I find that people are always moving together around a set of values that are usually humanistic, like they want people to live in more compassionate fields, you know, for people to get education and, you know, schooling and, you know, medicine. I think people move together to try to make things better. And I find that a lot of our society is built on the framework of our personal relationships. And I think that’s why I wanted to really focus in on how to love better, because I really feel like there is so much that happens in the home and how we’re able to communicate with each other in the home, care for each other in the home. The people that benefit from the nourishment in the home, or the kids that are raised in the home. I think that ripples out into society in a really big way.
Jonathan Fields: [00:35:21] Yeah. So I agree with that. You know, and, you know, probably makes sense to frame the word love a little bit here in the context of this conversation. So, you know, I think the thing that pops into most people’s minds when they first hear is, oh, romantic love, like rom com love. It’s like the thing that happens and yes, that’s a part of it, but there’s a broader context of love and like there are different dimensions, different styles, types, aspects of love. So when you actually use the word love, take me a little bit more into what you actually mean by that.
Yung Pueblo: [00:35:49] There’s a few different manners, and I think the main ones I think like I said earlier, it’s something that’s very important to you, but it’s also a form of clarity where you can see yourself in another person. Well, and that clarity is usually imbued with compassion. So when I think about love, the apex of love, which is like unconditional love, and that’s what you get from people who have really spent a lot of time cultivating themselves, you know, not just like the sort of the higher archetypes of like Jesus and the Buddha, but like so many people throughout history, like monks and nuns, people who spend a lot of time just cultivating themselves and shifting from a framework of ego to a framework of compassion where they aren’t really seeing you with this dense sense of self, but they’re really allowing themselves to view the world in a way where they see no one as an enemy. Like, to me, that’s sort of a higher level of love. And I think the relationship of that is that in our intimate relationships, we get an opportunity to practice unconditional love where it’s not going to be perfect. But we have these moments where we get to practice selflessness, where we get to practice giving, where we get to practice stepping outside of our perspective to see the perspective of another person. It almost feels like training ground to be able to get a taste of unconditional love. It’s never going to be perfect, because asking someone to be unconditionally loving is asking someone to reach the pinnacle of human evolution from my perspective. It’s very, very hard, but it’s good to practice it at times.
Jonathan Fields: [00:37:15] One of the things that you, um, explore also is this notion of attachment. You write attachment is a deep form of inflexibility. I thought that was a really interesting frame. Take me into this.
Yung Pueblo: [00:37:27] And we’re talking about old school attachment, not like attachment theory and all that. Um, when I think of attachment, I really see it as the craving to have things happen in a very certain way, and wanting your loved ones to be a certain way, wanting particular outcomes to happen and to be attached literally means that you have to be static. You have to be inflexible. You are not allowing more opportunities to arise. You’re just trying to force things to happen in a certain way. Now we all carry these attachments in our minds. And the tricky thing is that these attachments, they’ll manifest as the attempt to control in daily life, and they can even go further into manipulation and coercion. I mean, they can really take manifest into pretty, you know, negative behaviors. So we have to understand that if you want to live a happy life and if you want to have a harmonious relationship, you have to work with the universe and not against it. What that means is our universe’s ever flowing change. We’re literally just flowing forward as a gigantic river where everything is changing at the atomic level, the biological level, the cosmological level, everything’s in motion. So if you’re static, if you’re being inflexible, if you’re hanging to particular ways of things to be, then life is going to hurt. Life is going to be quite hard because we have to understand that we don’t have control over our loved ones. When we try to approach our relationships with attachment, We’re literally squeezing the life out of the relationship, so we have to be quite mindful of that.
Jonathan Fields: [00:39:03] Yeah. Let’s talk about the grey area a little bit then, because, you know, this is often the area that conflict arise in relationships or arguments arrive in relationships. You have this other great thing that you shared. Victory is not winning. Understanding is, um, when we’re in this grey area where there’s so much opportunity for misunderstanding, for conflict, for arguing, take me into how you look at this and how you how you think about more constructive navigation of of these areas where there’s potential for conflict.
Yung Pueblo: [00:39:38] Yeah, I wrote this this chapter in How to Love Better call the Art of arguing, and it was really inspired by this tiny little sentence that Nathan wrote. He said, love is understanding. And as I’ve been meditating and as my wife and I have been learning how to, like, create a culture for the two of us. Like literally create a culture in our relationship. We were realizing that we had spent years just playing the blame game, where tension would arise, and my mind would quickly try to figure out how this tension is her fault, and vice versa. We were just constantly blaming each other.
Jonathan Fields: [00:40:14] Nobody else has ever experienced that before. Yeah, I said.
Yung Pueblo: [00:40:20] And it’s just it came from a sheer lack of awareness from the both of us. And as we learned over time, we started seeing that it just doesn’t make sense to go into an argument with their energy where we’re both trying to win, because usually if we go in that manner, then eventually someone has to yield. One person sort of wins dominance over the narrative and resentment builds over time. So instead we started realizing that why don’t we try to understand, like, why don’t we try to just take a moment where I can listen to your story and you can listen to my story, and as opposed to just trying to win and point fingers, let’s just say how we felt like how did the series of events move for the two of us, and how do we arrive into this moment as individuals? And I think approaching it from that place created a new sort of string of awareness for the both of us, where we would see ourselves and each other better. And once we could really understand each other, there was this beautiful thing that would happen where the tension would just evaporate because it was like, oh, now I finally see you. Like I see why you were upset, and I see why we sort of slipped into that argument. And I think it’s been so helpful because we, you know, we’re not really trying to seek dominance anymore. We’re just trying to it’s like, oh, an argument has arisen. It’s really an opportunity for connection. Let’s sit down and try to hold it. And I think doing simple little things like reminding yourself in the middle of the argument that your partner is not your enemy. Like you’re okay. You know, sometimes it feels like so heightened that we get really scared, but it’s really just a discussion.
Jonathan Fields: [00:42:06] Yeah, I love that. I’ll find myself sometimes, you know, if I’m in a heated conversation or a disagreement, just pausing for a microsecond and almost like zooming the lens out a little bit and asking myself, what’s really going on here? Do you have any kind of mechanism or something where, like, you’re in a conflict, maybe with your wife or a dear friend or family member or something where you you actually care about this person, you value the relationship. You’re not fighting in a way that’s going to like, you’re you’re in this like, and you want to stay in it. You know, is there a mechanism or a skill or a tool or a question or practice or a circuit breaker where when you start to find yourself going there, you can kind of go to this thing and it’s sort of like it stops you in your tracks and makes you zoom out a little bit.
Yung Pueblo: [00:42:51] Yeah. There’s a there’s a few things I think, and I try a few of them depending on, on what’s happening. But the first immediate one is if it’s a, if it’s a very serious argument and we’re like really kind of going at a particular topic, I think reminding myself that as my tension is increasing that this person is not my enemy. This person is my my best friend, my roommate. I care about them profoundly. I’m not in danger. I think these things really help calm the nervous system a little bit because it’s like, okay, you’re you’re fine. You’re really okay. The other end of that is, I like to check in with myself and see how attached am I to this. Like, is this really important? Am I holding on to something that’s very little? Like, is this even worth my time to be, you know, attached and adding to this argument, the other thing is like, am I the problem? You know, like, am I really the one who’s like, causing this because I’m, I’m ignoring that. I feel so tense and I’m like adding to this, you know, this energy of attachment to the to the argument.
Yung Pueblo: [00:43:53] And the other thing to is like, as a meditator, I feel like one of the most, you know, fortunate and accessible things I have is the breath. So if I’m really sort of heated, I can always like, you know, come back to the breath and that’ll help me just, you know, be aware for a little while. And another thing too, is it’s really helpful to just like, argue slowly like I, you know, if, if, um, where you don’t need like an immediate answer right away because especially if you’re so heated. I find that when my wife and I do have serious arguments, they take a little while. They could take like an hour or an hour and a half or sometimes we’re, you know, talking seriously for 45 minutes and then we’re just kind of quiet. And then we kind of go back to it when we’re a little more level headed. So not moving so quickly through an argument, I think, is it helps you just, you know, get back in touch with yourself.
Jonathan Fields: [00:44:44] Towards the end of the book, you focus your energy on this interesting dynamic between love and deepening the connection and individualism and freedom. And I feel like so often you’ll lose that classic rom com phrase, you know, what was it? Um, you complete me. There’s this notion that when we’re in this deep relationship that, you know, we surrender our freedom, we surrender our individuality, and we become this one thing. And you have a different take. It’s like, actually many of us really need a healthy amount of individuality and sometimes solitude and time by ourselves. And. Yeah. And that that freedom, your personal freedom actually doesn’t have to threaten a loving union.
Yung Pueblo: [00:45:29] Yeah. I think it’s, um, it’s so funny because whenever people see the word love and freedom next to each other, they get scared because they think, oh, what does that mean? That my partner can just cheat on me and do whatever they want? No, no, no, we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about basing a relationship around commitments And around, you know, feeling like I’m fully committed to this person. I want to be with this person. I want to be with them for as long as possible in this lifetime. But then simultaneously understanding that you have no control over this person’s interests, over their preferences, over what skills they want to develop, over, you can just go on and on. But each individual has their own focuses, has their own sort of where they decide to put their energy into. And that’s actually one of the funner parts of relationships, because that means that you always have to get to know your partner, that their preferences are going to continue evolving over time and what they’re into, what they’re not into. It’ll keep changing. And I, my wife and I became really clear to us when, you know, when we would go to these longer meditation courses for, you know, 30 or 45 days in those courses when we’re totally silent and we’re like, apart during that time, you know, in our own rooms and we don’t see each other for the whole time during that time, because we’re meditating so deeply, a lot of conditioning gets erased.
Yung Pueblo: [00:46:52] So what? You know, this experience I had repeatedly where at the very end of the course, you know, I get back home and I’ll start working out again and I’ll listen to the playlist that I used to listen to in the past. And the sound, the music wouldn’t, wouldn’t feel right anymore. And I’d have to look for a different taste in music or look for something else that’s a little less, you know, a little lighter. And the same thing would happen for like the TV shows that we want to watch. And just like how we want to use our time, it was a beautiful experience to like not only at the end of those longer retreats, get to know ourselves again as individuals, but also get to know my wife again and see, like, what is she interested in now? Because it feels like we’ve been apart for a long time, and now it’s a new version of us. And honestly, it’s it’s pretty fun to have that period of getting to know each other again.
Jonathan Fields: [00:47:45] Mhm. Love. That feels like a great place for us to come full circle. It’s always such a joy to to spend some time with you. So in this container of good life project. If I offer up the phrase to live a good life, what comes up?
Yung Pueblo: [00:47:56] I think to live a good life, it means really accepting the fact that happiness requires a little bit of training, and you know that you have access to some degree of happiness by knowing that you have a little bit of access to joy. Like when joy appears, you can revel in it and be a part of it. Be present with it that you’re content about the work that you do. You know what you’re putting out into the world, the way you’re using your energy, and that you have some degree of peace. You know, that you can, um, live in your own energy. Even, as you know, tumultuous people may be around you. But I think a good life is really, you know, cultivating these qualities.
Jonathan Fields: [00:48:34] Mhm. Thank you.
Yung Pueblo: [00:48:35] Thank you so much.
Jonathan Fields: [00:48:37] And we’ll be right back after word from our sponsors. Our final guest today is Danielle Bayard Jackson, a female friendship coach and educator who speaks nationally about the science of women’s platonic connections and as the founder of Friend Forward and author of fighting for Our Friendships The Science and Art of Conflict and Connection in Women’s Relationships. She leverages research to create practical strategies for building meaningful friendships, and her expertise has been featured all over from The New York Times. Nbc news, Psychology Today, Good Morning America, and more. And today, she’s sharing what science tells us about creating and maintaining deeper friendships, especially during times of conflict. Here’s Danielle.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [00:49:20] For the past six years, I’ve been leveraging my background in education to study with the research has to say about women’s cooperation, communication and conflict. And so far it’s been a fun and enlightening ride. At a certain age, you start to feel like, I should have figured this out by now. I should have all my lifetime friends by now. We’re still hungry for connection. We’re still scared to be rejected so we don’t put ourselves out there. We’re looking for our people. And a lot of that, I’ve noticed is universal. And it’s the same no matter if you’re a scrawny 17 year old or a highly successful 45 year old businesswoman. The research tells us that our social networks grow and grow until about the age of 26, at which point they begin to shrink, which makes sense. And we are confronted with the reality that, man, I’ve got to facilitate a lot of those opportunities by myself. Now I’ve got to coordinate time for friends. But I also have a partner now and a kid. How do I do this in a practical way? Because my need for it has not changed. If anything, you might argue that it’s deep.
Jonathan Fields: [00:50:19] And yeah, those are such great points. You know, when you zoom the lens out also, you know, if we’re talking about friendships, especially women, friendships among women, you know, the big question you look at a lot of the research sets are like come out. One that people tend to cite all the time is the Harvard study or the grant study, which is, you know, went on for some 80 plus years where sort of like the the big conclusion from that study was the single biggest determinant of a life well lived was the depth and quality of relationships. The knock on that study is it was all men, you know, and it was eventually they added different studies together and to sort of like stratify the socioeconomic status of the different men in the study. But it was still all men. But I think more broadly, you’re starting to see research really show like, okay, so we have this one study that everyone tends to point to, but this matters for everybody. And the effect not just on having friendships but on on physical and mental well-being. It’s just so powerful.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [00:51:14] Yeah. You know, I will say that I knew the work that I was I was doing was important and it mattered. But I felt like those things began to help people to buy in, that I could anchor the conversation in. Well, you know, the research says this is the number one thing that dictates how happy you are and how healthy you are. It helps people to kind of have a moment of, I guess that’s true. I guess I never really thought about it, but yeah, I’m constantly surprised by new studies that come out to essentially highlight the same findings, but to see the direct connection between the strength of our social bonds and our physical, mental and emotional health is just so powerful. And I just I always say that I feel like it should give us a sense of urgency around prioritizing. How are my friendships? What’s the quality of my friendships, what does my friendship landscape look like? And to prioritize that, because it really has such a big influence on everything else.
Jonathan Fields: [00:52:10] It’s interesting. I was just reflecting on the name of your book, fighting for Our friendships, and the word fighting is a fierce word. I’m curious what went into choosing that word.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [00:52:22] Because I, you know, you it obviously conjures an image of like a physical confrontation. But whenever we think sometimes of tension and friction, it’s negative. But what if we were? What if there was a positive function of conflict? What if it helped to advance our relationship, to deepen our relationship? And what are the things I need to do that involve friction to preserve the friendship overall? And I just was so kind of inspired by my irritation of seeing so much content around how to break up, when to break up. I mean, we were looking at the popularity of certain phrases people were searching in Google and on Instagram, how to break up with a friend, signs to break up with a friend. And there were so much around ending relationships. And obviously to some degree, you know it would be unhealthy to stay in a friendship that’s toxic, I get it, but I really do believe that we have fewer models of what to do to stay together. How do I come back after we disagree? How do I, you know, so how do I keep something that’s good without ending it prematurely? And I just believe that we have fewer models of that.
Jonathan Fields: [00:53:32] Yeah. And this is something that you focus on early in the book, right? It’s the notion of conflict and what you describe as healthy conflict. And I think so many of us, when we hear that word conflict are immediately reaction is, you know, no, that’s something we don’t want. Like like we do everything we can to avoid this thing called conflict. And yet you make a really compelling argument that says, no, actually it’s going to come up. So let’s talk about let’s talk about this, this idea of conflict. And actually maybe the fact that it’s necessary and good and how to actually do it in a way that’s constructive and healthy. Take me into this a bit more.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [00:54:07] To your point. You think of conflicts. You think, oh, that’s something I need to avoid. Or for some of us, we think if I’m experiencing conflict with a friend, is this evidence that we weren’t as close as I thought as this evidence that the relationship is over? But, I mean, as two different individuals were each bringing our respective set of desires, uh, preferences, needs, boundaries, goals to the table, don’t you think at some point there is going to be friction when the things I want don’t don’t mess with what you want. At some point it is inevitable. But you know, the research tells us that on the other side of healthy conflict often lies the platonic intimacy you’ve been looking for. I often have people describe to me their ideal friendship. They often paint a picture, this vignette. You know, somebody I can just hang out with on the couch and we can just run our mouths, right? But we don’t realize that conflicts are an opportunity to meet, a need to solve a problem, to be more heard right, and to understand another person a little bit better. And so we’ve just got to find a way to change our attitude toward conflict, because it does have positive functions.
Jonathan Fields: [00:55:17] Yeah, that makes so much sense. I’m curious what your thoughts are. You know when so when we talk about healthy conflict, what is some of the house that we should keep in our mind when we think about like, okay, so how do we do this? If you know, if and when this comes up and it will eventually, how do we step into this in a way that feels like it can be not just resolvable, but maybe really constructive for the relationship?
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [00:55:38] Yeah. So this sounds, you know, super simple. But sometimes we got to start with the ABCs, but it’s to remind yourself, okay, I’m doing this in service of the friendship. I’m raising this issue in service of the friendship, especially for women who often have a tendency to be agreeable. I don’t want to be seen as a difficult woman. I don’t want to be drama. I want to go along to get along. So for a lot of us, we’re holding that in the fact that she said something that made me uncomfortable, or she has this habit that feels a little disrespectful, but I don’t want to bring it up. So even raising an issue feels very vulnerable because it brings with it a risk of rejection, that this doesn’t go well, that the person abandons you. Right? But good friends want data on how to love you. Well. So the first thing is to see this as an opportunity for us as a team to get more clarity for each other and to remind yourself the right people want that information. I think that kind of changes everything. It will shape the tone, the words you use when you bring it to the table, and to offer those reassurances.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [00:56:38] When you go into a difficult conversation that you’re doing it in service of the friendship. I once heard someone say that the three questions were ultimately always wanting to know is am I safe here? Do you love me and do I matter? It’s the perpetual question that I’m asking. And so for some of us, when a person raises an issue with us and they’re about to give tough feedback, we’re questioning, do you love me? Am I not safe? Am I? So how can I front load this experience by reassuring? Hey, you know, something happened last night and I didn’t know what to make of it, but I love it when we’re on the same page. So I thought I would ask you, what did you mean by XYZ? Because the story I’m telling myself is that. What did you mean? And after we collaboratively work through that, we’re moving on. So how can I convince you that I’m doing this because I care about you? If I didn’t care about the relationship, I probably wouldn’t bring it up. I’d just move on. And so some of those attitudes and approaches can help soften us so that we can engage in bristly conversations that are necessary.
Jonathan Fields: [00:57:38] I love that something you said earlier in that response. Also, good friends want to learn how to love you better. That is so powerful and so compelling. But oftentimes we don’t look at it that way. We’re like, well, if we actually share this thing, if we share what’s on our hearts and minds, that data that’s going to be a source that pushes somebody away. But if it does push somebody away, maybe they’re actually not who you thought they were.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [00:58:02] And this is something I’ve been sitting with lately too, is a lot of times we think, well, if they bristle at it or if they withdraw or deflect or whatever it is, we think, oh, they were not a great friend. And maybe that’s true, but it’s also true that people are dealing with their own stuff. And that’s why it’s really important to be self-reflective, because there are some things that, if you don’t personally work through, it will be difficult for others to be in relationship with you. And I don’t mean for that to sound harsh, but if you can’t take negative feedback because you’ve been through things that for some reason you perceive feedback as an attack, well, it’s hard for people to be in relationship with you because at some point I have to let you know how the things you say and do impact me. We’re in a relationship together, but if I’m unable to do that, I’m unsafe to do that. I mean, what does that mean for us? And so the beautiful and tricky thing about friendship is it brings a lot of your personal stuff to the table. And if you can’t confront some of those areas that need a little polishing, it will, I believe, limit your capacity for depth and closeness with other people.
Jonathan Fields: [00:59:03] Yeah. I mean, it’s such a great point also, right? Like this notion that, okay, so if you actually share what you need to share and it doesn’t land well with the other person, maybe it’s actually not that they’re not your person. Maybe they’re going through their own thing at this moment in time. And they’re just they’re not resourced in a way to actually be able to respond in the way that you would hope that they would respond. And it’s not that they don’t even want to, and they don’t love you and they don’t want to be, you know, a friend, but maybe they’re either going through their own moment or just back in their history. There are attachment patterns. There are whatever it is that’s brought them to this moment, which just makes it really hard for them to process. I almost wonder if, like you share it and then you’re really paying attention to the other person and you see them kind of either bristling or pulling back, or you can tell it’s not landing well. Like if it would be interesting in your mind to even ask them to say something like, hey, listen, I see, like this is landing an uncomfortable way. I’m just curious what’s going on, sort of like inside of you right now.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:00:01] Oh love it. Yes. Because even acknowledging that is an act of care. So I’m, I’m confirming through even asking that question. Okay. It seems like, you know, this is this is not sitting well. Talk to me what’s going on? Because I see you tensing up, you know? So even those kind of verbal responses are evidence that, yeah, I’m bringing this up, but I also care. The two can go together and, you know, to some degree. Hopefully we’re with people who. Who can do the work like that back and forth. Hopefully. Because even if I can. Be compassionate toward the fact that you’ve got external factors that are impacting the way you engage with me. The reality is I still get to choose if I want to stay. In spite of that, I can be compassionate and also say, listen, your fixation on making passive aggressive remarks all the time. I get that that’s how you’re working through some stuff, but it’s hurtful to me. So I would have to think through if I want to be in relationship, despite the fact that I still care about you. Because again, once you’re in that relationship, you’re in partnership. The things we do do impact one another. That’s just the truth.
Jonathan Fields: [01:01:03] Do you see this come up? Also, when people start to really understand what their boundaries are and then express them, and even just the expression of a boundary to a friend sometimes can land in a weird way with that friend. Like, almost like like you saying you stating what your boundaries are feels like aggression to them.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:01:23] Oh, 100%. Oh, yeah. I’ve had it happen to me before. We’re maybe some boundaries I’m understanding of, but others don’t make sense to me. So I’m less understanding because I’m like, wait, what do you mean? I you don’t want me to do this? Or what do you mean it bothers you when I do this, I that that’s silly. So I’m judging whether or not I even think it’s a valid boundary, you know, but having to tell ourselves this is not personal to me. I get a choice here if I want to accommodate that or not. Am I willing to? Is it a big ask? Is it something I can do? I just feel a little indignant about being told what to do, you know? So really unpacking what’s going on? Why did I kind of buck up at that? And is there a way where I can reframe it to see that my friend trusts me enough to give me that information? But we do get to decide again. We get to decide along the way if it’s something we can accommodate, if it’s a friendship we value, so we’re willing to make those adjustments. One small example is I had a friend who, you know, if it’s quick stuff, I’ll text. And she said to me, okay, Danielle, at some point let’s hop on the phone. I don’t really like the texting thing. My other friends don’t mind the texting thing back and forth, and I’m willing to accommodate that. It’s a small ask. I can do it. So for each friend, I’m going to cater to your communication style. A little bit of mental labor in my end, but that’s what I’m going to do because that’s the experience you need, you know? And so we have to ask ourselves, okay, well, I don’t prefer it, but if this person’s giving me information that this is how they feel well loved, and I can make the adjustment without feeling like it’s somehow a compromise to myself.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:02:50] I mean, why not? I’m always recommending a book called Digital Body Language, and the author pretty much makes the case that the same way we have visual body language. So, for example, if I’m talking to you and you start rolling your eyes and crossing your arms, I think, oh, this person’s irritated by what I’m saying, right? But digital body language. So the mode of communication you choose impacts the message whether you know it or not, the length of your message. Right? So if a person sends you a quick message, are you thinking they’re being curt? They don’t care. And if it’s essay style, we’re like, okay, they care because they took the time. Or are we thinking, whoa, they’re like overly invested in this. They’re lecturing me because of the length or the brevity. So all these things we do help to shape the way the message is received. And so we have to think to some degree very intentionally about how can I reduce or minimize the level of ambiguity as much as possible. So you receive this the way I’m intending it, and what are the things that might get in the way then? Let’s not let’s not do that, especially for very sensitive or emotional things.
Jonathan Fields: [01:03:54] Yeah, I actually have a friend who, just as a matter of policy, they respond to pretty much every message with less than five words because they get a zillion messages a day. And it’s a it’s just a survival mechanism for them, like they’re the only way, but they will respond to literally everybody who messages them. But it’s always going to be really short and sweet. And over time that you wrote a post about it and published it on their website. And at the bottom of every email, there’s a little thing that says, hey, listen, this message is short and sweet. If you want to know why. Click here. And it literally just gives context to anyone who’s sort of like new to that person’s style. So this is not personal. It’s not that I don’t want to say more. It’s just I actually really want to be able to respond to all the people. And the only way I can do that is just to be fairly direct and concise. So that’s why, you know, you’re receiving this from me, and I hope you will accommodate and understand that. And I thought that was a really interesting approach.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:04:47] Oh my gosh, I think that’s brilliant. I think that’s so great and efficient. And you know, when it comes to friendship, this is such a good example because we communicate with friends, right? That’s what we do. That’s why we’re in relationship. We communicate. It sustains the relationship. I have seen so many breakdowns because of the ambiguity that arises during these moments. Right. Even, you know, duration, how long it takes you to get back to me, does my brain start to fill in the blank? I guess I don’t matter, I guess she’s too busy, you know? And it’s like, actually she’s overwhelmed and has two kids under five and it’s the last thing she’s going to do, right? You know, so there’s so many interpretations and gray area that we make. And then you respond to the interpretation. I mean, there’s so much of that that often happens. And, you know, I’ve once heard it said that, you know, friendship is the most ambiguous relationship you’re going to have. But because in every other context, we kind of know the terms and conditions and how this is supposed to go. But with friendship, I mean, we’re working with different expectations of of what friendship even is. And how often should a friend communicate? Are you looking for weekly check ins? What do we share? We’re kind of figuring that out with everyone we meet. I mean, gosh, sometimes we don’t even know if we are friends. We’re like, oh yeah, we went to coffee, but I don’t think she’s my friend, you know? So our job should be especially in friendship to is to reduce the ambiguity as much as possible. And I think it will minimize the misunderstandings that we have as well. But I have to be in relationship with friends where I feel safe enough to relax, because I know that if I ever offended you, you’re going to tell me we’re not going to do the game playing. There’s no time for that. And that comes with a certain level of trust to even be able to fight well together.
Jonathan Fields: [01:06:22] It’s funny, as you’re describing, that it makes so much sense to me. Like, let’s do what you can to go from being ambiguous to concrete. Like, let’s just make this really crystal clear. If you’ve got something to say, let’s talk about it like and and figure out, like, are we going to be okay or are we not going to be okay? But at least let’s actually center this, let’s have a real conversation around it. And oftentimes that just never happens because people just want to do the dance of not dealing with it, and it doesn’t go away. I mean, I think that is the nature of relationships. You know, stuff that’s not dealt with. It doesn’t just magically resolve itself at some point. You know, it just basically keeps spiraling, getting worse, or it drives you apart. And if you didn’t have to be driven apart, that could be the loss of somebody who maybe would have been amazing in your life. So I love the the advice, the way that you suggest stepping into that, Going all the way back to the beginning of a conversation, which is okay. So if some friendships are worth fighting for. If some friendships, they just are like, naturally they they, they’ve met a point of completion. How do we know which friendships are worth stepping into and during the struggle and during the hard conversations, like engaging in the conflict in the name of this is worth this. I feel like this is worth trying to figure out because I want it to sustain. What do we look for? To know whether a friendship is worth fighting for or not?
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:07:43] That’s a great question. And there’s like 20 different. Like if we created like a little checklist, but you know, some some big large scale things to me are, you know, do I like how I feel when I’m with this person or is this person worth does it feel worth all the adjustments I have to make, whether that’s of my time, emotional investment. Right. You’re you’re having to be available for this person to vent as a friend. You’re willing to be inconvenienced for a friend. That’s what a relationship is long term. Does it feel worth it at the end of the day. Again, this sounds very pedestrian, but overall, does the good outweigh the bad? Because in any friendship there’s going to be stuff. But does it feel worth it because there’s so much good stuff that I’m willing to take this little stuff over here, and I feel good about who I am when we’re together. I like who I am in this friendship. I feel like it’s a a growth, inspiring friendship. I’m becoming a new person. I’m learning new things, having this person in my life. I mean, those are good signs that this might be something worth fighting for. If it’s a person who can do hard things with you, then it’s worth it.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:08:45] We can have tough conversations and be okay, but for a friendship where you start to realize there’s a certain fragility and I can’t show up as my full self, there’s no space here for me to address hard things. Is that worth it? If you’ve got to constantly measure your words? I mean, that requires a sense of mental labor, you know? But either way, I always encourage people to get clear on if this is something I want to keep engaging in, because the research tells us, surprisingly, that Ambivalent friendships might be more physically detrimental. Than outwardly negative friendships, which sounds ridiculous. And obviously we don’t need to be in toxic relationships, but the idea is that the constant wavering. Well, sometimes he’s nice, but I don’t know. That takes a physical toll on your blood, blood pressure and all the things. So I always encourage women. It’s worth to take a minute to sit down intentionally, kind of technically and think through to I want to keep investing and make a decision and commit, because the wavering, the rumination and the back and forth is not doing you any favors. I think one thing that’s helpful to constantly keep in mind is it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Sometimes we have to update the terms and conditions, update the contract.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:09:58] When we first came together, the the unofficial contract, or rather the groove that we kind of fell into. The rhythm was we talk every day about things big and small, and maybe after five years, ten years. This person’s worldviews are changing. The things that I’m committed to and my spiritual needs are changing. I’ve had kids. It’s changed my lifestyle. Maybe we’ve got to update the terms and conditions. Maybe it no longer feels appropriate or safe to talk every day. It stresses me, this person and the things that they talk about is stressful. But I realized, man, I can enjoy her. You know, once a month in group settings is super fun. Or maybe I, we, you know, we have to take these topics off the table. But when we talk about family stuff, we’re good, you know? So is there room to modify, adjust and update the terms of what the relationship looks like in this season to accommodate this friendship, to salvage it? Or is it something that you have deemed like, no, this has to totally end for me to preserve my own sanity and joy. And that’s a tough spot to be in, but a critical point for for any of us.
Jonathan Fields: [01:11:00] Yeah, I love that notion of, you know, renegotiating terms and conditions. You wrap your book in a way that I really resonate with me, which is okay. So a lot of this has been about like you and another person, like the nature of the relationship. But fundamentally, at the end of the day, for us to be in any sort of good, honest, meaningful, vulnerable relationship where we show up as our true selves, it starts with us. And oftentimes that’s the last place we look.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:11:27] Yeah, definitely. I mean, even when we’re talking about friendships, a lot of the questions I get are, how do I find the right friends? What are the signs to look for in others? It’s so other oriented, and I get really excited when women come to me and they’re like, I just, I don’t know, maybe I need to look at who I am as a friend. I want to be a better friend. I’m like, oh, interesting. This is a promising place to start. And, you know, for me, yes, I did realize and I know this sounds so woo woo and I’m not typically a woo woo girl. I’m like, here, here’s the data. So it’s vulnerable for me sometimes to to go here. But I really did realize that the more comfortable and settled I became in my own skin, I could experience more harmony with other women. I found myself comparing less. I found myself less threatened by her success. I found myself less critical because I started to see other women as an extension of me. Even if you kind of have an attitude, I can just look at you and be like, oh gosh, I’ve been there, or oof, I know what that feels like.
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:12:26] I see you as an extension of myself because I feel settled into who I am, you know, flaws and all. And so I think a lot of it really does start there. How can you be confident in what it is you have to offer in a friendship? How can you be resilient when you are rejected? Because that is inevitable? But the difference becomes, do you internalize it when you’re rejected? Oh, this is confirmation that I’m not interesting enough or lovable enough? Or do you let it sting a little bit and you’re like, you know what? Okay, well, it wasn’t our time, you know, and you find a way to move forward in spite of, you know, so getting comfortable with rejection and who I am and what I offer and what I don’t, I think has allowed me to love more freely, apologize quicker. I feel more courageous in friendship to to share a boundary or apologize or to ask for what I want. I just feel braver. I feel more alive, and I feel more settled with myself and as an extension of that in my friendships.
Jonathan Fields: [01:13:26] Hmm, I love that and it feels a great place for us to come full circle. So in this container of Good Life Project., if I offer up the phrase to live a good life, what comes up?
Danielle Bayard Jackson: [01:13:36] To live a good life, you have to have good friends and be a good friend.
Jonathan Fields: [01:13:40] Hmm. Thank you. And that is our episode today. Huge thanks to Julie and John Gottman, Yung Pueblo and Danielle Bayard Jackson for sharing such transformative insights about the real work of connection. Remember, it’s not about avoiding conflict, it’s about growing through it together. And if you love this episode, be sure to catch the full conversation with today’s guests. You can find a link to each of those in the episode show notes. This episode of Good Life Project was produced by executive producers Lindsey Fox and me, Jonathan Fields. Editing help by, Alejandro Ramirez, and Troy Young. Kristoffer Carter crafted our theme music, and of course, if you haven’t already done so, please go ahead and follow Good Life Project in your favorite listening app or on YouTube too. If you found this conversation interesting or valuable and inspiring. Chances are you did because you’re still listening here. Do me a personal favor. Seven-second favor. Share it with just one person. I mean, if you want to share it with more, that’s awesome too. But just one person, even then, invite them to talk with you about what you’ve both discovered to reconnect and explore ideas that really matter. Because that’s how we all come alive together. Until next time. I’m Jonathan Fields signing off for Good Life Project.
The post The Science of Better Relationships: 3 Experts Share What Really Works | Spotlight Convo appeared first on Good Life Project.
Bengali (Bangladesh) · 
English (United States) ·