Comments about ‘Orson Scott Card: In the Village: Analyzing a quarrel over 'nothing'’

Great thoughts. I think too often we rely upon deep psychological analysis for ever the most trivial and even unintentional conflicts. We'd all be a lot more mentally healthy if we simply learned to forgive one another.

Now I know what to do if my wife's sandwich ever touches my sandwich. Thanks OSC!!

Thanks, Brother Card. Wonderful analysis...as usual. And, as a writing instructor at UVU, I enjoyed the little pronoun tutorial also!

Good thoughts and analysis; however, I find it curious why Mormon Times continues to use a writer, as acclaimed as he is, who is the author of a book series (Enders Game) that contains disturbing violence, including children violence, and offensive language? Seems like there are many other options available for MT to pull from to provide similar input but without the apparent conflict. I will continue to be an avid follower/reader of Mormon Times.

Simple yet game-changing insights. Thank you for your thoughtful and clear example.

This concept is absolutely correct. What we argue about or what it appears we are arguing about is almost always driven by other underlying, hidden, and yet incredibly important issues. Sin and pride certainly can be some of them. At other times it is unmet interests such as respect, comfort, independence, acknowledgment, etc. But we rarely know how to express the underlying drivers. Instead, we argue about the obvious but ultimately unimportant stuff - like sandwiches touching.

Another key I have found to resolving conflicts - discard the age-old and yet entirely incorrect myth of "never going to bed angry". If you DO sleep on it, it usually is far less important, if at all, the next morning. Or at a minimum, the emotions have often subsided to the point of being able to discuss the issue in a more appropriate way.

I guess I will be the editor.

"Either someone is trying to conceal a sin in which case they often lash out at the person whose lack of sin puts them to shame..."

Instead, write,"Either someone is trying to conceal a sin in which case that person often lashes out at the other whose lack of sin puts that person to shame..."

Solved. Using the plural pronoun of a singular subject is a no-no.

Having retired a number of years ago from a counseling practice, it never ceased to amaze me how many couples I saw professionally whose marriages were on the verge of disintegrating simply because they continuously argued over trivial things.

It was never easy and took a lot of work to get them to see what they were doing to each other and to their children by such selfish behavior.

A good deal of the blame belongs to unenlightened professional counselors who insist that such trivia needs to be vented and dealt with. I am of the firm opinion that doing so only exacerbates the problem and often leads them headlong into separation and divorce.

Twenty or twenty-five years ago, therapists were advocating the use of foam-rubber bats or nerf balls to hit each other with or throw at each other to "safely" vent their angry feelings. But behaving that way serves only to provide reinforcement or reward for aggressive feelings and acting them out. It actually encourages increased aggression for the future.

Whatever human beings pay attention to, increases in frequency and intensity. Paying so much attention to the "bad" will make it persist and become stronger.

I loved the parenthetical.

Good points, all, and a useful analysis of marriages in which both parties are at fault. What to make, though, of relationships in which one party is free of (that particular) sin, and the other is consumed by it? It the humble[r] party always to be abused? For being continually corrected and contradicted is certainly abusive. The scenario above is a case of two nasty people who deserve one another. The more interesting case is one nasty person, and another who, by "their" nature, will always cave.

To Juan Figuroa,

Not nasty people; not at all. More often than not, both of them get along very well with everyone but their spouse, believe it or not.

A marriage is a "system" that "learns" to live in a certain dysfunctional way on a daily basis. Both parties play a role in this system and the one that is seemingly the "bad guy" is often as much a victim as the "good guy."

By their behavior, "good guys" are often as much an initiator of the "abuse" as "bad guys." There are frequently times when the "abuse" actually becomes the "proof" that the "good guys" are the "offended ones" and deserve sympathy from the children, other family members, friends, associates and others.

The point is, as Brother Card alludes to, it's a system based on selfishness, pride, and an unwillingness to be forgiving. The sin of pride, is often as much the problem for "good guys" and for the "bad guys."

My parents and grandparents operated this way, constantly arguing about even trivial things and blowing things out of proportion. Growing up I always feared this would be my life when I got married, but as I grew, I realized that I could simply treat my spouse with the same kindness and courtesy that my parents usually reserved for total strangers, and that I could actually have a very pleasant and happy marriage. I was blessed to find a woman with the same view. This doesn't mean you have to be a doormat. It just means that communication does not require arguing.

My mother called this type of arguing the "blame game". It started in my own family because I was worried about the lack of accountability among the spouse and children and started pointing out whose fault it was that something was messy or the baby was crying or whatever. This backfired (I give this story as a warning) because everyone followed my lead and pointed out everyone else's fault. Sigh. So I tried apologizing and taking accountability and this example has helped a little, but everyone was a little too comfortable with me being the doormat. This article has helped me realize the importance of removing pride, and I hope this gets us in the right direction. Thank you for the insight.