WAW: Watching & Waiting (part deux)

[Bridgestone]

As I told you we men, or atleast me, can accept that my actions were/ are bad because they can be changed

The question I, & some other women I know have; when does the underlying philosophy of WHY you do or don't do something change, so the action (or lack of that action) is in alignment with philosophy?

If thoughts precede behaviours, then should the thoughts that dictate the behaviours change as well?


That's why the Stosny stuff, I think makes so much sense.. not only do you tap into YOUR own core value/hurt and the behaviour you choose based on that, but you take into account your PARTNERS core value/hurt once you understand it.


Your thoughts?

I believe your H probably will feel the same way, just speculating here. But there is a world of difference here trust me and you will get a more positive reaction from him if you make it out as his actions and not him.

No I think you have a point. When I criticize or applaud I need to make it about specific behaviours I have seen him exhibit, not about 'who' he is.

What I'm also looking for is an understanding for when it appropriate to examine someone else's motivation or philosophy about 'why' they do something.

I'm looking for more than 'dog training'. I can train my dog, through rewards & criticisms, to exhibit the behaviour of staying in my yard. He doesn't have to understand the 'why' of the behaviour to exhibit it.

I want to be intimate enough with a partner to share openly & honestly our repsective 'why's'.

To be able to discuss differences and moderate accordingly. If the differences are too big & moderation becomes excessive.. that to me is where there are 'irreconcilable differences' in an R.