How do you know that, Mark?

markos, I agree with Mark that what I asked could turn into a meta-whatever......so please, if you are ok with answering that question, answer in another thread. Thank you.

Trust me. I know it.

Not based on conjecture or analyzing someone's posting styles or expressed knowledge but private personal knowledge.

Hopefully that question is answered to everyone's satisfaction. If not, send me a PM and I'll address it further.

I think I may have been the one who kind of derailed things with the SF/Sheet Music remark. Sorry about that.

And the comments about understanding Dr. H's use of terminology make a lot of sense. The codependency article just stuck out to me because I was thinking that he considered the "scientific" idea of "codependency" to be so much hooey. Actually, that has started me reading several of his articles on the site that I had forgotten about over the Last day or so. Which has been good - it reminded me of what attracted both me and DH to that site in the first place.

What he said. I concur. Send him the PM, not me, but put it to rest, Mark is correct.

Hey Living...

Yes, you are correct. I think we veered a bit off topic (from the program to the forums) when Chris mentioned some tenets of the Marriage Builders program..Plan A, Plan B and "nuclear exposure" and I felt compelled to point out that "nuclear exposure" is in fact NOT any part of the Marriage Builders program.

The subsequent discussion about how nuclear exposure came to be is probably best had on the discussion thread about the forum. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, I do feel that if a discussion about the program brings up something that is seen only on the forum then the distinction needs to be made.

Any other discussions I had on this thread w/ Markos, I feel were on topic...such as Dr Harley's writings and the ease/non-ease of interpreting his concepts. Unfortunately, there is a gray area between the program and the forum and it seems easy to slide from one to the other if one is not on guard.

I would like to see some "Master Sheet" links where the specifics of the programs are set out with the terminology explained so that a new poster can print them out and have a reference for what they are being told.

I've been surprised personally at the level of assumption I bring to threads with my MBese language and have to stop and think whether the terms need to be explained, and I am a newbie myself!

The "Master Sheet" could simply explain that the forum position may not reflect DrH's position on this point, and that there are different schools of thought the poster might want to consider.

Probably should put this in Peer Counseling, but I'm feeling lazy.

Seeks,

I think that in the case of MB, his Basic Concepts pretty well sum up his program.

I don't think we can just quote the whole thing here because of intellectual property rights, but perhaps summary of some sort is doable. The problem is how to do that without infringing on any copyrights or without over simplifying to the point of losing meaning.

Yea, I thought about that after I said that.

I was sort of thinking of a "cheat sheet". I don't think terms like Plan A or Plan B or 180 or GAL or exposure are copyrighted, but I don't want to cross any moral (as opposed to legal) lines. I was thinking of something real simple -- in Plan A you are really nice and avoid doing the stuff your spouse doesn't like (which, now that I type that, sounds a whole like what M should be like ALL the time) while pointing out the natural consequences of the WS's stupidity, Plan B, you go zero contact, 180 is that you (I don't know so I can't fill this in...), exposure means telling people about the A, and here are the different definitions: "nuclear" means.... etc.

It's all a bit much when you show up and the terminology can be overwhelming -- trust me!

Thanks, OH. Let me clarify what I am saying.

Dr. Harley, being an engineer/scientist type, tends to give words a specific definition in his context. These words might mean one thing in everyday speech and take on a more specific meaning in the context of his program. Example: before you ever came to Marriage Builders, if someone said "expose," what did you think it meant? You would likely not have associated the word with an affair at all.

Dr. Harley does this a lot. It can be very confusing, because even if you know all the definitions a reader might not have them in mind while he's reading.

So all I'm saying is that it helps to get someone to explain it to you. Not that people who don't get it are stupid. Do you have any idea how many dozens of times I'd read the Marriage Builders website before I came to the forum this year? And I still didn't get it at that point.

I will preface this response by stating I initially found MB while looking for ways to fine tune our marriage after we were well on the road to recovery.

I was ready to jump on board with the principles but my DH was not. We both read FIL/SIL. After reading the book my DH was not interested in learning anything about MB. His resistance and my persistence ended up causing some marital conflict for us. I decided it was in the best interest of our marriage to just let go of the MB concepts. Once I let go of trying things got back on track and have worked out well.

The point of my post is, IMO, MB works well if both spouses are willing to work it, but it does not work if both spouses are not on board.

To recap the basic Marriage Builders basic concepts, the Love Bank account balances (LB$)of each spouse holds the marital keys to happiness.

Inherited or learned behavior patterns are instincts and habits respectively. These determine the level of love felt by spouses because they cause deposits or withdrawals from their Love Banks.

Love Busters (LBs) are instincts or habits that decrease LB$ balances.

Love Busters are repeated behaviors that cause unhappiness. The most common Love Busters are Selfish Demands (SD), Disrespectful Judgments (DJ), Angry Outbursts (AO), Annoying Habits (AH), Independent Behaviors (IB) and Dishonesty. Continued love busting behaviors deplete the Love Bank accounts and results in spouses decreasing their love for each other.

Love Banks can be filled and re-filled by spouses knowing and acting to fill emotional needs (ENs). The most popular ENs are Affection, Sexual Fulfillment (SF), Conversation, Recreational Companionship (RC), Openness and Honesty (OH), Attractive Spouse (AS), Financial Support (FS), Domestic Support (DS), Family Commitment (FC) and Admiration. When ENs are met, Love Bank balances increase and the spouses experience the feelings of being in love.

The Marriage Builder program describes the 2 SIDES of PERSONALITY: Giver and Taker

There are 3 STATES of MIND in the marriage: Intimacy, Conflict and Withdrawal

There are 3 POLICIES of CARE to protect the marriage: Undivided Attention, Radical Honesty, Joint Agreement

There are 4 guidelines for SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION: Set Ground rules, Identify Problems, Brainstorm Ideas, choose Solutions that meet the Policy of Joint Agreement (POJA)

I've taken the above from the Summary of Basic Concepts pages 201 to 210 of the book Fall in Love Stay in Love written by Marriage Builders founder Dr. Willard F. Harley, Jr.

I condensed this for a post on my blog and thought it might be helpful here. Hopefully it's not too simplistic but details can be found on <www.marriagebuilders.com>.

Ace

I'm wondering if there is an association between LoveBusters and our Lizard. That's a knee jerk reaction re-reading that list for the umpteenth time but it makes some intuitive sense to me.

Whaddya think?

Certainly there's an association in the sense that both Love Busters and the Lizard are concerned only with our OWN survival and comfort.

The difference is that Love Busters are behaviors, and can be changed. The Lizard is a primitive part of our brain, and always will be. It, too, can be brought under conscious control, though.

I think that's the basic struggle we all have, isn't it? Changing our selfish habits, and learning to overrule our instinctive Lizard when necessary.

True, LoveBusters are behaviors and therefore volitional and within our control.

I think it is a mistake to equate our Lizard's reactions with selfishness. I don't think the Lizard is one bit selfish or concerned with comfort. The Lizard cares about one thing, and one thing only: Safety.

To the extent that those behaviors are manifestations of our Lizard, I think it is important to discern that and ask why we are feeling unsafe.

If my Angry Outburst is my Lizard speaking, I believe it is critical to trace back to what made my Lizard feel unsafe and address that with my spouse.

If my Angry Outburst is me taking out my frustrations on my spouse, that doesn't apply.

LoveBusters which are at bottom an effort to create distance are Lizard driven, I think.

Avoiding the behavior is critical. Sorting through the why of it is, IMO, also critical.

FTR, I don't have AO's, ever, but I do have distancing techniques that fall within the definitions of LB's.

The Lizard is our Taker.

I don't agree at all.

The Taker wants something affirmative from the spouse.

The Lizard wants Safety -- the spouse doing NOTHING can satisfy the Lizard.

BIG difference.

The Taker is all about self preservation. When we give, give and give some more to the point where we are compromised, our Takers come out.

It's instinctive.

As is the Lizard.

Obviously, no two theories are going to completely overlap. But there is a strong correlation between the Lizard and Taker, IMO.

Just as a matter of clarification...

The lizard is our Giver as well.

Our lizard is also where our Love Bank resides.

It is possible to override the reactions of our lizard. In fact it is how we learn to change instinctive things like AOs, DJ, SDs into more productive habits.

What Al calls our lizard is where emotions reside. Once triggered enough times by the same person, an emotional reaction is hard wired into our brain. This is Harley's Love Bank. If the hardwired reaction is to move toward the person, that is positive LB$ balance. If the the trigger is emotionally negative, we recoil out of fear of being hurt.

BTW, the person doesn't have to be the source of the negative stimulus in order to become the thing we want to get away from. They simply have to be present when we are negatively stimulated. Before long their presence alone makes us want to flee.

This makes sense as Harley is quite clear that LB deposits and withdrawals do not happen on a conscious level.

I'm wondering if our LoveBanks (GOD I SO HATE THIS TERMINOLOGY IT IS HARD TO EVEN TYPE IT) aren't open or closed based upon the level of safety we feel?



This is exactly what my IC says so I know it is true (sort of tongue in cheek).


Hopefully, I am about to be enlightened.

perhaps in the policy of extraordinary care, and the bit where you do nothing that causes pain to your spouse.

Maybe this isn't completely on topic, but that phrase - extraordinary care - has always been a comforting phrase to me. It brings up an image of the way someone carefully lifts and swaddles a newborn baby and then snuggles him/her protectively in the crook of their arms. Feeling like that with my DH makes my LB balance soar. And it is something he is very good at.

I feel all wistful and mushy tonight. I haven't been drinking, but I have that sloshy urge to say stuff like "I just love all you guys...you guys are all just so awesome, man..." Nope, no alcohol...but how long before lithium and ambien kick in? My computer screen looks wavy.

Thats EXACTLY how I see extraordinary care, and the absolute feeling of safety that goes along with it.

There is almost nothing else in the world that feels better than lying in DH's arms on a lazy morning in bed. I feel safe, nurtured, loved. Absolutely a $LB$ depositing moment

I have'nt been drinking either Herf - yet.
Well, Christmas is only 4 sleeps away :santa:

Food for thought/discussion: http://www.joy2meu.com/codependency_marriage.html

I think the person who wrote that has no real grasp of Harley's stuff.