Is Your Relationship Worth Saving? Podcast Episode 143 — How to Decide

Commit to three specific goals and log dates, topics, who spoke first and any instances of resentment; if after six weekly sessions you havent reduced high-conflict episodes by 40% or dont feel less anxious, stop giving more without boundaries. Track whether kids were present during fights and how their routines changed; prioritize stability for them while you test progress. Use quantitative markers: conflict count, minutes of calm per day, and number of constructive offers made.

Focus on measurable contribution: rate working efforts 0–3 each week (0 = no effort, 3 = consistent action at home). If someone repeatedly scores 0, makes excuses or your baseline happiness drops by more than 30%, introduce a clear urgency–two weeks of limited contact and scheduled professional support. Create free time blocks for individual reflection to reduce uncertainty about next steps and note when momentum goes backward rather than forward.

Checklist: commit to six weekly check-ins, set mid-point review dates, list who is part of accountability, and document stages of change with simple scores. Dont conflate normal stages of grief with permanent failure; when progress stalls and you lose more stability than you gain, reread the log, ask whether continued investment matches stated goals, and protect their emotional safety and the needs of other household members.

Is Your Relationship Worth Saving? – Podcast Episode 143: How to Decide; Getting Over a Breakup With Your Head or Your Heart

Recommendation: Run a 90-day experiment: commit to three months of work with clear focus, require both partners to be engaged in measurable tasks, and stop rewarding vague promises by not only saying intentions.

Track objective metrics weekly: canceled plans, conflict resolution instances, one thing tied to safety, physical contact frequency, and percent of promises kept; create a table and mark whats improved and whats didnt change, and note when results remain unclear after months and the core problem persists.

Practice self-awareness daily: log triggers, what youve tolerated, patterns in thinking and subconscious stories that come up, and physical sensations that signal automatic anger or withdrawal; separating acting from reflection rewires processes in the mind.

Evaluate motive clearly: are you proving loyalty to them or choosing to stay because you believe change will grow? If staying is part of proving, resentment will increase; if staying feels like full commitment supported by observable change, continue; dont stay hoping they ever change without evidence.

Concrete next steps: set three measurable goals, define consequences for missed milestones, pick an external источник for accountability, schedule weekly check-ins, and do focused self work between sessions; if wondering what that means, it means documenting progress through simple charts and holding yourself to the agreed actions so everything is visible.

How to Diagnose the Relationship’s Real Problems

Log conflicts and positive interactions in a shared journal for 8–12 weeks: date, duration, trigger, initiator, topic, intensity (1–10), outcome and whether repair attempts were taken seriously; aim for 50+ entries so statistical patterns appear. this, note phone use, alcohol, or children present before escalation. If youve ever tracked entries, convert them to weekly counts and a positive:negative ratio.

Quantify patterns: flag topics that repeat more than three times in two months and label them as core themes; calculate percent of conversations that shift to criticism or withdrawal–>30% signals a problem. Measure decision distribution: if one person makes >70% of financial or moving decisions, classify as power concentration. Compare long-term goals across planning conversations–if core goals do not match in 60% of talks, that is structural mismatch. Use simple metrics: target a 1.5:1 or higher positive:negative ratio within eight weeks, reduce escalation events to <2>

Run micro-experiments with clear success criteria: first, two uninterrupted 10‑minute check‑ins weekly for six weeks; second, a 30‑day rule to give and receive one specific behavioral change (eg no phones during meals) and log compliance. Those structured tests should have numeric goals; if after months there is no measurable improvement–no higher positive:negative ratio, no drop in escalations, no shift in decision share–move to external mediation or plan an exit. Sometimes short-term coaching works without long-term therapy; sometimes clinical help speeds progress. If youve tried consistent trials for 12 weeks and the power imbalance or goal mismatch persists, being honest with yourself about what match you need will save months of drift. Record who said what, who was saying it, dates and outcomes so a clinician or a 20‑minute episode with scripts can review concrete data and advise next steps.

Create a short list of repeating conflicts and their triggers

Action: List 3–5 repeating conflicts; for each write: trigger, typical escalation, who says what, their wants, hidden need, one specific repair step, and a measurable test to see if the pattern is working – then order the list by frequency.

Template example – Conflict A: Trigger: late payments; Escalation: criticizing → withdrawal; Core problem: fear of instability and lack of care; Their wants: security; Repair: 10-minute calm check-in within 24h; Measure: high frequency = weekly incidents, pass = 2 weeks without escalation. Conflict B: Trigger: missed agreements; Escalation: making accusations (“youre not listening”) then silence; Core problem: feeling uncared for; Repair: one open conversation per week with a 5-minute “what I need” round; Measure: number of hurt comments falls 50%. Conflict C (personal example – bobby): Trigger: chronic lateness to family events; Escalation: criticism + name-calling; Repair: set a single alternative plan both accept; Test: was the plan done twice in a month; if not, design something smaller.

Assess each item by frequency, severity and whether patterns were subconscious repeats or conscious choices; fully score each conflict on a 0–10 scale for hurt and likelihood of breakup/divorce. Give someone permission to speak first and stop criticizing at the moment to hear their needs; that creates room to test one small change. If most conflicts respond to the repair step, thats a good idea to keep choosing to grow, always track results and keep building communication habits and self-awareness. If attempts are constantly blocked, or changes would make someone feel trapped against their will, consider moving toward separation; remember: choosing to save or to choose freedom should be a data-based decision, not only a feeling in the head or mind. Heres simple instructions: schedule one 20-minute exercise per conflict, mark whether the step was done, and look at results after two cycles – give feedback, adjust things, repeat.

Source: https://www.gottman.com/

Separate dealbreakers from negotiable habits

Pick three non-negotiable dealbreakers, write them down, share them with a therapist or trusted friends, and set a 60-day observation window.

Define dealbreakers concretely: physical violence, ongoing untreated substance use that impairs childcare or work, sustained financial secrecy that eliminates shared decision-making. First, log dates, times and outcomes as information; if a behavior persists after three direct conversations and one counseling session, treat it as actionable rather than negotiable.

Label negotiable habits with measurable targets: example – clutter in common spaces becomes “reduce visible clutter to one bin per week for six weeks”; late arrivals become “arrive on time for three consecutive dates”; low affection becomes “initiate touch or verbal affection three times per week.” Use experiments of 4–8 weeks, rearrange routines to test change, and ask for specific actions that show progress instead of promises.

Investigate origin: many patterns are subconscious or learned in childhood. Bring vulnerability into sessions with a therapist to trace triggers, document which behaviors respond to counseling, and keep track of what each partner learned through therapy. When anxious reactions are frequent, measure baseline anxiety (daily rating 1–10) and monitor reduction while staying engaged in treatment.

Prevent the blame game: shift language from accusation to needs. Say “I need X to feel comfortable” rather than “You always Y.” That phrasing reduces defensiveness and shows whether youre interested in making change. If offers to change are performative – big gestures that show once but no follow-through – require a plan with checkpoints and consequences.

Use a simple decision flow: (1) Is safety at risk? – immediate separation and legal/counseling steps, including discussion of divorce if safety or custody are threatened. (2) Is happiness and daily functioning repeatedly reduced? – escalate to structured counseling and a 60–90 day trial with measurable goals. (3) If progress is documented and needs are met, keep staying engaged; if not, prioritize long-term well-being of heart and mental health.

Rate your day-to-day emotional baseline over two weeks

Score emotional baseline twice daily (first moment after waking; last moment before sleep) on a 1–7 scale for 14 days, then compute daily mean and a weekly median to identify trends.

1. Measurement protocol:

   • Morning entry: rate energy, anxiety, connected, and vulnerability (1=very low, 7=very full).
   • Evening entry: rate mood, resentment present (yes/no), thoughts about partner, and overall emotional safety.
   • Record one short context note: whats happened, where, who was there, and any trigger words partner said (saying) or actions that would increase tension.

2. Data capture format (paper or app):

   • Fields: date, time, score, anxiety spike count, short note (3–8 words), comfortable scale (1–7).
   • Optional: a checkbox if youd felt moved to share feelings that day or youd stopped yourself from saying something.

3. Daily analysis (5 minutes):

   • Calculate daily mean from two scores; note if variance >2 points between morning and night – mark as instability.
   • Flag entries with explicit resentment or repeated thinking about past slights; mark these for discussion.

4. Weekly review (15 minutes):

   • Compute weekly median and compare to previous week. If median drops ≥1.5 points or anxiety spike count increases >30%, escalate action.
   • Make a short message template to share: heres the week: median X, variance Y, main trigger Z. Keep wording concrete and non-accusatory.

5. Decision thresholds and recommended responses:

   • If weekly median ≤3 for two consecutive weeks: schedule a session with a therapist within 10 days.
   • If resentment appears in >25% of entries or youd find yourself saying “I havent been able to…” more than twice a week, initiate a structured conversation with a timed agenda.
   • If baseline is stable but low (3–4) and vulnerability feels risky, plan one vulnerability experiment per week: 5 minutes of honest sharing, watching for power dynamics and whether the other person stops or listens.

6. Quick interventions for spikes:

   • When anxiety rises mid-day: apply a 3-minute grounding routine, note pre- and post-score to train the brain to down-regulate.
   • If a moment goes full resentment, write one sentence describing whats happened and one sentence about what would make it stop; keep it for weekly review.

7. Alignment check (end of week):

   • Compare cores of thinking: do daily notes align with long-term values? If not, list three concrete changes to keep week-over-week.
   • Use the question: what am I thinking first when conflict appears? Answer in one line to reveal patterns.

8. Sample weekly message to propose a check-in:

   • “Heres my weekly baseline: median 3.8, variance 1.7, anxiety spikes 4. I felt less connected on Thu; id like 20 minutes Sat to tell whats on my mind. Are you comfortable?”

If entries show persistent low baseline or repeated high-variance weeks, seek a therapist referral; early contact reduces escalation and gives tools to align behavior with thinking and keep vulnerability safe.

Identify who initiates repair attempts and how often

Track initiations for 30 days: log date, initiator name, trigger, method (verbal, gesture, 物理, call, meet), and outcome. Tally totals and calculate percentages: initiations per person ÷ total repair attempts. Use a simple spreadsheet with columns: date, initiator, type, duration, outcome, notes.

Interpretation thresholds: >70% by one person = high imbalance and likely burnout; 50–70% = notable asymmetry that needs protocol changes; 40–60% = reasonable reciprocity; <40% by one person suggests disengagement or avoidance. Also track attempt success rate: successful de-escalation per initiations; aim for ≥60% success.

Classify attempt quality. Examples: apology + concrete fix; check-in call; offering to meet in a neutral room; brief physical comfort; setting or respecting 边界. Beware thin gestures: if bobby tells “thats nice” and leaves, that counts as an initiation but low-quality – mark as “surface” in the notes. When theyre inconsistent about following through, mark pattern and flag for review.

Prescribe short experiments based on data. If one person is already doing most repairs, require the lower-initiating partner to start 3 specific attempts/week for two weeks (two calls, one in-person meet, or two written check-ins). Define what counts as an attempt in advance, include time stamps and brief information bits about intent. If attempts remain infrequent or success rate stays low, set firm boundaries: limit unilateral fixes and call a 20‑minute review meeting to decide next steps.

Use observable metrics to guide decisions: counts, success rate, and consistency. Build processes that increase clarity (who initiates, how, and when), focus on small wins, and keep data visible so both can be confident in assessments. Believe small bits of regular initiation will more likely align with increased trust and happiness; if patterns against balance persist despite interventions, that might matter for longer-term choices.