"How Do You Fight in Your Marriage?"

Huffington Post  Amy Lee  First Posted: 02/24/11 11:53 AM Updated: 02/24/11 01:35 PM

Want to save your marriage? Pay attention to how you fight.

According to a new study, the style that couples use to fight can predict how likely divorce is for those couples.

The researchers who headed up a recent University of Michigan study found that three styles of fighting characterized conflict--destructive, constructive, and withdrawal. Though destructive fighting (yelling and screaming) most often led to divorce, researchers also found that couples where one partner fought constructively (that is, tried to solve the problem calmly) and the other partner withdrew emotionally, or left the fight, also faced potential problems in their relationship.

This was the longest and largest research study to date that concentrated on marital conflict--it spanned 16 years and studied 373 couples. Though 46 percent of couples had divorced by the final year of the study, those that remained together were likelier to be engaged in conflicts in which both partners used constructive behaviors. Kira Birditt, one of the study's co-authors, helped us make sense of this data:

You had two goals with this study. Can you outline what those were?

We were interested in whether the conflict styles couples use in the first year predict if they stay married, and if couples stay consistent in their conflict strategies over time.

You refer to three styles of fighting, or "conflict patterns"--"destructive," "constructive," and "withdrawal." Can you describe them?

Destructive strategies are like yelling and screaming, constructive are calmly discussing the situation, trying to find solutions, and we looked at two avoidant strategies -- one was keeping quiet, the other was leaving the situation.

How did you measure this? Did you put couples in a room and wait until they fought? Or bring up something they typically tend to fight about and watch them go at it?

They were asked to report a recent conflict and then to describe the conflict. They had a questionnaire asking how often they used a series of strategies.

What were your major findings? Which were the most surprising?

Strategies couples uses in the first year do predict how long they stayed married. Destructive patterns are bad for your marriage. We saw interactions between strategies. We thought constructive must be good for marriage, but we found that constructive strategies mixed with another spouse leaving the room, were actually more likely to lead to divorce. It's important both partners use constructive patterns. People do change over time, but the changes were more visible in women.

Why might a constructive fighting style mixed with a withdrawal style be bad for a marriage?

It might just mean that your spouse is showing a lack of commitment to the relationship--one spouse wants to fix things and the other one is leaving.

You found that overall, men used less destructive fighting methods and more constructive methods than women. This seems counter-intuitive, since we typically think of women as being better communicators than men. Did this finding surprise you?

It's not surprising in the marital literature -- women tend to use more destructive styles in other studies too. I think of women having less power and being less aggressive but that's not the case here.

You also found that, over time, women's use of destructive methods of fighting, such as withdrawal, lessened while the men's use of destructive behavior remained the same. Why do you think that is?

Women are less satisfied with the relationship and tend to have more complaints as they do more around the house or have more they would like to change, whereas men would like to keep the status quo -- so if they have a really traditional relationship, women might have more to complain about in the beginning of the marriage and it's solved over time. Also, destructive couples are more likely to divorce.

Black couples reported more withdrawal than white couples. Why do you think this is?

We're not sure -- one idea is that black couples are more likely to divorce and are more worried about conflict, but I really don't know.

You found that the majority of fighting styles had similar effects on divorce for blacks and whites. Were you surprised by this?

I thought we'd find some different things because black and white marriages were so different in all these other ways, in terms of socio-economics -- I thought it'd translate to larger differences in emotional things, but it didn't.

You found that individual behaviors and patterns of behaviors between partners in the first year of marriage predicted higher divorce rates 16 years later. That's a pretty scary finding, but does it also that mean couples can possibly prevent their own divorces down the road if they identify these patterns in the first year of marriage and deal with them?

I would hope so. I would hope that we could use this literature to help people. But who knows? It'd be interesting to study that.

What can couples take away from this study?

I think it's important to try to work together to constructively solve problems. The closer you are, the more problems you have but you have to be really careful about how you deal with it when you have them. You should think before you react and try to say things calmly when you're upset and it's better to talk about problems than to avoid them or to scream or yell.

Anderson Cooper and Jon Stewart

I just had to post this video, for my own delight if no one else's.  Other than respecting each of their journalist crafts, it would seem that each of their life paths would suggest that each is just a really decent person.  


Other than the FACTS in this video (and their presentations) I, as always...enjoy the humor that comes with the show, and with each of these men...who are also feeling men.

The Daily Show - Anderson Cooper
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

"The Progressive's Guide to Raising Hell: How to Win Grassroots Campaigns, Pass Ballot Box Laws, and Get the Change We Voted For-- A Direct Democracy Toolkit"

This review is from: The Progressive's Guide to Raising Hell: How to Win Grassroots Campaigns, Pass Ballot Box Laws, and Get the Change We Voted For-- A Direct Democracy Toolkit (Paperback)

American progressives have in recent decades gotten too shy, or too afraid, to raise hell about injustice and unfairness. They peeked out during the 2008 presidential campaign, then fell silent at the first disappointment. Perhaps they're afraid to be tagged with the dreaded label "liberal." The populist space got filled from other directions, including by Tea Partiers who happily put themselves on the line in public. 

Jamie Court aims to reverse that course by rearming progressives with tools for making change from below, and steeling them to be a whole lot less polite to power. Also a whole lot more demanding, and more nimble on their feet. 

Frederick Douglass, a granddaddy of civil rights and civil action, famously said "Power concedes nothing without a demand." In modern terms, Court tells us, that means constant vigiliance to avoid being co-opted. A "seat at the table"--whether in the corporate boardroom or the government conference room--is power's most effective tool for watering down outsider demands. 

After telling hell-raisers what doesn't work, Court offers a different toolkit for what he calls "political jiujitsu"--being alert and leveraging opponents' mistakes to shame them. then building waves of public pressure for change. His anecdotal examples of the David-and-Goliath stunts by him and colleagues at his small foundation called Consumer Watchdog range from hilarious to hair-raising. 

For instance, don't be embarrassed to carry a pig into the halls of government to make a point. Grab the chance to clobber a corporate opponent for an ad that appears weirdly racist, using shame to undercut the corporation's sponsorship of anti-consumer legislation. 

Court's anecdotes of stunts, tricksterism, successes and failures keep the book rolling, wrapping the practical details of his hell-raising toolkit. Court echoes tough progressives of the past, from Emma Goldman to the late Sen. Paul Wellstone. But his aim is to inspire action, not homage. 

It takes more dedication and resources than most individuals possess to employ Court's toolkit, but he also offers practical advice for small groups on how to amplify their message and band together. "Raising Hell" will make the most dedicated couch-potato progressive sit up and start hoping again--maybe even acting. 

Gene Sharp: 198 Methods of Non-Violent Action

Gene Sharp: 198 Methods of Non-Violent Action

Mad in Madison. It Ain’t No Tea Party

Mad in Madison. It Ain’t No Tea Party

"What Is Dead Peasant Insurance?"....Does your company have a policy like this on you?

Dead Peasant Insurance is sometimes used as a shorthand reference for life insurance policies that insure a company’s rank-and-file employees and name the company as the beneficiary. This means that the company receives the life insurance benefits when the covered employees die. This insurance may also be called “janitor insurance,”…

RECENT QUESTIONS

How did it get the name “Dead Peasant” insurance?

Winn Dixie Stores bought life insurance policies on approximately 36,000 of its employees, without their knowledge or consent, and named itself as the policies’ beneficiary. The insurance brokerage firm that placed the policies prepared two memos describing the deceased employees as “Dead Peasants.” These memos were part of the court’s record in a lawsuit in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Winn-Dixie’s policies were a sham transaction for federal income tax purposes. The memos were later used by reporters such as Ellen Schultz and Theo Francis of the Wall Street Journal and L.M. Sixel of the Houston Chronicle and incorporated into articles about this type of insurance.

» QUESTION PERMALINK

How does a person know if he or she is covered by a policy?

It is often difficult for a person to learn whether he or she was covered by a “Dead Peasant” policy. These insurance programs became popular during the mid-1980s and have been an available investment opportunity for large companies since that time. Prior to 2006, however, there was no federal law that required employers to disclose the policies to insured employees. Any disclosure requirements that existed before 2006 were only through state laws, which were ignored in many instances. So, the only way a person could learn about the policies was through the employer’s voluntary disclosure.

» QUESTION PERMALINK

Which employers bought policies on the lives of employees?

Because a company’s purchase of insurance policies is not a public record, it is virtually impossible to know every company that invested in policies on employees’ lives. The following companies, however, are believed to have been named as the beneficiary of life insurance policies on …more »

» QUESTION PERMALINK

Germane to the above paste, is a bio on one of the leading attorneys who deal with this issue.  This neither a referral nor an advertisement for Mr. Myers.  However, his is a name that is frequently connected to  cases.

Mike Myers has a national law practice involving class actions and commercial litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. He has been counsel in cases involving eighteen approved class action settlements, including the Wal-Mart and Fina Oil “dead peasant” insurance cases. He has argued before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Tenth and Fifth Circuits in landmark cases involving life insurance and personal privacy rights. A substantial part of his practice concerns corporate-owned life insurance and his cases have been reported in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, and internationally in LEMONDE’S March 18, 2003 article Les Mortelles Combines Des Patrons Américains. Mike is frequently used as a media resource on the topics of insurance and annuities. He has appeared in the NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL and on CNN’s Prime News with Erica Hill to discuss life insurance issues and consulted on the documentary film SiCKO.

Before forming McClanahan • Myers • Espey, Mike was a partner with the Houston, Texas litigation boutique McClanahan & Clearman, L.L.P. where he practiced for thirteen years. He is a graduate of the University of Texas School of Law and Texas A&M University and a former member of a United States Army explosive ordnance detachment. Mike was named a “rising star” lawyer by Texas Lawyer magazine in 2006 and one of Houston’s top attorneys by H-Texas magazine in 2008 and 2009.

"The Black Hats Must Go" by Steve Beckow

2009 NOVEMBER 2

tags: 9/11, 9/11 Truth, Blackwater, CIA, Derivatives, FBI,FEMA camps, London bombings, martial law, Mumbai,pandemics, subprime, swine flu, Whackenhut, WTC

by Steve Beckow

Published in OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Black-Hats-Must-Go-by-Steve-Beckow-091102-514.html

It’s time to run the Black Hats outta town. It’s time to end the New World Order’s game, close the casino, and lock the doors.

It’s time to lower the boom of justice on the Black Hats in the World Bank, the IMF, the BIS, Congress, the Federal Reserve, the Bilderbergers, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, the corrupt judicial system, the corrupt police system, NORTHCOM, NORAD, CIA, FBI, everyone.

Everyone who turned the world into a reckless gaming house in which the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, everyone who grew more powerful at the expense of the rights and freedoms of others.

Everyone who denied basic medicare to citizens. Everyone who made subprime loans to poor people, collateralized them, raised their rates, and then evicted the owners.

Everyone who took out “Dead Peasant” insurance policies on their employees and made millions from them, sharing none with the relatives of the deceased.

Everyone who engineered 9/11, Oklahoma City, the London bombings, Madrid, and Mumbai to stampede the world.  Everyone who began illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, who took away citizens’ rights, pushed for martial law, and set up FEMA camps to incarcerate “trouble-makers.”

Everyone who designed viruses – AIDS, SARS, avian flu, and now swine flu – some of them racially-specific – and vaccines whose only purpose was to sicken and kill in the name of depopulating the globe. Everyone who seeded the skies with chemtrails causing sickness and death from Morgellon’s disease.

Everyone who kept technologies from us that would have freed us from fossil fuels back in the 1950s. Everyone who murdered inventors who discovered how to make cars run on water. Everyone who created space-based weapons systems to extend their rule into space.

Everyone who kept from us knowledge of the populated world of space. Everyone who created a secret space service that has colonized Mars since at least the 1970s.

Everyone who killed to hide Roswell from us and created secret areas of research where they back-engineered miracles gained from downed space craft and from treaties with the Greys and then kept them from the public.

Everyone who ran torture prisons overseas, at secret underground bases, or at Guantanamo. Everyone who ran institutions like the School of the Americas where gangsters were trained to overthrow democratically-elected regimes. Everyone who created and used Blackwater and Whackenhut to create a private army and prison or who sentenced children to jail as a business.

Every Congressional Representative and every Senator who accepted bribes, favors, sex, trips and any other inducement that led them to sell their vote to the Black Hats.

Everyone who plotted to take over Canada and Mexico out of a so-called “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (ironic misnomer) or start a third world war with Iran, Russia, or China to bring the population down from 6.8 billion to a more manageable 500 million, destined to be slaves.

Everyone who developed HAARP and used it to cause or amplify earthquakes and hurricanes (including Katrina), killing tens of thousands. Or ULF (ultra-low-frequency weapons) and experimented with them, bringing down the I35W Minneapolios bridge.

Everyone who speculated in currency and brought down national economies which they then held hostage to onerous debt payments. Everyone who made loans to third-world countries and then robbed them of their resources when they couldn’t pay.

There is so much more – a media bought and paid for, deep underground military bunkers, Pine Gap, Australia, space base, Area 51, depleted-uranium weapons, printing truckloads of dollars.

This planet, reeling under the black-hole debt of the derivatives megabubble, will no longer tolerate your rule.

We know you, Black Hats. We know the whole range of your activities. We know you inside and out.

We know your business. Three showers a day won’t keep you clean.

The Black Hats, the hangers on, the vultures, the whole gang – it’s time for you to go.

From W.H. Murray

“Until one is committed, there is [always] hesitancy, the chance to draw back. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now.”

Perceptual Experiment/Science and Fluid Intelligence

Perceptual Experiment
http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/perceptual_experiment

Science and Fluid Intelligence

When scientists on the static intelligence end of the spectrum encounter evidence which seriously questions the established paradigm, they attempt to discredit the new information using laws and principles previously agreed upon under the old paradigm. If they fail at this, the new evidence is then deemed not worthy of study and discarded. At worst, the evidence is actively attacked as being irrational or unscientific, even though it may be easily tested and verified.

Scientists with a high degree of fluid intelligence who are attracted to study matters outside the current paradigm are often labeled kooks or wacky by those operating with static intelligence.

Yet history shows that it is often these "kooky" scientists who go on to make the most astonishing discoveries which pave the way for entire new areas of study which were once considered nonsense. Einstein, Galileo, and Pasteur were all ridiculed by many respected scientists of their day for their amazing discoveries which ushered in entire new branches of knowledge.

All of us are sometimes resistant to letting go of old beliefs, while at other times we are excited to explore new ways of thinking and being. Static intelligence and fluid intelligence are but two ends of a continuum, and each of us shifts to varying points on that continuum over time. To demonstrate this, visit the link below to take a short test on the sharpness of your perceptual abilities:

www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/perceptual_experiment

Things are not always as they appear. Now watch this impressive eight-minute clip which may expand your beliefs about animal intelligence:

www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/elephant_artist_hkc

While reading through the materials in the Hidden Knowledge Course, be prepared for the unexpected and consider choosing the more fluid end of this spectrum of intelligence. Consider also opening to support in exploring areas where you might feel stuck in old belief patterns.

In recent years, many key pioneers have been successful in operating within the modern scientific paradigm with a very high degree of fluid intelligence. These courageous individuals have used accepted scientific principles and careful research to challenge old paradigm beliefs. Below are a few shining examples of this pioneering group:

• Stanford University's neuropsychologist Karl Pribram and his in-depth studies of the holographic qualities of consciousness.
• University of Connecticut Psychologist Kenneth Ring who completed breakthrough studies of near-death experiences.
• Dr. Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ (see his excellent paper) of Stanford Research Institute in their copious studies of remote viewing and nonlocality.
• UCLA's Valerie Hunt in her systematic studies of human energy fields and measurable psychic phenomena.
• Dr. Bruce Lipton's pioneering cell biology research suggesting that contrary to popular belief, genes are not the primary regulators of life. Rather the way we perceive our life and world may be a key factor in determining gene activity.
• Princeton University's PEAR Laboratory (now closed) which established the ability of consciousness to interact with physical matter.
• Robert Monroe, founder of the Monroe Institute which teaches methods to achieve out of body experiences and remote viewing (see his landmark bookFar Journeys).
• The many pioneers of quantum physics who are finding that for deeper understanding of our world, it may be impossible to separate the physical world from consciousness.

Two classics which challenge static scientific paradigms using reliable, verifiable research from hundreds of scientific studies are the books The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot and The Field by Lynne McTaggart.The paradigm-busting film What the Bleep!? covers similar territory in a less scientific, yet very fun way.

These engaging books and film are highly recommended for those interested in exploring the work of scientists who are promoting greater awareness of ourselves and our universe, and helping people to develop more fluidity in consciousness.

  Sacred Cows

Sacred Cows © Spyder Webb of sacredcowsonline.com