The husband’s shift from “controlling” to “overwhelmed” is the whole essay in one move, and it raises the question I keep circling in my own work: why is curiosity so hard to reach exactly when we need it most? I think the answer is that certainty is soothing and curiosity is expensive. Deciding you know why someone behaves as they do settles the nervous system; staying open means tolerating not-knowing while upset, which costs real regulatory capacity. Your client could be curious in your office because your office made it safe to not know. At home, flooded, the old certainty was cheaper. Which suggests curiosity is less a skill we deploy than a capacity we have to protect the conditions for. Over two decades of sitting with couples has convinced me the sequence matters: settle the body first, and the better questions become reachable.
I think that curiosity is a skill (that some people don't naturally possess), but we don't have the capacity to be curious when our nervous system is screaming "danger!" I have said over and over that the most powerful tool in managing conflict is "pause." We have to give our bodies a moment to regulate before we can seek resolution because a dysregulated body seeks resolution from a "danger" lens. Your body sees your partner as a threat to mitigate. A regulated nervous system can become curious and open to possibility which leads to repair instead of mitigation. Thank you for contributing to the conversation!
That’s a fair sharpening. Skill and capacity aren’t competing explanations, they’re probably sequential. Someone can build the skill of curiosity in calm conditions and still lose access to it under threat, which is exactly your ‘danger’ point. The skill sets the ceiling; the nervous system sets whether you can reach it that day. Which might be why couples can look so different in session versus at home. The skill traveled with them. The capacity didn’t.
The husband’s shift from “controlling” to “overwhelmed” is the whole essay in one move, and it raises the question I keep circling in my own work: why is curiosity so hard to reach exactly when we need it most? I think the answer is that certainty is soothing and curiosity is expensive. Deciding you know why someone behaves as they do settles the nervous system; staying open means tolerating not-knowing while upset, which costs real regulatory capacity. Your client could be curious in your office because your office made it safe to not know. At home, flooded, the old certainty was cheaper. Which suggests curiosity is less a skill we deploy than a capacity we have to protect the conditions for. Over two decades of sitting with couples has convinced me the sequence matters: settle the body first, and the better questions become reachable.
Thanks for sharing!
I think that curiosity is a skill (that some people don't naturally possess), but we don't have the capacity to be curious when our nervous system is screaming "danger!" I have said over and over that the most powerful tool in managing conflict is "pause." We have to give our bodies a moment to regulate before we can seek resolution because a dysregulated body seeks resolution from a "danger" lens. Your body sees your partner as a threat to mitigate. A regulated nervous system can become curious and open to possibility which leads to repair instead of mitigation. Thank you for contributing to the conversation!
That’s a fair sharpening. Skill and capacity aren’t competing explanations, they’re probably sequential. Someone can build the skill of curiosity in calm conditions and still lose access to it under threat, which is exactly your ‘danger’ point. The skill sets the ceiling; the nervous system sets whether you can reach it that day. Which might be why couples can look so different in session versus at home. The skill traveled with them. The capacity didn’t.
Thanks for engaging!
Well-stated!