If you’re a therapist using the Gottman Method to work with couples, you know how encouraging it can feel when you introduce a new concept that helps partners develop a shared understanding of the patterns that keep getting them into trouble.
Maybe you’ve just explained flooding, and for the first time, your clients have language to describe what happens when one or both partners become physiologically overwhelmed during conflict. You feel pretty good about that. They’re starting to recognize something they couldn’t identify before.
Then they come back the following week.
“Great. Now my partner has a whole new way to avoid talking to me.”
You ask what happened.
“We were having a conversation about who was going to pick up the kids from school, and suddenly he announced, ‘I’m flooded,’ and walked out of the room. We weren’t even fighting! I don’t think this is helping us. I think you’ve just given him another way to avoid having a conversation.”
And there it is.
Something we introduced to help the couple interrupt an unproductive pattern has now become part of the pattern itself.
This is one of the challenges we face when clients begin using therapy language outside our offices. Sometimes the concepts we’re teaching become tools for understanding each other. Other times, they become new ways to criticize, dismiss, or avoid one another.
When Therapy Language Becomes a Weapon
We’ve probably all had a client look across the room at their partner and say something like:
“You’re gaslighting me.”
“You’re such a narcissist.”
“That’s your avoidant attachment talking.”
These are terms clients may have picked up from social media, podcasts, friends, or previous therapy experiences. And sometimes they’re genuinely trying to put words to something they’ve been struggling to understand.
But here’s what I want therapists to pay attention to: How is that language landing with the person on the receiving end?
Contempt in disguise
I’ve noticed that therapy language can sometimes become contempt in disguise.
When one partner starts telling the other what’s psychologically wrong with them, they may unintentionally position themselves as a co-therapist in the room. It’s almost as though there are now two therapists deciding what the identified client needs to work on so the relationship can get better.
And we know how well that’s likely to go over with the partner who’s just been assigned the role of identified patient!
What may have started as an attempt to describe a painful experience can begin to communicate superiority, which we know is at the heart of contempt in the Gottman Method.
The person using the label may be trying to communicate something important. But their partner may be hearing, “I’m right, you’re wrong, and now I have a psychological term to prove it.”
Not surprisingly, defensiveness often follows.
Instead of getting closer to understanding what hurt their partner, they’re now busy defending themselves against what feels like a judgment about their character.
“I’m Worried That’s Not Landing the Way You Hoped”
When I hear a partner using psychological terminology to describe what’s wrong with the other person, I don’t immediately challenge whether they’re using the term correctly. That’s not usually going to help us get anywhere.
Instead, I want to slow things down and help them recognize how their message might be received.
I might say something like:
“Can we pause for a moment? I’m worried that what you’re saying isn’t landing the way you hoped. Your partner may be hearing this as though you’ve become another therapist in the room, and now the two of us are deciding what’s wrong with them.”
Then I get curious about what they’re actually trying to communicate.
“Tell me what happened that made you feel like you were being gaslighted. What did your partner say or do? How did that affect you? And what would you like them to understand or consider doing differently?”
The Softened Start Up
I’m not asking them to give up their interpretation of what happened. I’m asking them to describe their experience rather than diagnose their partner.
This gives us an opportunity to help them practice a softened startup, moving away from criticism and toward identifying their feelings and positive needs.
For example, instead of saying, “You’re gaslighting me,” they might say:
“When you tell me that conversation never happened, I feel confused and frustrated because I remember it differently. I’d really like us to slow down and try to understand why we’re having such different experiences of what happened.”
We’re still talking about the same concern. But now there’s a better chance their partner can hear it without immediately feeling the need to defend themselves.
I often explain it this way to clients: “I’m asking you to consider saying this differently so your partner can hear it and you can get your needs met.”
Because sometimes the way we’re delivering an important message makes it harder for the other person to hear what we’re actually asking for.
When Flooding Becomes an Exit Strategy
Let’s go back to our couple from the beginning of the article.
We know that recognizing flooding is an important part of helping couples manage conflict. We want partners to recognize when they’re becoming physiologically overwhelmed and learn to take breaks before conversations become unproductive or hurtful.
But what happens when one partner starts announcing they’re flooded every time a difficult subject comes up, and the other partner feels like nothing ever gets resolved?
I don’t want to discourage someone from recognizing that they’re overwhelmed. That’s progress! But I also don’t want the couple to misunderstand what taking a break is supposed to accomplish.
I might say:
“I love that you’re beginning to recognize when you’re feeling flooded. That’s something we didn’t have language for before, and I’m glad we’re developing a shared understanding of what’s happening. But I want to make sure we’re remembering the other part of taking a break.”
The break is meant to help us calm our nervous systems so we can come back, talk about what happened, repair if necessary, and ask for our positive needs. That way, we’re not just taking a break from the conversation. We’re working toward changing some of the patterns that keep getting us flooded in the first place.
Then I’ll help them practice what that might sound like:
“I’m feeling overwhelmed right now, and I need to take a break. I know this conversation is important to you, and I want to come back to it. Can we try again in an hour?”
I also remind couples that the time apart needs to be spent calming their nervous systems, not building a case for why their partner is wrong.
And when they return, the goal isn’t necessarily to agree. It’s to be regulated enough to hear each other and continue the conversation.
I don’t need to decide whether someone was flooded enough to deserve a break. I want to help both partners understand how to use the intervention in a way that supports their relationship rather than repeating the same old pattern.
Taking a break is not the same thing as ending the conversation.
Helping Couples Use the Language, Not Weaponize It
As therapists, I don’t think our job is to become referees who decide which partner is using psychological terminology correctly. And we certainly don’t want to find ourselves recruited into an alliance with one partner against the other.
I also want us to recognize that sometimes these labels are a way for clients to protect themselves from being vulnerable.
It’s much easier to say, “You’re gaslighting me,” or “You’re being a narcissist,” than to say, “When I heard you say that, it really hurt. It made me feel like my experience wasn’t important to you, or that you didn’t care how your words might affect me.”
How to avoid the criticism defensiveness cycle
That second conversation requires us to let our partner see something much more personal.
When we label our partner’s character, they’re likely to hear criticism. And when someone feels criticized by the person they love, it’s understandable that their next move might be to protect themselves.
They put up a shield. They start defending themselves, explaining why we’re wrong, or pointing out what we’ve done to hurt them.
And just like that, we’re right back in the familiar pattern of criticism and defensiveness.
What I want my clients to understand is that they can have a legitimate concern, and their partner can still struggle to hear it because of how it’s being delivered.
I might ask them to consider something like this:
“I know it’s not your responsibility to make me feel better, and you’re allowed to have your own experience. But you’re also my best friend, and I want to feel close to you. When I hear those words, I find myself wanting to put up a shield and defend myself instead of getting curious about what you’re trying to tell me.”
That’s a very different invitation than telling someone what’s wrong with them.
Lean on the Method
One of the things I love about the Gottman Method is that we’re not just helping couples recognize their negative patterns. We’re helping them find different ways to respond when those patterns show up.
And sometimes that starts with helping someone put down the psychological label long enough to tell their partner what actually hurts.
When we help clients talk about what’s hurting them instead of what’s wrong with their partner, we’re giving both people a better chance to feel heard, understood, and cared for.
I want my clients to recognize that when they can identify what happened, explain why it hurt, and connect that experience to a positive need, they’re much more likely to get the response they’re hoping for.
Instead of asking their partner to defend themselves against an accusation, they’re helping their partner understand what they need and why it matters to them.
And that’s what I want couples to take away from this work. We’re not just teaching them a different way to have one difficult conversation. We’re helping them develop a way of communicating that gives them a better chance of getting their needs met over the long run.
Discussion about this post