Let’s Talk About: Being Right v. Your Connection
In the drizzle-drenched commute along I-5, over a locally roasted brew in Capitol Hill, or looking out over the waterfront in Tacoma, a very specific brand of friction tends to bubble up in relationships. It usually starts with something trivial like a timestamp on a text, whose turn it was to take out the trash, or the perceived "vibe" of a comment made during a Tuesday night spat.
For many couples around the Sound, arguing over facts is a total trap. One partner scrolls frantically to prove a point; the other delivers a chronological deposition of the evening’s failures. Before you know it, the actual hurt, the human part, is buried under a pile of "evidence." You aren't just bickering about groceries anymore. You’re auditioning for the role of Correct Historian. But here’s the thing: in a real, breathing relationship, being "right" is usually a pretty lonely consolation prize for losing connection.
The Myth of the "Objective" Truth
When we prioritize cold hard facts over how our partner actually feels, we’re betting on the idea that winning the debate will fix the rift in the relationship. Spoiler alert: it won’t. It just turns your living room into a courtroom where someone has to be the loser. This creates what “narrative therapists” such as myself call a "problem-saturated story."
Jill Freedman and Gene Combs (1996) summed this up perfectly, "We are interested in the stories that people live by, and how those stories shape their futures" (p. 77). If the only story you’re writing together is "We can’t agree on a single damn thing," well, that’s exactly the future you’re going to get, and that absolutely sucks.
Externalizing: The "Problem" Isn't Your Spouse
The real magic trick in changing this narrative? Within this form of couples therapy its a little thing called externalization. Michael White and David Epston (1990) who pioneered this approach famously argued that "the person is not the problem, the problem is the problem" (p. 38).
Let’s sit with that for a second. For a couple stuck in a loop, the "enemy" isn't the person sitting across from you on the sofa. The enemy is a third party,let’s call it "The Fact-Checker" or "The Judge." When you externalize, you stop pointing fingers and start looking at the pattern itself. Instead of labeling your partner as controlling or a know-it-all; we might point out that the Judge is in the room again, and they make it impossible for us to actually talk.
This shift from one-v-one to two-v-pattern changes a lot about the breakdown of the conversation moving forward. Externalizing conversations enables partners to separate their lives and relationships from complicated and painful stories that are soul-destroying. Once the problem is an outside intruder, you can finally stop defending your "truth" and start defending each other and the relationship.
Trading Veracity for Validation
So, if we aren't fighting about what actually happened at 3:28 PM, what are we doing? We’re validating our partner’s experience. Validation doesn't mean you agree with their version of history. It just means you care about their reality.
Check out the difference:
The "Lawyer" Response: "I wasn't ignoring you; I was in a meeting! Look at my calendar!"
The Human Response: "It sounds like you felt totally invisible this afternoon. That sucks, and I hate that you felt that way."
In that second version, the clock doesn’t matter. The ego takes a back seat. You’re bypassing the "Prosecutor" and speaking straight to the heart of the matter. It’s messy, sure, but it’s real.
Re-Authoring the "Us" Story
Once you start kicking the "Fact-Checker" out of the house, you get to start re-authoring. This is about finding those tiny, blink-and-you’ll-miss-them moments where you got it right. Moments where both partners felt connected and seen.
Freedman and Combs (1996) suggest that "new meanings are generated through the collaborative process of the therapeutic conversation" (p. 27). Maybe it was that one time you both laughed at a wrong turn near Point Defiance instead of sniping at each other. Those moments? Those are the building blocks of a better story. Instead of a saga about who is "right," you start co-authoring a story about how you take care of each other’s spirits in a confusing world.
None of this is meant to escape accountability for hurt, it is meant to empower both personal responsibility and mutual care for one another in a shift of dynamics that prioritizes togetherness at the end of the conflict over creating a winner and loser out of a disagreement.
A Challenge for Tonight
The next time you feel that itch to correct a date, a price, or a specific word your partner used, try a different move:
Name the Ghost: Call out the pattern. "Hey, I think 'The Fact-Checker' is trying to hijack us right now." or in less therapy-room-language “I feel like there is some fact-checking going on and that is throwing me off, can we connect about XYZ”.
Externalize the Mess: Treat the tension as a storm you’re both stuck in, not something your partner is doing to spite you.
Validate, Don't Litigate: Ask yourself, "Do I want to be right, or do I want to be close?" (Hint: Close is better). Try saying, "Tell me more about how that felt for you." or “I want to make sure we are both taken care of here, what can I understand about your need right now?”.
When you stop trying to win the argument as an individual, you give the relationship a fighting chance to win. It’s about moving away from those "soul-destroying" scripts and toward a life and a love that feels a lot more like home.
Sources
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities. W. W. Norton & Company.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. W. W. Norton & Company.
