If both parties take the mindset that they will not compromise or negotiate is it not likely that both parties will become resentful that their partner is unreasonable?

compromise: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

It seems to me that negotiation would likely circumvent resentment in compromise. Am I missing something in my understanding of what Dr. Harley is trying to get across for a successful relationship?

So I am used to the concept that both parties give a little and come to an agreement that both can live with.

Resist one type of solution that your Giver and Taker may suggest the "I'll let you do what you want this time if you let me do what I want next time" solution. For example, imagine that you want to go out with your friends after work, leaving your spouse with the children. So to arrive at an enthusiastic agreement for that thoughtless activity, you suggest that you take the children another night so that your spouse can go out with his or her friends.

What you're really proposing here is that each of you will sacrifice so that the other can have fun. The problem with that arrangement is that you are agreeing to behavior that makes one of you unhappy whenever the other is happy, and as I've said earlier, once you have made an agreement, it can easily turn into a habit.

The Giver and Taker suggest those kinds of win-lose solutions because they don't understand win-win solutions. Their concept of fairness is that if you are both suffering equally, that's fair. My view of negotiation is that by the time you are finished you should have arrived at a solution where neither of you suffers. And each part of the solution should not require either of you to sacrifice so that the other can be happy.

In your solution to the Mexican restaurant dilemma, it seems that choosing a non-Mexican restaurant IS a concession in that you gave up your desire to eat Mexican in order to find a win-win solution. Although the non-Mexican restaurant is something you both love, you had to cross the Mexican restaurant off the list of possibilities. It was done to find a win-win solution, which is a great thing, but it does seem to be a concession.

If you find a win-win solution, then you will be just as happy with the new restaurant choice as you would have been with the Mexican restaurant. So how is that a concession? Is giving up your right to be disagreeable a concession?

This problem seems to be originating from looking at the POJA process from the point of view of how much you stand to lose. Maybe you would understand it better if you considered instead how much you have to gain.

Kl, the reason I say it is not a concession is because a concession means I lose something. That I have made a sacrifice. but I have lost nothing when we agree on a restaurant I like as much or more than Mexican. I equate concession with sacrifice. And that is what should be avoided.

Agreed, a concession means you lose something. And in the restaurant scenario, it seems that you lose the option of going to some restaurants you enjoy because you limit your choice of restaurants to the one's both you and your husband enjoy.

And in the restaurant scenario, it seems that you lose the option of going to some restaurants you enjoy because you limit your choice of restaurants to the one's both you and your husband enjoy

The key to understanding the POJA is that it is not a loss, but a gain. It is not a loss to find a better option. If I find a better home than I live in now, I do not feel "loss", I feel GAIN.

I think where I was struggling is the degree of attachment to the thing or event. Does it really matter to me about the restaurant? What if I have a real desire for Mexican food and we have gone to other places many times. Do I have to suppress my desire for Mexican food forever because my partner does not enjoy it? Am I never able to experience Mexican cuisine because someone else is not willing to go?

Does that not precipitate into thoughts of being narrow minded about Mexican food? That a person is unwilling to expand their horizons?

Someone who is not attached or have the intense focus on the intended objective don't really care, and are perceived to be flexible. I suppose it depends on the personality of the individual.

I think the issue I am having is the potential for resentment is there regardless. It all depends on perspective and intensity of attachment. Some people feel hard done by if they have to deviate from their intended objective.

Effective Marriage Counseling pg 112 - 113

What about Resentment?

One of the most common objections to the POJA is that it creates
resentment when it�s followed. I agree; it does usually create some
resentment. But far more resentment is created when it is not followed.
An illustration will help make this important point.

George is invited to watch football with his friend Sam. He tells
his wife, Sue, that he plans to accept the invitation. Sue objects.

If George goes ahead and watches the game, he�s guilty of independent
behavior. He is not following the POJA, and Sue will be resentful.
When George does something against the wishes of Sue, I call
her resentment type A.

If George follows the POJA and doesn�t accept Sam�s invitation,
George will be resentful. When George is prevented from doing something
because of Sue�s objections, I call his resentment type B.

Which type of resentment makes the largest Love Bank withdrawals:
type A or type B? The answer is type A, and that�s why the POJA
helps build Love Bank balances. I�ll explain.

When George violates the POJA, Sue has no choice but to feel
the effect of the thoughtless decision (Love Bank withdrawals) for
as long as memory persists�possibly for life whenever the event is
recalled. But when George follows the POJA, the negative effect is
limited in time. It lasts only as long as it takes to discover an enjoyable
alternative that is acceptable to Sue.

George lets Sue know how disappointed he is with her objection
but is willing to discuss other options. Sue wasn�t invited to watch
football and doesn�t want to invite herself to Sam�s house, so she
suggests inviting Sam and his wife to their house to watch football.
George calls Sam, he and his wife accept, and the new activity puts
an end to George�s type B resentment.

Type A resentment can last forever, but type B resentment stops
the moment a mutually enjoyable alternative is discovered. Those
with poor negotiating skills may have trouble seeing the difference
because they have not learned how to resolve conflicts. They may
feel resentment about a host of issues that have been unresolved in
their marriage. But after you teach a couple to negotiate successfully,
unresolved issues are minimized. Then it becomes clear to
them that the POJA helps build Love Bank balances by eliminating
type A resentment.

I think the issue I am having is the potential for resentment is there regardless. It all depends on perspective and intensity of attachment. Some people feel hard done by if they have to deviate from their intended objective. Someone who is not attached or have the intense focus on the intended objective don't really care, and are perceived to be flexible. I suppose it depends on the personality of the individual.

(In case you didn't know, I'm an engineer and sometimes look at things mathematically. Since 5 is less than 6, I "lost" a choice, but I agree with you in that it doesn't "feel" like loss.)