Till now, I have been restricting feedback and comments. But at this time I want to invite you to share your thougths.
Here is are two lengthy postings by a reader, a clear thinker, and an admirer on the MarriageBuilders® site. http://www.marriagebuilders.com
Hi all, (2/15/06), Yesterday I came across a website that really helped me and my H to get a breakthrough. Our situation is that we basically love each other a lot, but are also terribly scared of not being accepted and losing each other. Kinda silly, because we both know we're not going anywhere, but that's the case, stemming from some weird childhood stuff. From my side, this results in me becoming disappointed/angry/afraid when he promises something and then doesn't do it (basically that I must be pretty worthless, if breaking his word to me is so easy. And worthless people get left behind), and from his side it results in him becoming really afraid whenever I show any disappointment or discontent (basically that he must be pretty worthless, because otherwise people wouldn't get angry with him. And worthless people get left behind). And even though we try to POJA things nearly all the time, he still promises a lot of things and then doesn't do them, even when he REALLY wants to do them and he knows it's vitally important for me that he does. Another message written on 3/27/06. This is a general introductory essay - it's a really large site, so this is a basic walkthrough. WolfDeca
Well, that didn't work. I don't think it's a flaw in the MB philosophy, but more of a wrong angle we took.
What happened was:
- we both try not to upset the other
- when the other does get upset, this hurts us, because we've been trying so hard not to let that happen
- this hurt clashes with the hurt of the upset person
- the upset person negotiates for something to lessen the hurt of their original upset, perhaps right away, perhaps for a future situation
- the upsetter gives the negotiated action
- somehow the upsetter's upset gets left by the wayside, so they are left feeling imperfect because the other got hurt because of them. In us, this caused defensiveness and resentment.
In short, it was one partner's responsibility not to upset the other, and when it did happen all bets were off. Not that we're that bad when we 'argue' - we don't raise our voices, don't hit, curse or anything like that. It's all a matter of strained conversation, nothing more. Still, pretty traumatic.
Then I saw the website of Al Turtle .
Basically, he says that people have three brain areas (which is basically true, neurological research says the same): the reptilian part, the mammalian part and the primate part.
The reptilian part takes care of basic SAFE/UNSAFE distinction. When someone feels safe, they play, laugh, feel amorous or creative. When someone feels unsafe, they flee (withdraw physically or stonewall the convo), freeze (stare at you, unable to say anything), fight (verbally or physically) or submit (say 'you're right, I'm wrong, I'll do better').
The mammalian part takes care of joy and grief.
The primate part gathers all the information a person receives, and structures it so it makes sense. This part also stores every memory you ever had - the primate brain does not forget, the best it can do is not actively remember.
In mammals and reptiles, this brain structure is straightforward - the reptilian part gets input from the outside world, from 'reality' so anything it interprets as a threat generally IS a threat. In primates, this becomes difficult - the reptilian part is completely encapsulated by the primate part, so it no longer receives input from 'reality.' This means it can (and often does) interpret stuff as a really big threat, while it's only reacting to a triggered memory. It does not know the difference between 'now' and 'then,' between 'reality' and 'memory.' This automatically means that there IS no 'reality' for human beings - every single human being filters reality through his primate brain, so none of us is capable of knowing what is 'really' 'true.' It also means that when your Lizard (the pet name for the reptile brain) panics, there's no way of going against that. But the person you think upset you is blameless - they may have supplied the initial trigger, but you are the one who caused the explosion, because your Lizard panics.
This causes an interesting shift in argument politics. 
- Everyone makes sense all the time. They do what they do because it seemed the most optimal thing to do at the time, with the input they have. No-one ever TRIES to do the wrong thing. So when your spouse does something that hurts you, it's not because they don't care, but because they think it was the best thing to do. The one you're angry at is not to blame.
So, when something you do upsets your spouse, you are not to blame. It's not your fault. This realization definitely makes it easier to see that it's simply their Lizard panicing. Their Lizard panics because of many reasons within themselves, not because of you. And since you love them, or at least care, and know that it's not your fault and you thought what you did was best at the time, it becomes much easier to offer to help. "Hey, spouse-dear, I see your hands twitching. Can you think of something I could do to help you feel safer/calmer/more at peace?" I found it's much easier to be compassionate when you're not under attack.
Of course, this is only my crude translation, this is only a very small part of the great info on the site. He also has great, clear drawings of Boudaries (Having good Boundaries is like living in a castle. Pay extra attention to the drawing of the alligator, it's cute. ). Furthermore, he has great pracical skills to practice, such as how to use TimeOuts when you need space, without unnecessarily triggering the Lizard of a spouse that has abandonment issues, Mirroring each other in conversation (this really makes people feel heard), Validating each other's feelings (this is one of the great things you need to be a succesful Marriage Builder, but I personally never knew how to do it), Restructuring Frustrations so people are more open to negotiation, and so on, and so on!
It's quite a long read, but the guy has a great, clear writing style and offers great skills for Marriage Builders!
Read it! It's great!
(If you feel like it, definitely check out his essays on boundaries. I think you'll love them, especially the drawings. To me, he's nearly as much of a personal idol on this subject as you are. 
)
Several essays that are probably more apropos to your situation:
You make sense - always!
The basis of his theories. He also puts this as follows: "All people’s behavior arises directly, and logically, from the various active factors within them" and "You may not be aware of some of your own important motives, but they are still there, operating inside of you."
From this spring his two concepts of PreValidation and Validation.
PreValidation: The mindset that the person you're talking to makes sense all the time, and conveying that mindset through words and actions. This doesn't mean that you have to agree with the other person, but it does mean that you respect the fact that the person's entire life history leads up to the way they act right now, and that they are internally consistent with themselves - no 'illogical' or 'wrong' or 'needs fixing.'
Validation: The act of making someone feel understood. And this act is not over until the other actually feels understood, so no 'but I'm validating you right now, so it's wrong for you to still feel unvalidated!' - If the person you're validating doesn't feel validated, you're going about it the wrong way, but there's no shame in that.
Validation as a skill involves a lot of things, such as 'pulling,' 'mirroring' and so on, but they're all there if you're interested.
(MasterTalk might be another essay that's useful to you. I can't guess. Not for you, personally, I think, but maybe for your H. Anyway, it's short. MasterTalk is the (prevalent but mistaken) idea that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' way of looking at things, and that there is only one 'right' way. While this seems to be an advert for cultural relativism (it's cool to eat children, you can't say something is 'wrong') what he basically means is that people experience the world through their senses, and that the input to the 'thinking' part of a brain is heavily filtered. (Have you ever looked for something in vain because you didn't know what to look for? I have that all the time - I was looking for something at work the other day and couldn't find it. I searched all over the place. Then someone told me it was inside those square orange boxes. 'What square orange boxes?' 'Ehm, you know, the ones inside the drawer where you were just looking?' 'I didn't see any orange boxes.' Of course, upon looking, I found literally 7 orange boxes I honestly didn't SEE before.) When you realize that the brain is such a wonderfully complicated tool that when you see a coloured moving object, that your brain processes the colour, the motion and the shape in three different neural pathways, it becomes more and more clear that it borders on the ridiculous to say that someone 'didn't see it right.' No-one sees the complete picture.)
The great part of these skills is that they can be learned - you don't have to be born with great perception of feelings, the skills are very structured and simple and only require the wish to learn, which your H has demonstrated amply.
I'm very much a thinker myself (although a strange one - I'm an off-the-chart feeler when you measure only feeling aptitude, but the MBTI puts me square into the INTJ category, so thinker tops that. Or something like that. Anyway, if something isn't underpinned with arguments, I tend to mistrust it) and the essays on this site very much appeal to my logical side.
I hope you find something of use in them.
