Some people struggle with a compulsive need to save money. Even when their income is more than adequate, they feel as if any expense on present desires would be reckless. They see their peers fail to save for the future, and it redoubles their resolve. Some of them aspire to an early retirement, socking away their earnings in pursuit of a specific number that means “safety,” or “success,” or “freedom”—forgetting that retirement (especially an early one) tends to cause a crisis of meaning, when the intrinsic rewards of working are suddenly subtracted from life.

Of course, there’s much to be said for financial prudence, but what I’m talking about is the extreme version, where the saver begins to suffer from money anxiety, far beyond what the real circumstances impose. This can take the form of missing out on too many things, but it can also involve a partner’s distress—not just because the person won’t buy gifts or take vacations, but because they inflict too much criticism about the other person’s spending habits. In a relationship, constant penny-pinching can build resentment. And if one partner always takes the role of money saver, the other will have a hard time avoiding being cast in the role of money spender. When the saver talks as if spending and wasting were the same thing, the spender will be at risk for shame and guilt. Those are bad for the relationship.

The proverbial phrase “penny-wise and pound-foolish” is useful here (a Britishism, where a pound is worth a hundred pennies). But suppose the miser is prudent on both levels, saving money in matters both large and small. There is still a sense in which the phrase applies, because most expenses are less important than the emotional well-being of yourself and those closest to you—especially if you have a partner, and even more so if you have children. If you’re managing money well enough that your income covers your expenses and permits you to save or invest some of each paycheck, it might be penny-wise, but pound-foolish, to refuse to take your partner out on a date. That’s because the relationship is worth pounds, not mere pennies, and paying for shared pleasant experiences in the present is a form of investment in the relationship’s future.

Not only that, but the present is, strictly speaking, all we have. Aside from the fact that we might somehow die tomorrow, the present is the living flame of experience, where we are, and its claim on our resources inheres in the truism that this, too—not just the future we’re so worried about—is life itself.

Suppose you are struggling with excessive frugality, to the point where your partner feels nagged and demeaned by your bids for total financial control. You find yourself commenting on their every purchase, even though you realize the pain and anger this tends to cause. How can you stop yourself from saying this kind of stuff?

Well, here’s an exercise that may help. Imagine yourself one year in the future. You’ve now made about a hundred more remarks concerning your partner’s spending habits, their specific purchases, and their ideas about money, remarks that sprang from your anxiety and impulsivity. You rationalized your behavior by focusing exclusively on the fact that the money you were trying to save is, ultimately, for the both of you (for your family, whether it’s just the couple, or more). But now, one year on, you can plainly see how much accumulated suffering this has caused, how much distance it has put between you and the other(s) whom you love. You wish you had a time machine—you see where I’m going with this—to undo the piteous waste of closeness and harmony that you squandered in all that worrying. Well, here you are, back in the present, with those twelve months still stretching out ahead, unspoiled by any thoughtless utterance or grim withholding. How will you use this second chance?

Of course major purchases and big-ticket decisions will still require some discussion, some ambivalence, and some math. But in the small matters that crop up so frequently—stuff that costs less than 1 or 2 percent of a paycheck—you have a richesse of opportunities to let go, stay quiet, and smile on the process. For example, suppose your partner has just a brief moment free (between work and school, or childcare and eldercare, or housework and rehearsal, etc.) to grab a few necessities, and buys them at a big box store, instead of the 99 cent shop you’re sure is much cheaper. They could have spent $7 less and gotten the same stuff. Well, that $7 is not going “out the window.” It’s being invested in the relationship. You make the investment by giving up this one little nugget of control, and prizing the other person’s effort over your own vision of perfect prudence. As you watch yourself respond (rather than react), choose gratitude for the labor they did running errands, not anxiety about the price tag. Getting the job done should count for more than doing it perfectly.

When was the last time you took your beloved out to dinner? Can you afford to? If so, remember that this moment, too, is life. The present counts at least as much as the future will. And though you must save some for tomorrow, you should also spend some for today, lest it be remembered as a time of anxious austerity that could have been better, but wasn’t. Live your life, not your fears.

If this post resonates with you, consider booking an appointment with me at 917-873-0292, or email Jamey@drjameyhecht.com. Sessions are available in-office in Park Slope, Brooklyn, and remotely in NY, NJ, TX, and CA.

What do couples fight about? Well, in the great dialogue called the Euthyphro, Plato says “people disagree about the just and the unjust,” since if they merely disagreed about, say, the size of a stone, “they would simply resort to measuring.”

When couples argue, it’s usually about one person’s perception of unfair treatment from the other person. Someone feels some kind of injustice, and then takes a chance on bringing it up, hoping for a resolution of some kind (e.g., an apology). But when an argument becomes a fight – when it really goes off the rails, so that both people get caught up in rage –  it’s usually because someone felt as if their personal value as a human being has come under threat. Depending on that person’s life history, they may be more susceptible to feeling that way, even when it’s triggered by something pretty trivial.

Let’s use some inclusive, genderless names to paint an example of this. Call one partner Gamma, and the other, Theta. The conversation begins as a relatively cool-headed chat about some recent bit of behavior (say, Theta left dishes in the sink again) that doesn’t sit right with Gamma. So Gamma talks about it, and Theta acknowledges the reasoning, but feels judged and micromanaged. Theta doesn’t get upset, but doesn’t apologize either. Theta might even make the mistake of calling Gamma “too sensitive.” One way or another, Gamma gets the message that Theta won’t take the complaint seriously. This is because Theta experiences Gamma’s complaint as a bid for power and control, whereas Gamma experiences Theta’s dirty dishes as a direct insult.

At this point, things are deteriorating. What triggers the sharp decline in the quality of the conversation is this: Gamma feels undervalued as a person. It goes like this: “If my hurt feelings aren’t worth any serious attention, then I don’t matter; I’m not seen as a fully human somebody; I have no rights; we are not peers; I’m being taken for granted. If Theta can get away with slighting me this way, I am being erased from the universe. I just don’t count. And if I don’t put a stop to it right now, who knows where it will end?”

A few dishes in the sink. A loose cap from a toothpaste tube. A few minutes of lateness for a date night out. Why do these small disappointments sometimes kindle bonfires of anger and indignation? Such slights, real or perceived, can feel like a matter of life and death because for every one of us, feelings really were a matter of life and death in the beginning, when we were infants. The baby loves the mother (or primary caretaker), and if the mother doesn’t love her baby in return, the baby can actually die. Even with plenty of food and clean clothing, a baby can die of emotional starvation (“marasmus,” or “failure to thrive”).

Next, the person who feels undervalued may escalate the fight even higher by thinking, “Since my very worth as a human being is under attack, and everything is now at stake, it’s appropriate (even necessary) for me to blast my partner to smithereens, without restraint. If I don’t explode in protest, my not-exploding will mean I agree with my partner that I am indeed worth nothing. So my self-respect would be gone, too, and I’d become nothing.” That’s when the fight escalates still further, because Gamma’s emotional threat detection system is on red alert, calling all hands to battle-stations. What started out as a few dirty dishes – perhaps an act of passive-aggressive immaturity, perhaps just a thoughtless oversight – is now a mutual emotional hurricane.

How does couple’s therapy help here? It helps by coaching both members of the couple to reframe experiences of disagreement so that they do not trigger a state of emotional emergency based on perceived threat to personal value. Exploring the individual life histories of each partner may illuminate just why it is that their threat-detection systems are triggered by some things and not others.

In other words, the therapy opens up a gap between the objective issue at hand – what the fight seems to be about – and the emotional interpretation it produces in the person who feels insulted by it.

That gap is a breathing space, a pause, where the angry person has a chance to slip out of the rage and instead remain focused on the relational issue at hand. It’s a chance to respond, instead of reacting.

In terms of the brain, it’s an opportunity to keep one’s mind in the human prefrontal cortex (where we can think clearly, and even speak clearly), instead of dropping into the amygdala, an ancient reptile part of the brain that is only capable of fight-or-flight reactions to perceived threats.

In terms of personality, it’s a chance to solve the problem using your most adult self, who is experienced, well-informed, and ethically ambitious, rather than a more primitive part of self, such as an inner toddler or inner teenager who is full of gigantic, overwhelming, intensely unpleasant feelings like wrath, yearning, fear, and emotional pain.

Once a couple has learned to keep their ordinary conflicts from escalating, they are then free to collaborate in making informed choices about how to improve the relationship, or whether to end it. Whatever they choose, it will be a free choice of responses to what has happened within and between the two people. At that point, couple’s therapy moves beyond the emphasis on improving communication, and into an exploratory process of decision-making about where the two people want the relationship to go.

We think of motivation as something driven by discipline. Often it is just that, a pressurized pushing and shoving from behind, away from the possible bad consequences of our inaction. As someone like Jordan Peterson is happy to remind us, discipline guards against the perils of what some people call laziness. But discipline is not the only form of motivation.

Rather than being pushed from behind, away from the failure we dread, we can be drawn forward from in front, led onward by curiosity, fascination, and a desire to explore the world. I do not believe in laziness. I think what we call laziness is actually internal conflict, a pattern in someone’s functioning, not a trait of his or her nature. If together we can bring the conflict into focus, you can position yourself to make more free, informed choices about what it is you actually want to do with your opportunities. “All you have to do,” as Gandalf said to Bilbo Baggins in Tolkien’s The Hobbit, “is decide what to do with the time that is given to you.”

I had a teacher years ago—a brilliant, soulful teacher of Ancient Greek, the late Jack Collins—whose maxim was “To row is human; to sail, divine.” Of course it was a play on the old proverb “To err is human; to forgive, divine.” What he meant was that there’s a place for discipline, and it’s often necessary, especially near the beginning of a project. But after discipline has done its work, after it’s gotten us launched, rowing our boat away from land, pushing on the oars, there comes a time when discipline is no longer needed, and the serious joy of the work takes its place. When you row a boat, there’s a 1:1 correspondence between the effort you invest, and the result you get. Shove on the oars this much, and the boat lurches forward so much as a result. But when we sail, we hoist the canvass, and thereafter the job is just to maintain the right relationship to the wind—a mighty force, for whose creative power we are not responsible. The wind is a free-flowing, abundant aspect of the environment, and the sailor(s) work is to keep the sail so oriented that the ship can move in the desired direction under the wind’s wild, natural power. Rowing is no longer necessary. One unit of effort can now yield much more than one unit of progress.

Reading books, or writing them, works the same way. At first, you’re counting how many pages you’ve read since you sat down; how many minutes you’ve been reading; what chapter you’re up to; and so on. But then you get successfully caught by the unfolding story, and you forget about all that counting and measuring. You read on because you want to know what happens next; because you care about the main character; because the story is carrying you along. Of course it isn’t only our intellectual tasks that work this way. So do a great many more of our human endeavors…

Therapy is sometimes a form of rowing out, away from the familiar shores of our trouble, and toward the open world, where there are currents and breezes that we can harness for our purposes if we can find the right balance of humility, self-knowledge, and ambition. To row is human; to sail, divine.

If this post resonates with you, consider booking an appointment with me at 917-873-0292, or email Jamey@drjameyhecht.com. Sessions are available in-office in Park Slope, Brooklyn, and remotely in NY, NJ, TX, and CA.

I recently read a strange book by the British writer Peter Fenwick called The Art of Dying. It’s a collection of anecdotal evidence about people having deathbed visionary experiences in which their dead relatives come to collect them. It also describes incidents in which caregivers or family members see odd phenomena at the time of death, including strange behavior in animals. I found the book both fascinating and comforting. It suggested that the mind is not limited to the brain, and may survive its bodily death. The evidence for this is anecdotal, but a look at the 19th Century’s Society for Psychical Research shows that it’s also quite abundant, even vast. Interested readers (including those experiencing grief and bereavement) can consult the superb Irreducible Mind, an 800-page behemoth from 2007 edited by Edward Kelly of the University of Virginia. For a briefer and more approachable reading experience, consider After by Bruce Greyson.