Mark: Most of us think the goal in a relationship is to avoid fights. We walk on eggshells, we bite our tongues, we try to keep the peace. Michelle: Oh, absolutely. The silent treatment, the strategic retreat to the other room… I think we’ve all been there. It feels like success is measured by how long you can go without a major argument. Mark: Exactly. But what if that’s completely backward? What if the secret to a rock-solid, deeply connected relationship is actually getting better at fighting? Not louder, but smarter. We’re told to pick our battles, but maybe we should be picking our tools instead. Michelle: Okay, that’s a fascinating flip. So you’re not talking about winning the fight, but changing how the fight itself works? I’m listening. Mark: That’s the entire premise behind the book we’re diving into today: Getting to Zero by Jayson Gaddis. And Gaddis isn't just a writer; he's a relationship expert and therapist who founded The Relationship School. He brings nearly two decades of clinical experience to this, which is why the book feels so grounded and practical. It’s been widely acclaimed for a reason. Michelle: A therapist's guide to fighting. I'm intrigued. With something as messy and emotional as a real conflict, where does he even start? It feels like trying to diagram a hurricane.

Mark: Well, he starts before the hurricane even forms. He argues that to understand our fights, we first have to understand our own internal wiring. He calls it our 'relational blueprint.' It's the set of unconscious rules and expectations about relationships that we learned in childhood. Michelle: So this is that idea that our family dynamics from when we were kids are still running the show when we're adults? Like an old operating system we never updated? Mark: Precisely. Gaddis shares his own story of growing up in a home where conflict was either avoided or explosive. So his blueprint was: conflict is dangerous, shut down, retreat. For someone else, it might be: fight to be heard, get loud, never back down. We all have one, and it runs on autopilot during a disagreement. Michelle: That makes a lot of sense. But what about that moment when a simple disagreement suddenly turns… ugly? When you go from talking about whose turn it is to take out the trash to questioning your entire future together. What’s happening there? Mark: That’s the second piece of the puzzle. Gaddis calls it the 'scared animal.' It’s his term for the reactive, fear-driven part of our brain—the amygdala and the limbic system—that takes over when we feel threatened. Michelle: Hold on, the 'scared animal'? It sounds a bit dramatic. Are we talking about the basic fight-or-flight response here? Mark: We are, but he frames it in a really useful way. Think of it like a smoke detector. Its only job is to sense danger, real or perceived, and pull the alarm. It can't tell the difference between a tiger in the jungle and your partner using a certain tone of voice. When it goes off, it floods your system with stress hormones and effectively shuts down your rational brain—the prefrontal cortex. Michelle: So that feeling when an argument suddenly gets heated and you can't think straight, you can't find the right words, and you just want to either lash out or run away… that's the 'scared animal' taking over the controls? Mark: That’s exactly it. You're no longer a 40-year-old adult having a discussion. You're a cornered animal operating on pure instinct. And in that state, Gaddis says we often fall into what he calls the 'victim triangle.' We see ourselves as the victim, the other person as the persecutor, and we desperately hope for a rescuer to save us. Michelle: Oh, I have definitely built a vacation home in what he calls the 'valley of victimhood.' It’s that place where you feel so wronged, so misunderstood, and it feels impossible to climb out of it. You just want someone to agree that you’re right and they’re wrong. Mark: And that’s the trap. Because when both people’s ‘scared animals’ are activated and both are stuck in their own victim story, there is zero chance of connection or resolution. You’re just two scared animals growling at each other. The first step in 'Getting to Zero' is recognizing when you, or your partner, have been hijacked by this primal part of the brain. Michelle: Okay, so the foundation is: know your childhood programming and recognize when your inner raccoon is cornered and about to bite. That alone feels like a huge step. But what do you do once the alarm is already blaring?

Mark: Exactly. And once you know your 'scared animal' is activated, Gaddis gives you a toolkit to calm it down—both in yourself and the other person. This is where we get into the 'how-to' of an active conflict. He provides a lot of tools, but two of the most powerful are a pair of acronyms for listening and speaking. Michelle: Acronyms? Oh boy. That sounds like something I would immediately forget in the heat of the moment. It feels like trying to assemble IKEA furniture during an earthquake. Mark: (laughs) I hear you, but they’re simpler than they sound. The first is for listening: LUFU. It stands for Listen Until Feeling Understood. Michelle: LUFU. Okay. Can you give me the one-sentence version of what I'm actually supposed to do? Mark: The simple version is: shut up and listen with the single goal of making the other person feel heard. You’re not listening to respond, not to defend yourself, not to find flaws in their logic. You are just a mirror, reflecting back what you hear them saying and feeling until they say, "Yes, that's it. You get it." Michelle: Wow. That is… profoundly difficult. My brain is always five steps ahead, preparing my rebuttal. The idea of just listening without an agenda is almost a meditative practice. Mark: It is. And it’s the fastest way to de-escalate a conflict. When someone’s ‘scared animal’ feels seen and understood, it starts to calm down. There’s a great story in the book that illustrates this. It’s about two project teams at a tech company, Alpha and Beta, who were at war. Michelle: A workplace example, I like it. Less emotional baggage than a marriage, but the stakes can be just as high. What happened? Mark: Team Alpha was all about speed and innovation. Team Beta was about stability and reliability. Alpha started pushing code changes without telling Beta, which caused bugs and chaos. Beta felt disrespected; Alpha felt Beta was a slow, bureaucratic roadblock. Communication completely broke down. They were sending passive-aggressive emails, the leaders were arguing in meetings. The project was about to fail. Michelle: I can picture this perfectly. I think every office has an Alpha and a Beta team in some form. So how did they fix it? Mark: A neutral manager, Emily, was brought in to mediate. And the first thing she did was pure LUFU. She got them in a room and just let each team air their grievances without interruption. She had them listen to each other’s frustrations, fears, and priorities until Team Alpha could genuinely say, "Okay, I understand why you feel like we’re cowboys who are breaking your system," and Team Beta could say, "I get that you feel we’re holding you back from hitting your targets." Michelle: So just the act of feeling heard took the temperature down from boiling to simmering. They didn't even have a solution yet. Mark: Not yet. That’s where the second tool comes in. It’s for speaking: SHORE. Speak Honestly with Ownership to Repair Empathetically. Michelle: SHORE. Okay, another one. Break it down for me. Mark: It’s a formula for how to state your piece after you’ve listened. You speak your truth honestly, you take ownership for your part in the mess, and your goal is to repair the connection, not to win the point. It’s about using "I" statements and focusing on your feelings and needs. Michelle: So in the tech company story, what did that look like? Mark: Instead of blaming, the team leads started using SHORE principles. The Alpha lead might say, "I own that we moved too fast and didn't respect your process. I was feeling immense pressure to deliver, and I need to find a way to innovate without causing chaos for your team." And the Beta lead could respond, "I hear that. And I own that we were resistant to change. I was feeling protective of the product's stability, and I need to be more open to new approaches." Michelle: Ah, I see. So LUFU creates the safety, and SHORE builds the bridge. When the mediator had them share their concerns, that was LUFU. And when they started taking responsibility and co-creating a new process for code changes, that was them using SHORE to find a solution. I get it now. It’s a one-two punch. Mark: Exactly. And it worked. The project was saved, and more importantly, the teams learned how to actually collaborate. It’s a powerful demonstration that these tools aren't just for romantic partners; they work in any high-stakes relationship.

Michelle: Okay, so you've used the tools, you've listened with LUFU, you've spoken with SHORE, and you've resolved the fight. You got to zero. But the real challenge is staying there, right? How do you stop the next fight from spiraling in the exact same way a week later? Mark: You’re right, the book isn't just about getting to zero, but staying there. This is Part 3, which is all about relational maintenance. Gaddis lays out a series of simple but powerful "Do's and Don'ts" for everyday communication that prevent resentment from building up. Michelle: Like relationship hygiene. Brushing your teeth every day so you don't need a root canal later. Mark: That’s a perfect analogy. And the most important piece of hygiene he recommends is this: Focus on behavior and events, not on personality or character. Michelle: What’s the distinction there? It sounds subtle. Mark: It’s everything. Let’s use another story from the book to make it clear. It's about two roommates, Alex and Ben. Alex is neat, Ben is… not. The sink is always full of Ben’s dishes, and Alex is getting more and more frustrated. Michelle: A tale as old as time. I feel for Alex. Mark: The character-based attack, the wrong way, would be for Alex to say, "Ben, you are so lazy and inconsiderate! You never clean up after yourself." Michelle: Oof. Yeah, that’s a personality attack. Ben’s ‘scared animal’ is going to go into full defensive mode immediately. He'll either attack back or shut down completely. Nothing gets solved. Mark: Nothing. Now, here’s the behavior-focused approach, the right way. Alex says, "Hey Ben, when I see the dishes piled up in the sink, I feel really overwhelmed and stressed because it feels like I have to do all the cleaning. Would you be willing to create a schedule with me so we can keep the kitchen clean together?" Michelle: Wow. That is such a small change in wording, but it’s a universe of difference in impact. One is an accusation, the other is an invitation. Mark: Precisely. The first one makes them adversaries. The second one makes them teammates trying to solve a shared problem. It describes an observable behavior—dishes in the sink. It expresses a personal feeling—"I feel overwhelmed." And it makes a clear, collaborative request—"Can we make a schedule?" Michelle: There’s no blame. It’s almost impossible for Ben to get defensive about that. He’s not being called a bad person; he’s being told that a specific action has a specific effect on his friend. It completely changes the dynamic. Mark: It’s the core principle for staying at zero. Focus on what a person did, not who you think they are. It applies to everything. Instead of "You're so controlling," try "When you make plans for us without asking me, I feel like my opinion doesn't matter." Instead of "You're so distant," try "I feel lonely when we don't talk much during the day." Michelle: It’s about taking ownership of your own feelings and observations instead of making judgments about the other person. It’s so simple, but it requires a lot of mindfulness to actually do it in the moment. It’s a skill you have to practice.

Mark: It is. And when you put all three pieces together, you get a really clear roadmap. It’s a three-step dance: first, understand your own programming and your 'scared animal.' Second, use the right tools like LUFU and SHORE in the heat of the moment. And third, practice good relational hygiene, like focusing on behavior, to maintain the peace. Michelle: It really reframes the whole idea of conflict. It’s not a sign that your relationship is failing. In a way, it’s a sign that the relationship is alive and that there are things that matter enough to both of you to fight over. The goal isn't to eliminate it, but to handle it in a way that actually brings you closer. Mark: That’s the core message. Gaddis is clear that a good relationship isn't one without conflict; it's one that's good at repair. The rupture is inevitable. The skill is in the return. He has this powerful quote that really stuck with me. Michelle: What is it? Mark: He says, "CONFLICT ISN’T THE PROBLEM. You now know that you must return and reconnect, over and over, as if your well-being depended on it because, well, it does." Michelle: Wow. That lands hard. It makes the stakes feel incredibly high, but also makes the path forward feel hopeful and achievable. It makes you think... what's one small conflict you've been avoiding that you could approach differently this week, using just one of these ideas? Mark: That's the perfect question to leave our listeners with. It’s not about becoming a perfect communicator overnight. It’s about taking one small step toward getting to zero. Michelle: A powerful and practical guide. I can see why it’s so highly regarded. Mark: This is Aibrary, signing off.