Why do we keep having the same fight over and over?

What if the fight isn't the problem? What if it's the only reliable way the two of you still reach each other? This episode looks at the loop you already know by heart: same trigger, same words, same ending. It's not a communication breakdown. It's a pattern holding the relationship together in the only way it knows how. The question isn't how to win the fight. It's what the two of you are trying to say through it.

Where We Are is a podcast about where you are, not what's wrong with you.

Hosted by Dr. Alon Aviram, psychotherapist. The show is built on the framework he uses in his practice: a way of finding where you're standing across the different parts of a life — the body, the self, relationships, groups, and meaning — and finding your way back to movement.

If something in this episode landed, you can go deeper at dralonaviram.com, where a free tool helps you find where you actually stand. The newsletter, The Shift, lives on Substack. And you can follow along on Instagram.

New episodes every week.

Drop the label.

Transcript

Copy

SPEAKER_00 0:00

It starts the same way every time one of them says something, not something terrible, sometimes barely anything, a tone, a pause, a word chosen slightly wrong. And the other person feels it, that familiar tightening, and something in them goes. Here we go, and it goes. The same escalation, the same positions, the same words arriving in roughly the same order. By the end they both know where it will land before it lands there. Afterward there's the same exhausted quiet, the same repair that feels incomplete, the same unspoken agreement, not to name the fact that this has happened before, many times before, and at some point one of them, usually alone in the dark, thinks, if we keep ending up here, does that mean this is just who we are? That thought, quiet and frightening, is worth slowing down for. Because it is almost always wrong. But it is pointing at something real. And that something is what we're looking at today. My name is Dr. Alon Aviram. I'm a psychotherapist, a couple therapist, and the founder of humans. This is where we are, a podcast about what's actually happening between you. Couples therapists have a saying. If you've heard a couple's recurring fight once, you've heard it completely. Because recurring conflicts don't evolve, they loop. I want to tell you about a couple I'll call Alex and Sam. They came to see me after seven years together, presenting what they described as a communication problem. By the second session, it was clear that what they had wasn't a communication problem. They communicated constantly and fluently. Their problem was that every conversation about something that mattered eventually arrived at the same destination. A particular fight about whether Sam was checked out and whether Alex was too intense. And it arrived there with such reliability that both of them could almost script it from memory. Alex brought more heat into their conflicts. When something felt wrong, Alex pushed. More words, more urgency, more insistence on resolution before the evening ended. Not because Alex was unreasonable, because from Alex's position the urgency was necessary. If you don't push hard enough, the conversation dies without landing. If the conversation dies, nothing changes. If nothing changes, the distance keeps growing. Sam did the opposite. When things escalated, Sam went quiet. Fewer words, shorter answers, a kind of stillness that Alex read as indifference, and Sam experienced as the only available form of containment. Saying less felt safer than saying the wrong thing. Going still felt like the responsible choice when everything was already overheated. From the outside, this looks like a mismatch of styles. And it is. But that's not what was keeping them stuck. What was keeping them stuck was something I saw in the third session when I asked them both a simple question What would it feel like if the fight just stopped? If one day it never happened again? Both of them paused. Then Alex said carefully, I think I'd wonder if Sam still cared. And Sam said almost simultaneously, I think I'd be worried we'd run out of things to say. The fight wasn't just a problem, it was also the most reliable form of contact. The moment when both people were fully present, fully feeling, fully engaged with the reality of the other person. Painful, yes, but real. And the realness had become necessary. The turning point was naming that. Not as a criticism of either of them, but as a description of the position they were both in, using the only tool they still trusted to do something. The tool was never designed for. There are legitimate, unresolved disagreements that cycle because neither person has actually shifted. But often, and this is the thing I want you to hear carefully, the recurring fight is not about the thing the fight is about. The recurring fight is a contact ritual. It is the moment when two people who have slowly drifted apart or who never found another way to close the distance reach each other through the only channel that still reliably works. Conflict, by its nature, requires full presence. You cannot half attend to a fight the way you can half attend to dinner. The other person is suddenly completely there. And that presence, however painful the form it takes, is what both people are actually reaching for. This is the paradox. The thing that hurts the most is also the thing that keeps them connected, which is why the fight keeps happening, even when both people genuinely don't want it to. Now let me describe both people in this, without placing blame on either. The person who escalates is not dramatic or destructive. They are doing something specific. They are trying to close the gap by creating enough intensity that the other person cannot stay absent. More heat, more urgency, more pressure. The underlying logic is if I push hard enough, you will finally be here with me. The escalation is a reach. It has simply become the only reach that feels like it has any chance of working. The person who deflects is not cold or indifferent. They are doing something specific too. They are trying to keep the rupture from becoming a break. Less heat, fewer words, more stillness. The underlying logic is if I can just reduce the temperature, we can get through this without real damage. The deflection is also a reach. It has simply become the only move that feels responsible when everything is already in motion. Both people are trying to stop the gap from growing. The escalator is trying to close it by forcing contact. The deflector is trying to close it by preventing collapse. Both are right about what they want, both are wrong about the method. And because neither method works, the fight has to happen again. The goal isn't to remove the conflict. The goal is to create room for something other than the loop, to find other channels, for the presence both people are actually reaching for. The intensity is information. It is telling you how much you want to reach them. That wanting is not a flaw. Maybe you're the one who deflects, who goes quiet when things heat up. Not because you don't care, but because going still is the only thing that feels like control when everything else is moving too fast. If that's you, the quiet is not the problem either. It is also information. It is telling you how much you want to keep the relationship intact. That instinct is not a flaw. The fight that keeps happening is not evidence that you're incompatible. It is evidence that you've run out of new moves. That the tools you're using were built for something else and have been drafted into service because no other tools were available. So the question isn't why does this keep happening? The question is what are we actually reaching for when it starts? Here is something to try, and I want you to try it before the fight starts, not during it. There's usually a moment you can feel it coming. The topic is about to come up, or the tone has already shifted, or you recognize the conditions that always precede the same destination. In that moment, before you say the first word that kicks it off, pause and ask yourself a private question. What do I actually need from them right now? Not what I want to say. What do I need to receive? And be honest with that question, because if the honest answer is something like, I need to feel like they're actually here with me. I need to know that I matter to them. I need to feel that we're still us. That is a different conversation from the one that is about to happen. Name that need instead of the grievance. Even once. Not as a replacement for the whole conversation, but just as the first sentence. I've been feeling far from you lately. And I think that's what this is about. That sentence is not a surrender, it is a completely different door into the same room. It won't always work. Sometimes the fight happens anyway. But when it does work, both people suddenly find themselves in a conversation rather than a loop. And that is worth the attempt. The fight starts the same way every time. But tonight, one of them pauses just for a moment, just long enough to ask, what is it I actually need right now? And the answer is not the argument. The answer is something older and simpler than any argument they've ever had. They're reaching for each other. They've been reaching for each other this whole time. The fight was never the problem. It was the only bridge they had. Now they're building a different one. See you next week.