It's human nature to want to be right. To believe we have this control over our lives and are living it "correctly." Every time we are proven to be right, we breathe a sigh of relief. But on the occasion that our beliefs are challenged, we second guess ourselves -- even just for an instant. Then vehemently attempt to validate our case. It seems as though we are trying to prove our opponents wrong but it may actually be that we're trying to prove ourselves right. Because each time our beliefs are found to be mistaken, a little bit of, not just our ego, but our confidence in ourselves as well, shrinks.
In the case of subjective arguments -- such as those most couples experience -- the situation isn't as easily rectified. It's not a simple black-and-white case of "who was the 13th president?" or "weren't we supposed to make a right instead of a left?" It's usually centered around one party's seeming transgression that the other party identifies, then either chooses to react to or forget.
The range of such transgressions are so wide and ever-changing that it would be impossible to even compile a list. They are subjective and circumstantial which also makes them infinitely flexible. Forgetting to make a phone call one random day wouldn't bear nearly the same weight as forgetting that phone call on someone's birthday. But because they are so subjective, it's possible and quite probable, that one party might not even agree to define an act as condemnable as the other party would.
When I am upset about an action for some reason, I react how one would normally act if one were upset. I have to let the other person know why I feel this way and what spurred it. But upon reflection not too long afterward, I second guess myself. I wonder if my reaction was even justified in the first place or maybe exaggerated. I enter a mode of self-debate. Fabricating reasons as to why I shouldn't have responded that way. Then countering those reasons with vindicating arguments for my feelings and actions. I become so absorbed in the "correctness" of my conduct, that the actual act in question loses its value.
The focus is then shifted to all the other actions that have sparked my attention. I begin deliberating about prior incidents and my responses to them -- attempting to average out the actions and the reactions and weighing their justifications against each other. And although I've spent a little too much time to openly admit dwelling on this internal conflict, I've finally realized that the conclusion I've been trying to find is actually a trivial one. One that can't actually be found.
But all this ruminating hasn't entirely been in vain. The more significant realization is that the person I'm usually accusing of being in the wrong, doesn't have to argue about whether he thinks he is or isn't. He acknowledges the way I feel instead, and tries to rectify the situation as best and as quick as he can. And that is what truly makes him great. Not the fact that he never makes mistakes, but the fact that he can set aside that relentless compulsion to be right all the time and see the situation from my perspective as well.