Being Right Is Overrated: What Ogden Nash Knew About Marriage

Ogden Nash wrote a four-line poem for husbands that fits on a napkin and holds up remarkably well. His recipe for a happy marriage: admit it when you’re wrong, and keep quiet when you’re right.

It reads like a joke. Decades of research by psychologist John Gottman and his colleagues suggest it’s also good advice, with one important caveat.

“Admit it”: the antidote to defensiveness

Gottman studied thousands of couples and identified four behaviors that predict divorce with striking accuracy. He calls them the Four Horsemen: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.

Defensiveness is the reflex to protect yourself when your partner raises a complaint: “That’s not my fault,” or “Well, you did it too.” It feels like self-defense, but your partner hears, “Your concern doesn’t matter.”

Gottman’s antidote is simple: take responsibility, even for part of the problem. “You’re right, I forgot to call. I’m sorry.” That one sentence lowers the temperature of the whole conversation. Nash’s first instruction is exactly that.

“Keep quiet”: the danger of contempt

The second half is subtler. Why stay quiet when you’re right?

Because winning the point is often where the damage happens. The eye-roll, the “I told you so,” the told-you-so tone in “Remember when I said…” all edge toward contempt, which Gottman found to be the single strongest predictor of divorce. Contempt says, “I’m above you.” No fact you’re right about is worth sending that message.

Gottman’s research also found that about two-thirds of couples’ conflicts are perpetual. They’re rooted in lasting differences in personality or values, and they never get fully solved. In those arguments, “being right” is often beside the point. The couples who thrive, the ones Gottman calls the “masters,” learn to talk about those differences with humor and affection instead of trying to win.

The caveat: silence isn’t stonewalling

Here’s where Nash needs a footnote. “Shut up” can’t mean shutting down. Stonewalling (going silent, turning away, refusing to engage) is the fourth Horseman, and it’s corrosive in its own way.

The research-backed version of Nash’s advice is this: when you’re right, stay present but let it go. Keep listening. Stay warm. Just don’t collect the trophy. If you’re flooded and need a break, say so and agree to come back to it, which is very different from going cold.

Fill the cup

Nash’s image of keeping the “loving cup” full lines up with another Gottman finding: stable couples keep about five positive interactions for every negative one during conflict. Every admission, every graceful silence, every bit of kindness when you could have scored a point, adds to that cup.

So the next time you’re sure you’re right, ask yourself a question that’s as old as marriage: Would I rather be right, or close?

Foreign Language Anxiety

Foreign language anxiety (FLA) affects approximately 52–85% of adult second-language (L2) learners and is associated with fear of negative evaluation, reduced self-efficacy, and avoidance of communication (Barber, 2023; Raj & Sekar, 2025; Bielak, 2025).

Polyvagal Theory (PVT) (Porges, 2021, 2022) offers a neurobiological framework for understanding FLA. It proposes that the autonomic nervous system (ANS) operates through a hierarchy of safety-based states. The ventral vagal state supports social engagement, flexible communication, and connection, whereas perceived threat shifts the system into sympathetic activation (fight/flight) or dorsal vagal shutdown (freeze). In these defensive states, verbal expression is inhibited regardless of actual language competence. Although PVT has been widely applied in trauma-informed care (Walker & Flaherty, 2024), somatic therapies (Haeyen, 2024; Faulkner, 2023), and neurodiversity-informed practices (Dwan & Brice, 2025), its application to FLA remains limited. This study addresses that gap by conceptualizing FLA as a neurobiological phenomenon that can be treated through polyvagal-informed, body-based interventions.

The study involved three adult L2 English speakers: a senior manager in his late 30s, a 30-year-old architect who had recently relocated, and a 32-year-old doctoral student. Each presented with clinically significant FLA, including career avoidance, linguistic restriction, and withdrawal from native-speaker environments. Over 8–9 weekly individual therapy sessions, a tailored intervention protocol was implemented. This protocol included polyvagal-informed strategies: psychoeducation using the polyvagal ladder; somatic breathing techniques; humming and rhythmic vocalization; and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) resource installation. Between sessions, clients used Deb Dana’s trigger and glimmer journaling to extend regulation into daily language contexts (Dana, 2018).

All three clients demonstrated meaningful behavioral changes. The senior manager accepted a previously avoided promotion, the architect secured a job at an international firm, and the doctoral student began attending academic events with native speakers. These outcomes were supported by subjective reports of increased readiness and reduced avoidance. Cross-case thematic analysis identified five key themes: (1) safety is a neurobiological prerequisite for L2 fluency; (2) avoidance reflects adaptive ANS responses rather than intentional resistance; (3) somatic readiness precedes conscious behavioral change; (4) journaling expands the window of tolerance; and (5) EMDR resourcing strengthens access to ventral vagal states prior to language exposure.

These findings suggest that FLA cannot be fully addressed through cognitive strategies alone when the nervous system remains in a defensive state. A body-first approach that restores ventral vagal regulation may be more effective in facilitating language production. The integration of EMDR resourcing with glimmer and trigger tracking appears particularly useful in bridging in-session regulation with real-world application (Demir & Hasateş, 2026).

However, the study has limitations, including a small sample size (N=3), the absence of a control group, and reliance on qualitative, self-reported outcomes. Future research should incorporate controlled designs and physiological measures such as heart rate variability or standardized anxiety scales (e.g., FLCAS) (Horwitz et al., 1986). Overall, the findings highlight a key implication: improving language performance may depend less on increased practice and more on restoring a sense of neurobiological safety that enables communication to emerge naturally.

References

Barber, J. D. (2023). The relationship between language mindsets and foreign language anxiety for university second language learners. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES), 5(3), 653–675.

Bielak, J. (2025). To what extent are foreign language anxiety and foreign language enjoyment related to L2 fluency? Language Teaching Research, 29(3), 911–941.

Dana, D. (2018). The Polyvagal Theory in Therapy. W.W. Norton.

Demir, M. U. C., & Hasateş, M. C. (2026). Polyvagal Theory and interoception-based interventions. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 18(1), 207–223.

Dwan, S., & Brice, A. E. (2025). Integrating Polyvagal Theory and the neurodiversity paradigm for inclusive practice. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 10(1).

Faulkner, S. C. (2023). Drumming, rhythm, and regulation through a polyvagal lens. JoCAT, 18(1).

Haeyen, S. (2024). A theoretical exploration of Polyvagal Theory in creative arts and psychomotor therapies. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1382007.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132.

Kuruzović, N., Volarov, M., & Đorić, V. (2025). The impact of contracting on active participation and alleviating foreign language anxiety. Research in Pedagogy, 15(2), 445–456.

Porges, S. W. (2021). Polyvagal Theory: A biobehavioral journey to sociality. Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology, 7, 100069.