Recently, I had the pleasure of listening to Martin Seligman, perhaps America’s most well-regarded psychologist of the moment, discuss the sources of happiness, and he referenced the work of his colleague Shelly Gable on “capitalizing”:

[Gable] asks how do you respond when your mate tells you that she’s just been promoted, or your teenager tells you that the most beautiful girl in his class just accepted a date with him, or when your father tells you that he just made a hole-in-one, or when your best friend tells you that she just had an article accepted by the Psychological Review? Shelly divides the possible responses into the following four categories:
Do you “react enthusiastically” (active-constructive)? “That’s the best news I’ve heard this week, and I’ll bet its just the first of many big raises you’ll get.”
Do you “point out the potential problems or down sides of the good event” (active-destructive)? “Are you sure you can handle the added responsibility?”
Do you “say little, but convey that you are happy to hear the news” (passive-constructive)? “That’s very nice, my dear.”
Do you “seem uninterested” (passive-destructive)? “Isn’t all this rain something?”
She calls the first category “Capitalizing,” amplifying the pleasure of the good situation and contributing to an upward spiral of positive emotion. Capitalizing turns out to be the key to strong relationships. …
The consequences of being “active/constructive” as opposed to any of the others are robust and important. Couples who report an active/constructive mate are more in love, more committed, and have more marital satisfaction, both at the time of the measures, and later on.

This idea occurred to me in the context of our ongoing national political conversation. If we on the right understand ourselves as being “married” to our social democratic counterparts, well, our prospects for happiness are grim. Naturally, I attribute this to the fact that our spouse believes us to be incorrigible racists hellbent on the destruction of the middle class, the further immiseration of the poor, etc., which makes it hard to have a civil conversation. But I’m sure the feeling is mutual.

Incidentally, something like Gable’s framework is why I try to stay on good terms with people with whom I disagree, e.g., by trying to see the world through their lens, or trying to make constructive suggestions as to how they might realize their goals as they understand them through a different set of policy instruments or approaches. That said, I don’t think that this is the right strategy for everyone. We need a diverse intellectual ecology in which different actors play different roles, including more combative roles.