Most Arguments Are Noise. The Recurring Structure Underneath Them Is Signal.
By Momar Lissa Ndiaye ("MLN"), Founder & CEO, weyoga Inc.
Any given argument has a lot of noise in it — the specific words chosen in a heated moment, the particular grievance that happened to be top of mind, the tone that escalated things unnecessarily. Couples often spend enormous energy analyzing this noise, replaying exact phrasing, litigating who said what. Almost none of that content is actually informative.
What is informative is the shape the argument keeps taking, across many different topics and many different specific triggers — who withdraws first, how long the repair takes, what tends to escalate versus de-escalate. This structural signal is remarkably stable even when the noisy content varies enormously from argument to argument.
This is why analyzing individual arguments so rarely produces lasting change: it's optimizing the noise. The signal only becomes visible by looking across many arguments simultaneously, at the structure they share rather than the content that differs — a view no one gets by focusing on any single fight, however carefully.
Treating each argument as a fresh, self-contained event, worth its own forensic analysis, misses the pattern that was actually running the whole time. The recurring structure was the message. The argument was just its latest delivery vehicle.
Part of The Recognition Layer →
Momar Lissa Ndiaye ("MLN") is the Founder & CEO of weyoga Inc., a Delaware company. — weyoga.ai · mln@weyoga.ai