It wasn’t until college when I began seriously dating that I made the observation. I started to detect associations between the reasons why couples would get together and why they broke up. I’ve noticed that much of the reasoning tends to be the same, just on different ends of the spectrum.
The way he ‘is social and fun loving’ can easily turn into, ‘he parties too much and doesn’t take his schoolwork seriously.’ Some of these tendencies may be more of a cause-and-effect ordeal, but it’s still an interesting connection.
Or what may seem inviting about a relationship where “He just makes me laugh all the time!” can steadily fade into a relationship where “I just can’t talk to him about anything serious.”
Comments like these are often results of the same characteristics, but are translated in different ways. Or rather, the same traits are there, but when triggered in varying situations, they surface differently.
Personalities are just collections of defining qualities amongst a sea of neutral ones.
When you first become interested in a person romantically, it’s often because of a certain attraction taken in one or more of these features. I mean, it would only make sense that you chose them for a reason that separated them from other potential suiters.
This theory can be applied towards friends, too, but is harder to evaluate because friendships often don’t have a defined ending or ‘break up.’ And you can have more than one friend, so you will just naturally be less selective.
My favorite compliments and harshest critiques often resemble each other- this confirms my most prominent qualities.
“You’re so enthusiastic and passionate!” has also been delivered to me as, “You’re too loud take everything to the extremes.”
“I love how you always look at things from other people’s perspectives,” can resemble, “You’re not confident in your own opinions.” They’re not the same comment. But they likely both stem from my traits that allow me to easily sympathize and compromise.
It’s a make or break situation, it’s two different sides of the same coin. It’s one end of the spectrum vs. the other. But none the less, they’re on the same axis.
I’ve dated someone for their kindness and easygoing personality, but got frustrated when they didn’t offer much input and lacked initiative.
I’ve dated for someone’s genuine love of fun as it helped me escape reality, but felt unsatisfied when I was unable to access much below the surface.
I’ve been with someone whose work ethic was very ambitious and driven, but I can see that it deteriorated our relationship when I began feeling like less than a priority.
It’s these external attributes that surface and represent a person. A flatter personality may offer less resistance, sure, but won’t offer much traction either.
Something else to take notice of is the accumulation of small annoyances, and determining whether or not they can be overlooked. Acting dumb, being clumsy, or teasing may be dismissed as adorable on the first date, but by the time the ninth or tenth rolls around it may start to get a little old. Most of these smaller quirks are relatively harmless, but I mean it when I say that they can snowball.
These theories make a great case as to why many couples often break up get back together. After an annoyance has developed and caused the relationship to head into a downward spiral, they can appear very attractive again from a distance. Time apart often triggers a ‘reset’ where each member is able to re-evaluate priorities and approach their partner’s qualities with a more positive and refreshed perspective. Also annoyances often tend to shrink in hindsight.
Yes, it’s terrifying. Yes, what I’m saying is that the very reason you fell for someone may just be what screws you over.
If you want to check out my YouTube video of more thoughts on this topic, you can watch it here.