8
Choosing a Romantic Partner
I think men who have a pierced ear are better prepared for marriage. They’ve experienced pain and bought jewelry.
RITA RUDNER
In this chapter, we arrive at a major thoroughfare in our journey toward romantic love: choosing a romantic partner. The chapter begins by discussing the distinction between “nonrelational” and “relational” traits, at which point the suitability scale is introduced. This scale, which measures the degree of the partner’s suitability to the other, is the most important measure for predicting long-term profound love. I then discuss the value of meritocracy (being chosen for accomplishments rather than circumstances) in seeking a romantic partner, and ways of choosing a long-term romantic partner, while taking account of the comparative and the uniqueness approaches.
The Suitability Scale in Love
I love you not only for what you are, but for what I am when I am with you.
ELIZABETH BARRETT BROWNING
When I love, I do it without counting. I give myself entirely. And each time, it is the grand love of my life.
BRIGITTE BARDOT
The dialogue model and the phenomena of synchrony, responsivity, and resonance have taught us that a couple’s connection stands at the center of romantic relationships. Thus, the suitability issue looms large in establishing long-term profound love. A person’s romantic value should be judged mostly on the basis of how suitable he or she is to the partner. There are two scales with which to assess romantic value: the nonrelational scale (which is a general measure of people) and the relational scale of suitability (which measures a unique connection).
The nonrelational scale measures the value of traits as they stand on their own (think sense of humor, wealth, etc.). This sort of measure has two advantages—it is easy to use, and most people would agree about the assessments. The suitability scale is much more complex, since it depends on personal and environmental factors about which we do not have full knowledge.
Let’s think for a moment about assessing the relational suitability value in long-term relationships. Should you marry a smart person? Generally speaking, intelligence is considered good—but here is where things get more complicated. If there is a big gap between the IQ of the two partners, their suitability value will be low, as matching in nonrelational value is more significant here. This goes way beyond intelligence, though. The same goes for wealth. On the nonrelational scale, a lot of money is often good, but a wealthy person might score low on fidelity, as fat bank accounts open many romantic doors. Moreover, wealthy people tend to believe that they are more deserving, and hence their caring behavior might be lower. In the same vein, having a good sexual appetite is usually good, but a large discrepancy between the partners’ sexual needs is not conducive to that crucial romantic connection. If, for instance, a man wants to have sex once or twice a week and a woman wishes to have sex multiple times a day, would they be suitable partners? If all the positives on someone’s nonrelational scale are reduced by aspects on the relational scale, this is likely to bode ill for the individual’s personal flourishing. Even if both partners score high on the nonrelational scale, but they are not able to bring out the best in each other, then their value on the relational scale will be low.
As it turns out, we can tell precious little about how someone will be as a partner by knowing how he or she rates as a person. It is far from obvious that the higher your partner is on the nonrelational scale, the better the connection between you will be. In this context, the following friendly interchange comes to mind. Woman: “Why is it that the people I fall in love with are never interested in me, whereas the ones who do fall in love with me are never the ones I care about?” Coworker: “You’re an 8 constantly chasing after 10s, and constantly being chased by 6s.”1
Romantic love takes all traits into full account. Since love includes the wish to be together with each other for a long time, we should try to transform the pleasant interest that is evoked by attraction into something more profound that can be maintained in the long term. The relational scale can be of service here. It measures suitability to an actual person, not to people in general. This scale analyzes the general overall romantic value in terms of a specific partner.
At the initial stage of romantic relationships, suitability is not such a big deal. After all, information about long-term profound suitability is not yet available. Such information comes from interactions between the two partners, as a loving attitude becomes more knowledge-based. As time goes by, the issue of suitability gains greater importance, and the gap between the two scales could grow. We update and refine the two scales over time.
With time, changes in each scale relate mainly to the weight given to each trait, and to a lesser extent to the score of that trait on each scale. A woman whose spouse is not particularly sensitive might say that, over time, his lack of sensitivity disturbs her less (she assigns it less weight), since she finds that his other traits compensate for it. However, she might also say that he seems to her a little bit more sensitive than she initially thought. Scholars call this “trait adaptation.” In hedonic adaptation, something beautiful or ugly becomes less so with time. In trait adaptation, some of the partner’s characteristics, which were initially seen as very positive or very negative, come to be evaluated more moderately. Romantic breakups are often traceable to traits that have a low score on the suitability scale that become more evident with time rather than to traits that have a low score on the nonrelational scale, which people may adapt to.
These two scales raise interesting issues about the nature of long-term romantic love. One of these is the possibility of predicting the success of love. As others can assess the nonrelational scale quite well, this assessment is possible even before the partners meet. The relational scale, however, is different. There, many traits cannot be assessed by others, and most of this evaluation must wait until the partners meet and interact. Because reciprocal interactions are so important, the main traits can only be reliably assessed after such interactions. Indeed, the renowned expert on marital stability, John Gottman, who is immensely successful in predicting the likelihood of divorce, bases his judgments on partners’ interactions during conflicts in verbal communication.2 The relational suitability scale assesses the suitability of the partner’s nonrelational traits to the individual.
Both nonrelational and relational traits can enhance romantic love. Although there is no direct positive correlation between the two groups, they often correlate—a high value in one group often increases the value in the other. Thus, rich and intelligent people are often able to enhance the romantic connection, and a caring person is frequently considered of higher overall value. Moreover, as the possibility of lasting love draws heavily on the connection between the two lovers, relational traits are far more important in the long term. Nonrelational traits have greater impact at the beginning of the romantic relationship, when the relational traits are not yet apparent. As the two lovers become more familiar with each other, the impact of their relational traits increases.
A high positive evaluation of one’s nonrelational qualities is significant—but it is no guarantee of profound romantic love. This is because it does not take into account the partners’ connection, which is vital for maintaining this kind of enduring love. We admire the traits of many people with whom we are definitely not in love. And we would not criticize someone who loves her partner profoundly, just because we think she could have found a person with better qualities.3 As mentioned below, this is not true only when the gap between the two partners prevents the development of a profound connection. Thus, someone can adore her partner’s relational attitudes, such as sensitivity and kindness, and still not love him, because, say, he is not intelligent or wealthy enough or has a low social status. So, a lack of high nonrelational traits can be significant—especially when the absence of these traits can prevent the lover’s and the couple’s togetherness from flourishing.
/>
Being a person who has good nonrelational qualities does not make you a good partner—and it is only with a good partner that we can nurture an intimate, flourishing connection. People often search for the ideal partner by focusing on the qualities that make a perfect, flawless person. The problem is that this quest fails to focus on the connection between the would-be couple. Romantic relationships benefit from nonrelational traits in a kind of backhanded way; they offer better circumstances in which to enhance relational traits—and, therefore, the connection. Being married to an optimistic person, for example, can upgrade the couple’s relational activities because a sense of optimism can improve dialogue. At the end of the day, though, the value of the relational traits on the suitability scale is what counts most.
Along these lines, Paul Eastwick and Lucy Hunt show that when people are picking partners, they focus more on relational characteristics than consensual, nonrelational traits, especially over time. They found that although there was a lot of agreement on desirable (nonrelational) qualities at first, this agreement was weaker than participants’ tendency to see one another as uniquely desirable or undesirable over time. Eastwick and Hunt conclude that despite the unbalanced distribution of desirable nonrelational traits among people, “mating pursuits take place on a more-or-less even playing field, in which most people have a strong chance of being satisfied with their romantic outcomes.”4
All of this boils down to the idea that constant comparison of your partner to others is contrary to the spirit of profound romantic love. Long-term lovers are not in the business of accounting and comparing—they are more occupied with bettering their relationship than in having a better partner than someone else.
Is Meritocracy Useful in Searching for a Romantic Partner?
I don’t wish to be everything to everyone, but I would like to be something to someone.
JAVAN
I want a man who’s kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?
ZSA ZSA GABOR
In a meritocracy, people are chosen because of their performance rather than their personalities and circumstances. So, for example, whether or not you were accepted to a particular college or got a particular job would depend upon your achievements alone. Meritocracy aims to abolish different biases, some of which dearly deserve to be eliminated. The problem with meritocracies, however, is that disregarding a person’s background is likely to create bias against those from less privileged backgrounds. Indeed, a common criticism against running educational systems as meritocracies is that doing so has created an elite class that represents a narrow segment of the population. Hence, it ignores diversity.
Scott Page argues that teams made up of different kinds of thinkers outperform homogeneous groups on complex tasks. Page strongly questions the ability of a meritocracy to build successful teams. He argues that the principle of meritocracy—the idea that the “best person” should be hired—runs counter to the multidimensional or layered nature of complex problems. In his view, there is no best person. Page claims that even if people have extensive knowledge about the relevant domain, no test or criteria applied to individuals will produce the best team. The depth and breadth of a domain is such that no test can ever suffice. He argues that optimal hiring of teams to fulfill certain complex tasks depends on context; hence, optimal teams should be diverse. When creating a forest, you do not select the best trees; rather, you choose trees that are compatible with each other, and this requires diversity.5
Is it wise to apply the meritocratic system when choosing a romantic partner? The nonrelational traits of the beloved, which stand on their own, can be considered the “meritocracy.” As we have seen, such characteristics alone are poor predictors of long-term profound love, at the heart of which are the interactions between the partners. Thus, on their way up, successful people can be quite inconsiderate of others. Our partners might be highly educated, attractive, rich, and famous, but they might suit us about as well as a tight pair of shoes. We might not find them sufficiently sensitive to us or genuinely interested in our flourishing; they might even be threatened by our success or autonomy. Moreover, being with a person who is, in the spirit of meritocracy, very “superior” or “inferior” to you is quite problematic. Low-quality relationships and extramarital affairs are often the fallout.
Nonetheless, the nonrelational traits of the beloved can be harnessed in the service of romantic love. These traits provide the suitable circumstances for personal flourishing and the flourishing of their bond. The principle of meritocracy can easily assess nonrelational traits, while romantic uniqueness, which is produced by the partners’ unique interactions, does not do well under the comparative lens. So, we can apply meritocratic tools to find our romantic partner, but we should understand that their value is limited in this area. Meritocratic behavior helps partners to get along in a meaningful and profound manner. Such togetherness requires, for example, a certain similarity of background and values. Togetherness is built on values that both partners can achieve together. The partners’ capacities should be complementary, and here the meritocracy is important.
But romantic partnerships are much more complex than basketball teams. Because of this, romantic matches are hard to predict without considering the partners’ joint interactions. In any case, we ought to aim not for the best person in the world but rather the most suitable person for us.
Choosing a Long-Term Romantic Partner
There is no perfection, only beautiful versions of brokenness.
SHANNON L. ALDER
There may be “fifty ways to leave your lover,” but there are many fewer good ways to choose the one who will stay with you for the long term. We’ve seen some signs on our trip toward profound love that point us in the right direction. At this next junction, we have a new signpost. Choosing a long-term romantic partner should take into account the following two major ranges: (1) positive-negative and (2) profundity-superficiality. The positive-negative range expresses the range of the partner’s traits that can help or harm the relationship and the partner. The profundity-superficiality range situates this helping or harming in terms of time and depth. Thus, the impact of the partner’s positive or negative trait lasts a short or a long time and can be either substantial or shallow.
If we combine the two dimensions, we discover four main ways of choosing a long-term romantic partner:
1. The checklist: rejection at first meeting (superficial and negative)
2. Love at first sight: attraction at first meeting (superficial and positive)
3. There is nothing wrong with him: detecting profound flaws (profound and negative)
4. Bringing out the best in each other: accentuating the positive qualities (profound and positive)
The first two ways mainly refer to nonrelational, superficial traits that others can see, and so, one can note with a superficial acquaintance. The profound ways primarily refer to deep traits on the suitability scale. Each way has its own advantages and disadvantages. So, none should be ignored when choosing a romantic partner. We might say that the methods appear in ascending order of importance: the first way is the least important, the second more important, and the third even more so; the fourth way is the most important way of choosing a romantic partner.
The Checklist: Rejection at First Meeting
We all know the drill. After compiling a checklist of the perfect partner’s desirable and undesirable traits, you mark next to each trait whether this is a quality of the prospective partner. This kind of search, which is pretty much how online dating works, focuses on negative, superficial qualities and tries to quickly filter out unsuitable candidates. This is interesting, because of course you are dating to make a good catch, not merely to eliminate a bad one. But this is natural in an environment of abundant romantic options.
The checklist practice has two major flaws: (1) it typically lacks any intrinsic hierarchy that would grant each quality a different weight—hence, it ignores the issu
e of romantic profundity; (2) it focuses on the other person’s qualities in isolation and gives scarcely any weight to the connection between the individuals—that is, it fails to consider the value of the other person as a suitable partner.
These checklists are long—easily a few dozen traits or more—and one merely checks the presence or absence of each quality. In this mechanistic method, we can hardly take the significance of each quality into consideration. Thus, one’s height can be given the same significance as one’s kindness—again, the presence or absence of any attributes that are checked receive the same weight. Moreover, height—and how much more so, kindness—come in greater and lesser degrees, and this fact is also not expressed when ticking off presence or absence. So, from the checklist point of view, we are superficial machines with no intrinsic hierarchy or weight given to the different qualities. But unattractive hair color hardly carries the same weight as being unkind. Putting all the qualities randomly in the same basket considerably decreases the value of employing such a process in a romantic search. In accordance with the negative bias, the checklist search has many properties that are deal breakers, and very few, if any, deal makers (perhaps sometimes being very rich or famous is such a deal maker).
The Arc of Love Page 18