A huge mistake in intimate relationships is assuming that the same events and behaviors mean the same thing to both partners. Partners differ in temperament, metabolism, hormonal levels, core vulnerabilities, family history, life experiences, and developmental trajectory, and those differences shape the meanings assigned to interactions. Partners also tend to have discrepant memories of shared events and must reconcile recall differences rather than compete over accuracy, as memory chauvinism can resemble gaslighting. Attachment instincts evolved for species survival, producing pre-verbal emotional reactions when bonds are threatened. Guilt functions as a distance regulator: closeness reduces guilt, distance increases it and can turn guilt into resentment.
A huge mistake we make in love relationships is assuming that events and behaviors mean (or should mean) the same to both partners. Behaviors and events rarely mean the same to partners, who almost invariably differ in: Temperament Metabolism Hormonal levels Core vulnerability Family history Life experiences Developmental trajectory (matured at different stages) All of the above influence the meaning we give to events and behaviors.
Partners in love relationships are also bound to have different memories of events and behaviors. They must try to reconcile them, rather than prove whose recall is superior. Memory chauvinism can seem like gaslighting. The "Laws of Attachment" have less to do with individual psychology than species survival. Early humans would not have survived without strong emotional bonds that enabled them to defend and hunt collectively.
Collection
[
|
...
]