A recent New York Times article talked about the psychological reasons we choose our marital partners, and those reasons were far less designed to result in our happiness than we might expect. Because we lack self-awareness about our wishes and rationales, we are unaware of both what we need and what we seek in marriage.
But though we believe ourselves to be seeking happiness in marriage, it isn’t that simple. What we really seek is familiarity . . . . How logical, then, that we should as grown-ups find ourselves rejecting certain candidates for marriage not because they are wrong but because they are too right–too balanced, mature, understanding and reliable–given that in our hearts, such rightness feels foreign. We marry the wrong people because we don’t associate being loved with feeling happy.
Sometimes to explain why someone is partnered with a person his or her friends find questionable, people use the phrase: “The heart wants what the heart wants.” And we can’t really explain why we want what we want. We just know that it “feels right.” Often that “rightness” is just familiarity, even when the familiar thing is a pattern we should break.
Choosing whom to commit ourselves to is merely a case of identifying which particular variety of suffering we would most like to sacrifice ourselves for.
No partner is perfect, but sometimes we choose a familiarly bad partner over the strangeness of a partner who would actually be a better choice for us, who would bring out better qualities in us, or who would not have the same character flaws we find comfortable.
The person who is best suited to us is not the person who shares our every taste (he or she does not exist), but the person who can negotiate differences in taste intelligently–the person who is good at disagreement . . . it is the capacity to tolerate differences with generosity that is the true marker of the “not overly wrong” person.
When a partner changes during the course of the marriage, or even just reveals parts of him or herself that the other spouse imagined to be different, this may be seen as a betrayal; divorce is too often the immediate solution that seems like a cure for disillusionment. This reveals both the inability of the angry spouse to understand human nature, and even more, the brittleness of that person’s ability to tolerate differences. We imagine our spouses to share our beliefs, assumptions and tastes until they are revealed to differ from us. Just because we failed to imagine them as they really are, doesn’t necessarily mean they changed.
Theory of mind is a unique psychological trait to humans. Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one’s own. It is just a theory because we only intuit our own minds and we don’t and can’t directly observe others’ minds. Part of the human condition is imagining that we know what others are thinking or believing that they share our views. We also engage in predictive mental exercises in which we make assumptions based on past observed behavior about how the person will behave in the future. When our own ideas about what our partner is thinking are disproven, we may feel betrayed and disillusioned, but that’s because our ability to read minds is an illusion at best. Others are unfathomable to us. We are forever alone.
Brittleness occurs when we lack the flexibility to tolerate differences from what we believed our partner thought, usually some version of what we ourselves think. Inability to tolerate differences is the real culprit behind marital unhappiness and divorce.
Although the article suggests we should stick with our choice and work things out, for those who are unattached, a few pitfalls are best to avoid:
- Repeating familiar mistakes. While it’s easier to deal with familiar issues, it’s also easy not to deal with things that are familiar. We are too comfortable with certain types of bad behavior. Choosing a partner who is abusive or codependent or supports one’s bad habits may feel familiar but not be the best choice for a long-term happy life.
- Fearing loneliness. Those who really want to pick the best partner must be comfortable with the prospect of being single. Only someone who is choosy will wait for the best partner. Maybe not Jerry Seinfeld choosy, but not eager to marry the first person that comes along.
- Imagining that marriage will make romantic feelings permanent. In reality, marriage turns romance into administration. And nothing kills romance like kids or illness or the banality of daily living.
Whatever we lack in foresight, we need to compensate for later in perseverance, patience, and tolerance for personal differences.
Wheat & Tares 
Really enjoyed the post and the de Botton article. Regarding your point about being “choosy, but not too choosy,” there is an excellent TED talk about this very point in which a mathematician has been able to calculate the equation which gives one the best odds of picking the best match:
“So the math says then that what you should do in the first 37 percent of your dating window, you should just reject everybody as serious marriage potential. And then, you should pick the next person that comes along that is better than everybody that you’ve seen before. Now if you do this, it can be mathematically proven, in fact, that this is the best possible way of maximizing your chances of finding the perfect partner.”
Apparently there are some species in the animal kingdom that do precisely this. The TED talk is a joy to watch:
Excellent post, as a therapist myself I talk about ‘the familiar’ as what we grow up seeing. If it’s abusive, intolerant, unkind, well that’s what we become experts at living with.
Unfortunately, changing that is often the work of therapy, and that usually happens at breaking point or after.
Mormon culture has a very distorted idea of what marriage is – maybe mostly women – maybe just me. I prefer the idea of choosing – on a daily basis – to be with someone or not. I’ve seen marriage destroy people’s lives because they wanted it so bad, thought it would fix problems, or gave a sense of entitlement. Marriage in the bible simply means a contractual agreement, the terms of which if decided prenuptially, allow for long-term success. Marrying for ‘love’ is craziness.
After 21 years of marriage I am still madly in love with my wife. What makes me happy? My marriage.
Happiness is a byproduct of approaching marriage right:
1) recognizing it’s not directly responsible for your happiness and neither is your spouse
2) recognizing you are divinely paired to evolve each other- paired for unique spiritual growth. Such recognition changes everything and brings God more into your marriage.
3) being grateful for each challenge as a blessing to learn and grow.
4) praying for revelation to change your understanding instead of praying for change in your spouse.
Such approach yields miracles and joy and growth.
“In reality, marriage turns romance into administration.”
So brutal! Can’t there still be a little romance…?
I agree that marriage can turn romance into administration, but like Martin I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion. It entirely depends upon the couple. Marriage is hard work and retaining romance is hard work not something that comes naturally. If you don’t put effort into retaining romance it indeed will turn into administration. It is a choice.
Martin, yes, there can be romance mixed in. But if nobody handles the administrative aspects, the bills don’t get paid and everyone’s teeth fall out eventually.
Good thoughts!
*reads article*
*looks at father*
*looks at husband*
Well, that explains EVERYTHING!
🙂
“We just know that it “feels right.” Often that “rightness” is just familiarity, even when the familiar thing is a pattern we should break.”
When I read this line, I totally thought you were going to relate it to how people who are out of the norm in the Church are called out with great concern by people in the mainstream because what they’re saying or doing feels so wrong. When really it’s just that it feels unfamiliar.
Sorry for the tangent. 🙂
Ziff– well said though.
My 25 year old daughter is engaged to marry a guy that she claims is quite a bit like me. We are more similar in temperment and personality than anyone else in the family. They have dated for about 2 years. The major difference is that he is not affiliated religiously. He is a man of high ethical standards and principles but not a believer in much beyond science and art.
She is beautiful and talented and financially independent. She has never had an LDS guy seriously interested in her because, I think, she intimidates them and is not exactly a submissive molly Mormon and the dating pool is too small around here. She has watched many of her friends stay in the fold but marry down. For many years she refused to consider dating outside the LDS faith but then he came along. He almost worships the ground she walks upon and is pretty much the ideal husband in every other way.
At this point they adore each other to the point there is no talking to them and they are not cold and rational about it. I wish them well and try not to do anything damaging.
Perhaps the level of desire to make marriage work in spite of differences and flaws, known or later discovered, is important. I am afraid compromises she will make in the future will result in a low chance of raising her children in the LDS faith but I have high hopes they will have a great relationship.
I think that what is jarring about both the OP title and the article linked to is the either/or nature of romance vs. administration.
Whereas a lot of us find that romance can thrive even WITH administration, even more administration than we expected.
Marriage gives you a license to keep romance alive, which can be a great deal of fun.
One of the reasons that I opted to be employed part-time was that it gave us the house to ourselves while the kids were at school. We had romantic lunches together every Thursday for decades.
When we went out for dinner, we had a rule that we wouldn’t talk about family or career. So it was politics or future travel plans.
We always had one weekend each year alone without kids. Other couples traded babysitting to make that happen, because they also needed time alone on occasion.
It isn’t near as grim as lonely as some of this makes out.
Yes, we don’t spend every minute together. We have individual interests and aren’t shy about going to a movie or concert alone if the other person wouldn’t enjoy it. But there is still lots of romance, too.
Love the topic and the article and your thoughts on it.
When we are young and so hopeful and unexperienced we approach marriage and family and start the path.
We are discovering ourselves as we go through life…so, it seems to be obvious we will learn more about our partner and ourselves as we go, and I don’t know we can or should wait to marry until it is all figured out. It seems that is how we learn is by living.
I see many similarities with church. And many people feel betrayed, lied to, or tricked as they learn more about the church than what they thought the church was. Some similar things, I think.
My other thought is that since we learn more about our marriage as we go, it should not be such a surprise divorce happens. While we should not take marriage lightly, I’m not sure why we put such a stigma on divorce. Especially in the church, Pres. Uchtdorf. I used to think I coukd work through any marital problem and always avoid divorce and keep my commitment to marriage. But unhealthy and toxic situations are not to be endured just to prove a point. Nor is carelessly chasing rainbows of happiness. But divorce is sometimes the best option among options.
Some things can’t be tolerated forever.
I think the article’s main point about marital unhappiness is that we choose the wrong partner (or for some we are the wrong partner) by choosing the bad characteristics that feel familiar to us rather than breaking out of our comfort zone and making a better choice. Although the administrative aspects vs. romantic ones are a caution for any marriage, to me, the article was more about our inability to choose wisely.
Sounds like we are setting ourselves up for surprises framing marriage one way with the decision based on personal hopes and dreams, but sustained happy marriages are based on qualities we need which aren’t taught to us to look for and so we want those things. Like the Cheshire cat told alice, if we don’t know what we are looking for, we can’t choose wisely, it’s a crapshoot and then figure it out later.
Doesn’t mean it will always be bad. Just that we will have surprises.
*and so we don’t know we want those things.
(Meant to say it that way)
I am not sure to what extent “familiarity” is a strong pull in a church that prides itself on the high percentage of first-generation members.
Converts (who make up most of the church in most places) may find themselves looking for something very different for their own marriage and thus in a potential partner than what they saw in their parents’ marriage.
Our teachings on free agency and repentance are also crucial to understanding marriage dynamics. Our own choices can often be more important than being raised in an abusive home or marrying the “wrong” person. Willingness by both people to work hard can be grace that makes up the difference and lead to happiness.
I don’t believe in the myths of either the right or wrong person as having an inevitable outcome.