The suitability and nonrelational scales

In addition to the framework proving a preferential value to the beloved compared with other people, there is another framework evaluating the beloved. This framework consists of two major scales: the nonrelational scale, which is a general measure of people, and the relational scale of suitability, which measures a unique connection.

The comparative, nonrelational scale of romantic love measures the value of the beloved's properties as they stand on their own, such as intelligence, outward appearance, and affluence. This sort of measure has two advantages—it is easy to use, and most people would agree about the assessments.The noncomparative, suitability scale is more complex, since it depends on per­sonal and contextual factors, and no consensus is relevant here.

As in the case of humility, in love, too, the primary framework is based on a non-comparative (or less comparative) value. However, while humility concerns what is common to all humans, romantic love entails the unique connection between two specific lovers.The secondary frame­work in love measures the quality of the connection between the two lovers.Within this frame­work, the relational scale assessing the uniqueness of the bond and the suitability between the two partners is the primary scale. The secondary scale is the comparative, nonrelational scale. Unlike in humility, in love the comparative scale is nevertheless of some value, though still not the crucial one.This difference stems from romantic love being concerned with actual ongoing processes that change over time.

In accordance with the above considerations, dictionary definitions of “perfect” have two major meaning (a) flawless: being entirely without fault or defect; and (b) most suitable (or opti­mal): being as good or correct as it is possible to be, and completely appropriate for someone. While the first meaning focuses on the negative aspect, the second meaning centers on the positive one.

The view that regards the beloved as the perfect person, in the sense of being without faults, has a strong comparative push; it considers the beloved's main characteristics to be flawless, non­relational, and easily discoverable (by others as well). This comparative approach takes a static view of romantic love in which love is essentially fixed, while occasionally moving from one point of comparison to another.

The view that considers the beloved to be a perfect partner in the sense of being most suitable (or optimal) emphasizes the uniqueness of the relationship. It sees the beloved's most important qualities as relational and sees confirmation of many of them during interactions. The uniqueness approach offers a dynamic kind of romantic love over time. Such love involves intrinsic development that includes bringing out the best in each other. Both the comparative and uniqueness approaches describe important aspects of long-term robust love; it seems, how­ever, that the odds of establishing such love are better in the second of these.

For many people, the quest for the perfect person, instead of the perfect (in the sense of most suitable) partner, is a major obstacle to an enduring, profound, loving relationship. Since life is dynamic and people change their attitudes, priorities, and wishes over time, achieving such romantic compatibility is not a onetime accomplishment but an ongoing process. In a crucial and perhaps little-understood switch, perfect compatibility is not necessarily a precondition for love; it is love and time that create a couple's compatibility (Ben-Ze'ev, 2019).

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 comparative, 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” (Frank, 2006).The noncomparative, relational scale 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, enduring profound suitability is not a critical issue. After all, information about such suitability is not yet available. This information comes from interactions between the two partners and 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.

The two scales are updated and refined over time, often without our conscious awareness or any deliberative process. With time, changes in each scale relate mainly to the weight given to each trait, and attribute lesser value to the absolute 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.This is a kind of 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 properties that have a low score on the noncomparative suitability scale that become more evi­dent with time rather than to properties that have a low score on the comparative nonrelational scale, which people may adapt to (Ben-Ze'ev, 2019).

The 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 comparative, nonrelational scale quite well, this assessment is possible even before the partners meet. The noncomparative, 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.

The relational suitability scale assesses the suitability of the partner's nonrelational traits to the individual. In principle, one can compare the suitability of one's partner with another pos­sible partner. However, this suitability is much harder as mutual suitability is something that is developed over time and is difficult to identify without ongoing interactions. Both nonrelational and relational traits can enhance romantic love. Although there is no direct positive correlation between the two groups, they often correlate.

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 noncomparative, relational traits increases. There also seem to be qualities that are probably bad for both the relational and the non-relational desirability. Bitterness, impatience, aggression, inconsistence, indecisiveness, etc. make one a bad partner, but also probably a person who is less successful in the general non-relational world.

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 (Brown, 1987, 24—30; Frankfurt, 1987).This is not true when the gap between the two partners prevents the development of a profound connection.

Being a person who has good nonrelational qualities does not make you a good partner— and it is only with a good partner that you 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 noncomparable, suitability scale is what counts most (Ben- Ze'ev, 2019).

Along these lines, Paul Eastwick and Lucy Hunt (2014) 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” (Eastwick and Hunt, 2014, 729).

8.5