I don't reject the idea that there's some "elephant in the brain" stuff going on here, but it seems more likely simply that most break-ups are complex and involve multiple elements from your list. It's rarely clear which factor was dominant.
Take a friend’s break-up (told to me by A, so some bias there): A & B seemed happy at first. They had a child; B was hands-on early on but withdrew after a couple of years. A took on more parenting and worked more. B started partying, spent less time at home, and began overspending. Their personality clashes became more salient - A saw B as irresponsible, B saw A as less fun than before, and more controlling. A asked for serious changes; B agreed but felt constrained. Tension escalated until B slept with someone else quite openly. Then A ended it.
Several of your items apply:
1 (B novelty-seeking), 3 (B not improving), 5 (growing separation), 6 (hidden failing—B infidelity/A controlling personality), and 7 (B worsening—financial strain). Possibly 2 (A learning their own limits) and 4 (better options - B staying with the new partner).
Your theory is that we don't know why we break up, and choose to believe in and argue for stories that make us less at fault.
My theory is that break-ups typically contain at least 2 of your options, with both parties having different reasons, which explains the lack of coherence in responses equally well.
Why not just prompt an LLM? Hard to believe the training data is not full of romantic rants, betrayals, etc. and I’d take passionate posts in the moment vs. a questionnaire
" As a breakup offers many opportunities for norm violations, that theory predicts that we less know why we really break up, and more believe in and argue for stories that make us less at fault."
Coupled with the fact that women initiate more divorces than men, this ties neatly with my hypothesis that women are more self-deceived about the motives driving their mating behavior.
> In our book The Elephant in the Brain, we argue that the job of our conscious minds is less to know why we really do things, and more to plausibly explain our actions in ways that protect us from accusations of norm violations.
Can't argue with that, but let's be clear: that's a *bad* thing. We morally *ought not* to deceive ourselves and others. This is an unfortunate adaptation we have a duty to counter and disincentivize. To the extent it benefits an individual to deceive themselves and others, it benefits them in unjust ways that unfairly harm others.
Always ask whether a behavior makes things better for the group, or worse (for whatever idea of "better" or "worse" you prefer, and whatever group you prefer). If it makes things worse, then even if it benefits the individual, it is wrong. Deceiving other group members makes things worse.
The pros and cons of deception are subtle. For example how many VCs will fund a company if the entrepreneur's pitch is, "yes it's probably a bad idea that's bound to fail, but we want to give it a shot anyway." No investor wants to fund someone who has built a psychological escape hatch for themselves from the get-go. You want someone who has irrationally staked their reputation on success because that person will try harder when their back is against the wall.
The same is true in romantic affairs. Our marriage vows don't use the more truthful, "with roughly even odds I'll stay with you in sickness and in health", because that feels like someone who's already planning an exit route.
If you can't handle the truth, the problem is with you, not the person telling you the truth.
A lying CEO who misrepresents the chance of success is less trustworthy for investors, likely to waste the investors' money and even commit fraud. That's your Elizabeth Holmes.
A vow, oath, or promise, such as a marriage vow, is a different category from a factual statement about will happen. It's not a lie to vow to do something, even if you understand you may fail. A promise (if you mean it) is an accurate statement about your intention.
Another theory is "crystallization of discontent" by Baimeister.
we tend to fool ourselves positively about our partner/relationship quality etc. by systematically doing all the biases and lies on all aspects.
once we "wake up", wet suddenly get honestly about an the false positivity and start engaging in multiple negative boards against them and the relationship.
this will yield the compression. as apparently we realize that he's a liar, loser, immoral etc + we are incompatible + we have better options etc etc
Def agree except the "usually wrongly" belief - statistically, I think we'd expect at least one to end up better off after a breakup, and isn't it notably more likely to be the one who initiates the breakup in the first place?
Sure, you can come up with scenarios where both do worse off - people of both genders famously gain significant weight after marriage (Turnic 2024, a meta analysis with ~200k couples and ~100k matched singles across 18 countries, shows a pretty strong effect size of marriage on obesity - 1.7 odds ratio, up to 2.5 odds ratio in economic downturns). But worse off compared to what? They were already with a fat partner if this happened.
And it's just as easy to think of scenarios where both can become better off - bad relationships suck. In fact, a bad relationship is such a big source of stress and reduction to quality of life that being single is often better - relationships are amazing for well being when they're good, but equally amazing for suffering when they're bad. So being single could be strictly better off for both, because the overall dynamic was bad enough it was dragging them both down!
I don't reject the idea that there's some "elephant in the brain" stuff going on here, but it seems more likely simply that most break-ups are complex and involve multiple elements from your list. It's rarely clear which factor was dominant.
Take a friend’s break-up (told to me by A, so some bias there): A & B seemed happy at first. They had a child; B was hands-on early on but withdrew after a couple of years. A took on more parenting and worked more. B started partying, spent less time at home, and began overspending. Their personality clashes became more salient - A saw B as irresponsible, B saw A as less fun than before, and more controlling. A asked for serious changes; B agreed but felt constrained. Tension escalated until B slept with someone else quite openly. Then A ended it.
Several of your items apply:
1 (B novelty-seeking), 3 (B not improving), 5 (growing separation), 6 (hidden failing—B infidelity/A controlling personality), and 7 (B worsening—financial strain). Possibly 2 (A learning their own limits) and 4 (better options - B staying with the new partner).
Your theory is that we don't know why we break up, and choose to believe in and argue for stories that make us less at fault.
My theory is that break-ups typically contain at least 2 of your options, with both parties having different reasons, which explains the lack of coherence in responses equally well.
Why not just prompt an LLM? Hard to believe the training data is not full of romantic rants, betrayals, etc. and I’d take passionate posts in the moment vs. a questionnaire
I added on LLM's rankings to the post; doesn't predict poll results well at all.
" As a breakup offers many opportunities for norm violations, that theory predicts that we less know why we really break up, and more believe in and argue for stories that make us less at fault."
Coupled with the fact that women initiate more divorces than men, this ties neatly with my hypothesis that women are more self-deceived about the motives driving their mating behavior.
I'm an enormous fan of Elephant-in-Brain/Everyone-Else-Is-A-Hypocrite
I think the study referenced misses the point.
I would tell the story as:
1) people prefer to be involved romantically to being not
2) If they become unhappy in a relationship, they often go looking for other options
3) If they find a new relationship, then they often leave the old one.
Thus making your 4 above a great answer, for a mechanism about how to end a relationship/move on.
> In our book The Elephant in the Brain, we argue that the job of our conscious minds is less to know why we really do things, and more to plausibly explain our actions in ways that protect us from accusations of norm violations.
Can't argue with that, but let's be clear: that's a *bad* thing. We morally *ought not* to deceive ourselves and others. This is an unfortunate adaptation we have a duty to counter and disincentivize. To the extent it benefits an individual to deceive themselves and others, it benefits them in unjust ways that unfairly harm others.
Always ask whether a behavior makes things better for the group, or worse (for whatever idea of "better" or "worse" you prefer, and whatever group you prefer). If it makes things worse, then even if it benefits the individual, it is wrong. Deceiving other group members makes things worse.
The pros and cons of deception are subtle. For example how many VCs will fund a company if the entrepreneur's pitch is, "yes it's probably a bad idea that's bound to fail, but we want to give it a shot anyway." No investor wants to fund someone who has built a psychological escape hatch for themselves from the get-go. You want someone who has irrationally staked their reputation on success because that person will try harder when their back is against the wall.
The same is true in romantic affairs. Our marriage vows don't use the more truthful, "with roughly even odds I'll stay with you in sickness and in health", because that feels like someone who's already planning an exit route.
If you can't handle the truth, the problem is with you, not the person telling you the truth.
A lying CEO who misrepresents the chance of success is less trustworthy for investors, likely to waste the investors' money and even commit fraud. That's your Elizabeth Holmes.
A vow, oath, or promise, such as a marriage vow, is a different category from a factual statement about will happen. It's not a lie to vow to do something, even if you understand you may fail. A promise (if you mean it) is an accurate statement about your intention.
Another theory is "crystallization of discontent" by Baimeister.
we tend to fool ourselves positively about our partner/relationship quality etc. by systematically doing all the biases and lies on all aspects.
once we "wake up", wet suddenly get honestly about an the false positivity and start engaging in multiple negative boards against them and the relationship.
this will yield the compression. as apparently we realize that he's a liar, loser, immoral etc + we are incompatible + we have better options etc etc
Very worthwhile article anyway.
https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1994-97042-012
Any bets that reasons for leaving differ significantly between sexes?
Def agree except the "usually wrongly" belief - statistically, I think we'd expect at least one to end up better off after a breakup, and isn't it notably more likely to be the one who initiates the breakup in the first place?
Sure, you can come up with scenarios where both do worse off - people of both genders famously gain significant weight after marriage (Turnic 2024, a meta analysis with ~200k couples and ~100k matched singles across 18 countries, shows a pretty strong effect size of marriage on obesity - 1.7 odds ratio, up to 2.5 odds ratio in economic downturns). But worse off compared to what? They were already with a fat partner if this happened.
And it's just as easy to think of scenarios where both can become better off - bad relationships suck. In fact, a bad relationship is such a big source of stress and reduction to quality of life that being single is often better - relationships are amazing for well being when they're good, but equally amazing for suffering when they're bad. So being single could be strictly better off for both, because the overall dynamic was bad enough it was dragging them both down!