What I think matters most in our lives: On personal relationships

“Why must the few noble people, whom chance has not so firmly enclosed in their bodies as the legion of the others – why must these individuals be separated by a thousand obstacles so that their voices cannot reach each other, cannot recognize each other and cannot indulge in a blissful spiritual hour of intimacy? Why must such a person … sense a similar being at most in a work of art … and why must longing then increase his torment, while he thirsts in solitude where, like sand in the Sahara, only the countless herd … encounter his gaze?” Schopenhauer, in Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy, by Rudiger Safranski (Harvard University Press, 1989, p.67)

There are countless books about relationships, so it may seem unnecessary to discuss the subject here, assuming there is even anything new to add to the subject. However, I consider this subject too important to ignore, and while some of what can be said falls within the subject of psychology, which will be the subject of Chapter 12 of Volume III of my book, I wanted to include the subject of relationships on this website so it is available to the reader without need to purchase my books, although the chapter on psychology in Volume III of my book will add additional, important information to what is discussed here. I will note below what information in particular. I consider the subject of relationships important for at least two reasons: (1) personal happiness and (2) social consequences. By social consequences, I mean that I believe the absence or failure of relationships among those who want them likely contributes to mental health problems, alcohol and/or drug addiction, suicide, etc. which might not otherwise take place, and which affects society as well.

The first issue I want to look at is an empirical/statistical one to try to support my belief that there is a problem, namely just how many people that want relationships either don’t have one or do not have one that is working. I found the following online articles as of 2020. I assumed looking online would have more recent information than trying to research such questions in books. I did not make a systematic study. I searched questions like those below. They are not all the questions that are possible to ask. Below are articles with some answers. The data is from U.S. sources. I list several sources below. I do not know of a comprehensive study that looks at all or many possible questions and is easy to read:

1. What percentage of Americans who want to be in a relationship are in a relationship?
2. What percentage of Americans are happy with their relationship?
3. What percentage of married Americans are happy with their marriage?
4. How long do relationships last on average?

“64 Percent of Americans say They’re Happy in their Relationships” (eHarmony.com)
“Americans’ happiness with their current relationship status, by age” (statista.com)
“Romance in America” from Pew Research Center (pewresearch.org)
“Are You Among the Growing Number of Unhappy Married People?” (psychologytoday.com)

It is difficult to know whether any study is polling enough people and a broad enough range of people to accurately reflect the situation. However, even the results of some studies listed above raise doubts about the relationship situation, and these results do not include populations such as mentally or physically disabled persons who will likely have lower success rates finding someone. The conclusions of some of the above studies also raise questions. For example, the eHarmony article at first appears optimistic, as is the presentation, but the title is misleading:

“64% of Americans reporting they are ‘very happy’ in their relationship” is not 64% of everyone
“Nearly 50 percent of all people are happy in their sex lives” should say more than 50% aren’t
“Household income and relationship happiness have a direct correlation, with the most happy couples making over $200K yearly” Are those relationships for love or money?

The income correlation raises the question of what other correlations are important to take into account, such as age. I am just trying here to get an idea of the situation. A thorough sociological study would be needed to give a more complete and accurate picture. For my purposes, the above is sufficient. I now move on to the books that I want to talk about on the subject of relationships. There are many books available, but before I list them, I want to mention that I first looked at books such as these for personal reasons prior to writing this discussion on relationships, namely in order to be more systematic about finding a new partner for myself after a particular failed relationship. I think some of my failed relationships were my fault and some were not. Once I started reading such books, I used some of the ideas when looking for a new partner. However, it seems to me that such books can be very difficult to put into practice unless both partners are open to the ideas in them. In my case, I have not found a partner similarly interested in reading these type of books. The relationships that resulted after my attempt to put the following into practice may have been better than the previous, but perhaps the lack of interest by a partner might explain why the relationships did not last or maybe the matches just weren’t close enough.

I would also like to point out that the idea that we need to be educated about relationships is not widely shared. I think most people think they automatically know how to find and hold onto a relationship and don’t need to learn. I don’t know why such an important part of life is regarded as something which does not need to be learned, but my observation is that this is what many people believe. Even more difficult to teach is “sex education” for adults, on which there are several well made books and videos. The reactions to these materials from my observations are even more negative. In any case, like everything I discuss on this website and in my book, the subjects I talk about are for the reader who has a reason to want to know about them. As for the subject of relationships, if you are happy and successful with yours, then there is no need for you to read about it. I would also like to say that I believe that more or less typical or average people will have a much easier time finding someone. For one thing, there is a larger pool of possible matches. The more untypical you are, as I am, the more difficult it will be. Finally, I should mention that I am solely concerned here with heterosexual relationships.

Just so you know, in order to make certain points in the discussion below, I refer at various times to my personal experience. I suppose some women, such as those who think men talk too much about themselves, will resent the personal details, but I have several reasons for doing so: (1) personal experience is the reason why I discuss that issue, (2) where I could not find that subject discussed in books,  (3) to clarify in my mind how I look at the issue and how it would affect my or a prospective partner’s choices, and (4) in case some reader, particularly female, might be interested in such personal details for their own reasons. As for this last group of readers, see also my comments in the next to last paragraph at the end of this discussion of relationships. I think that everything I say here would be more useful, and is most relevant to, those who have difficulty with relationships. If you are the sociable type that has no problem meeting prospective partners, and no need for assistance from services like dating websites, then you have no need for my discussion here. As for the books I discuss below, once you get the basic ideas in the books, you don’t really need to keep referring to the books, unless you have a partner who wants to discuss them with you. At the end of the list below are some books that are designed to be discussed with a partner. Barbara de Angelis and Neil Clark Warren are my favorite relationship writers. They have written several books and have also made audio tapes, videos or dvds. I begin with their books.

Bibliography

Are You the One for Me? : Knowing Who’s Right and Avoiding Who’s Wrong, by Barbara De Angelis

If you are only going to read one writer, read Are You the One for Me and the Real Moments books

How to Make Love All the Time, by Barbara De Angelis

Passion, by Barbara de Angelis

Real Moments and Real Moments for Lovers, by Barbara de Angelis

To fully appreciate all that Barbara de Angelis says, check her books, but among her conclusions are that you will save yourself a lot of trouble if you take the time to study the personal qualities of someone you are considering beginning a relationship with, instead of blindly rushing into it, that a relationship should not be based on someone’s potential, and a relationship is not something you have, but something you do – you have to work at it – every day. In order to fully appreciate Barbara de Angelis, it also helps to know something about mindfulness practice which has its roots in Buddhist or Taoist Tantra teachings. The Wikipedia article titled Mindfulness begins with “Mindfulness is the psychological process of purposely bringing one’s attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgment, which one develops through the practice of meditation and through other training.” The reader should check the rest of that Wikipedia entry on Mindfulness for further information and a list of sources. I will return again below to the subject of mindfulness in my discussion of how people’s brains are wired.

Finding the Love of your Life, by Neil Clark Warren

Learning to Live with the Love of your Life, by Neil Clark Warren

Date … or Soul Mate? : How to Know if Someone is Worth Pursuing in Two Dates or Less, by Neil Clark Warren

Falling in Love for All the Right Reasons, by Neil Clark Warren (book and dvd with same title)

I am going to discuss one of Neil Clark Warren’s books in more detail now. His books are all based on the idea of matching up singles based on dimensions which he has identified. Neil Clark Warren is the author of many relationship books and the founder of the eHarmony dating website. He was a psychologist and a minister, both of which preceded his creating eHarmony to provide practical help to singles. Because he was a minister, some of his religious beliefs do find their way into his books. I do not find that this detracts from his excellent relationship advice. If you are not religious, you can still make use of his relationship advice. If you dismiss his books because you don’t agree with his religious beliefs, then I think you will miss out. Before I talk about his relationship books, I have a comment on his website. I don’t know how much he was involved in the website either in the beginning or now. I have never been able to use it. Every time I’ve tried, I am unable to fill out the questionnaire on the website, which has to be filled out to create a dating profile, because I don’t see how the questions there correspond to the ideas in his books, so I don’t see how the website would be able to use those ideas to find a match. Below is the list of 33 dimensions from the table of contents of his book Falling in Love for All the Right Reasons. Next to some I have made a comment or question that I will discuss further after the end of the list. I suggest any reader interested in knowing more about the dimensions below should look at the detailed descriptions of each dimension in the chapters in Falling in Love for All the Right Reasons:

Group 1: Screening dimensions

Good character, e.g. trust, honesty (avoid a lying, cheating manipulating, disrespectful person)
Quality of your self-conception
Watch out for red flags: e.g. jealousy, irresponsibility, stubbornness, impulsive behavior, etc.
Anger management
Obstreperousness: “critical, unappreciative, difficult to please” (from p.81 in the book)
Understandings about family (whether both partners want to have a family)
Family background (effect of upbringing, but I think the effect can vary. A person who grew up in a negative family situation may make a good partner for the right person)

Group 2: The Core Personal dimensions

Intellect
Similar energy levels (at home, e.g. lazy or active and level of outside activities)
Spirituality (degree of religious observance. Also see my comments on religion below)
Education
Appearance
Sense of humor
Mood management (mood swings. I think this should be in the psychological screening group)
Traditional vs. nontraditional personalities
Ambition (work priority)
Sexual passion
Artistic passion (this can also take the form of a traditional vs. nontraditional personality issue)
Values (see discussion below)
Industry (overlaps with energy level and ambition dimensions)
Curiosity (I would include this dimension as part of intellect)
Vitality and security (men value appearance and women value security. Is this a dimension?)
Autonomy vs. closeness.

Group 3: Skills that can be developed

Communication
Conflict resolution
Sociability

Group 4: Qualities that can be developed

Adaptability
Kindness
Dominance vs. submissiveness which is also described in the book as indecisiveness

Two additional dimensions are listed in the table of contents of the book but not part of any group: Chemistry (I think this is the result of compatibility and attraction, not a separate dimension) and Commitment (I think this is a decision, not a dimension). Two additional dimensions that I think should be added are Companionship (also a result of compatibility) and Happiness with your partner. Some readers may agree with the dimensions exactly as they are presented in the book, and some readers may say why change them if they work as on eHarmony. My answer is I think they can work better, or can work for more people. My comments from here on about Neil Clark Warren’s book should not be considered criticism of his basic idea of using dimensions as a guide to what to look for or to avoid in a prospective partner, but I question the choice of dimensions, and I want to suggest how they might be organized differently. I am only concerned with the book here, not with the eHarmony dating website. However, before I do that, I want to make a selection from Appendix A of the book where he explains how he recommends his dimensions be applied:

“Dissimilarities create the need for negotiation; negotiation almost always creates the need for compromise, and compromise will always require you to stretch or bend, which causes tension and is not always easy to handle. Even if you do make the necessary changes, you will still experience the stress and strain that accompany change. Let’s be honest; there is enough change in the best of relationships even when you have a lot of things in common. Why ask for more change if you can possibly avoid the hassles by finding a partner who is more like you?  When you don’t have a lot of similarities, marriage becomes a struggle. Both of you begin to feel isolated and alone. The person you are living and sleeping with becomes a stranger, and those areas of dissimilarity seem to expand, creating hurt, frustration, and anger.

People often ask me, ‘How many similarities do you need to have a great relationship?’ Or, to put it another way, ‘Is it all right to have some dissimilarities?’

Yes, it is okay to have a few areas in which you and your mate are radically different, but not many. In the book Finding the Love of Your Life, I included a fifty-item list of helpful marriage similarities. The list, which can be found on the eHarmony Web site, includes such matters as:

• Expected roles for both persons within the marriage
• Desire for verbal intimacy and ability to be intimate
• Hobbies and interests
• Attitudes about cleanliness—house, clothes, body, etc.
• Size and style of house
• How to spend vacations
• Temperature of the home during the day and night

When two individuals’ attitudes are similar toward these matters and many more, it makes for a more stable and satisfying marriage.

‘How many of these fifty do we need to have in common?’ someone asks. ‘All fifty?’

‘No, you don’t want to marry your clone,’ I tell them. On the other hand, I like couples to have their similarities in the high thirties or low forties out of our list of fifty. You don’t want to have too many things that you fuss about. For instance, a couple gets together and he likes to watch action movies or sports on television, and she likes to watch drama and the arts. She likes to go to bed early, and he likes to go to bed late. She likes to get up early; he likes to get up late. He is re- ally excited about sex, and she is not as interested in sex. She is a very spiritual person and wants to attend church or synagogue on the weekends. He is not into religion and wants to play golf on Saturday and Sunday mornings. After a while, you begin to say, ‘They are not living many parts of their lives in common. Could it be that they aren’t very well matched because they are so dissimilar?’ ” (p.220-221). See also his recommendation of matching 25-26 out of 29 (p.198)

The full list of 50 recommended similarities is also reprinted in Appendix C of Falling in Love for All the Right Reasons. I will not repeat the list here, since I feel that what I say below applies to that list as well. My first reaction upon reading the above list of 33 dimensions is that the list is too long. I don’t think the dimensions are equally important, and others should be subordinated under a more general category. For example, a lot of the screening dimensions are directly related to the psychology and mental health of the partner. A person’s psychological characteristics don’t necessarily imply a problem. It is how their brain is wired. However, there is no question a person with psychological issues is going to have a hard time sustaining a relationship and will make things difficult for the other partner who does not have such problems. Self-conception, red flags, anger management, etc. are all mental health related. The subject of mental health and treatment is too complicated to address here. I will discuss it in Chapter 12 of Volume III of my book. However, I will say here that even among those issues that perhaps could be changed, treatment is difficult. I have personal experience trying to have a relationship with someone with what I considered a borderline personality disorder. This was not a condition with which I had any previous experience, so it took time to recognize it. It ultimately destroyed the relationship that I wanted to continue.

One of the consequences of my suggestions here about how to re-arrange the list of 33 (or 50) dimensions is that it may not be necessary to match 80-90% of them as Neil Clark Warren suggests, and in any case, it may be very hard to find such a degree of match. For example, I believe that once the mental health issues are considered as a group, then a decision needs to be made from the beginning whether to go ahead with a relationship with someone who has “hard wired” problems difficult or impossible to change, or have a conversation about how to cope with the issues, or what is expected, or decide to find someone else from the beginning to whom those issues won’t apply. I do believe the psychological issues are the primary issues that will determine the outcome of the relationship, and attraction is either there or it isn’t and is more than just appearance, for example whether one partner finds the other exciting at best or boring at worst.

Before continuing, I want to say something about what I mean by the metaphor “hard wired”. I think there are many possible influences on how the brain works: genetics, family environment, other social influences, or the existence of some kind of cognitive disability as a result of organic effects on the brain from birth or effects of diseases, etc. I do not think it is possible to determine the causes, nor do I think there is necessarily any benefit to know the causes, because I believe the effect is very hard to change. Neil Clark Warren recognizes this fact because in Falling in Love for All the Right Reasons (p.60, 82) he says he refused to accept patients in his clinical psychology practice who had borderline personality disorders, because he thought they were too difficult to treat, and he believes there are only three things that can change a person: prison, the military and what he calls a “spiritual transformation”, which I prefer to call the result of a traumatic experience. I will return to the subject of psychological insight in Chapter 12 of Volume III of my book.

Another question I have about the 80-90% match recommendation in Falling in Love for All the Right Reasons is that it seems as if it places equal importance on issues which I consider very unequal. I also think the book fails to distinguish sufficiently between hard wired traits and lifestyle. I want to separate hard wired traits from lifestyle because hard wired traits are nearly impossible to change so they should be used for screening. Lifestyle may create many annoyances, but it may be possible to overlook some of them if the more important basis for the relationship is otherwise favorable. The screening dimensions determine who, but the important lifestyle dimensions determine what your life together will be like, and how to accomplish it, or even whether it can be accomplished. I will return to the subject of the lifestyle dimensions later below.

Before moving on to other books, I want to say something more about the dimensions listed in Falling in Love for All the Right Reasons, and why I look at some differently than the book does, and why I would assign more importance to certain ones. I think the screening issues are much more important than lifestyle, and the book’s list of dimensions should be re-arranged accordingly. I don’t think one percentage can be applied across the board. Perhaps the screening dimensions should be 100%, but the lifestyle dimensions need be only 50%. Before discussing the screening issues, I want to suggest that some dimensions are merely factual. A person should decide from the beginning how important these issues are in choosing a partner and whether any of them are dealbreakers. Below are some questions I consider factual. There may be others that can be added:

Age appropriate?

Class background in your birth family/at present and how it affects your values about what is most important to you in a relationship
Religious background of your birth family/at present and how it affects your values
Racial or ethnic background
Addictions (included in the “red flags” category in the book)
Psychiatric history/criminal history/current therapy or psychiatric medications (also in “red flags”)
Disabilities if any and how you cope with them/what you will tolerate in a partner
Sexual orientation (see notes before table on last page of this discussion of relationships)
Your “dealbreakers” (qualities which you cannot accept in a partner) e.g. smoking, appearance

Once these factual questions are considered, then it is possible to move on to the screening questions. However, I would like to make a few comments about these factual questions. How much importance should be placed on them? I can imagine that many singles look only for someone of a certain age or appearance. I haven’t included appearance among the above factual questions because I consider it a separate category which is not just factual but involves various judgments or preferences. As for age, my experience has been with a partner who is from 10 years younger to 4 years older. I’m 67 at the time of this writing, but I look younger. For myself, I think someone who is no younger than their 50s would be age appropriate, but I can’t speak to what I haven’t experienced. There is no right or wrong decision about which of the above factual questions are important to someone. However, I think that unless there is a good reason, excluding someone because of some fact about them really amounts to a prejudice. In my case, of the small number of relationships I have had, racial/ethnic background has not made any difference. My longest relationship was with a racially mixed partner. It did enter my mind when starting the relationship that this difference could be a complication. As it turned out, it made no difference and was unrelated to the problems that did arise. As for religion, I have beliefs, but I do not practice any religion. My partners have been of different religions. This did not present a problem, but if they were observant, that could create a conflict. I have not had a relationship with someone not born in the U.S. I would consider that a possible complication, but I cannot rule out the possibility.

Each person will place a different level of importance on class, occupation, intellect, education, etc. See discussion below about intellect. As for how class, occupation, intellect, education, etc. would affect my choice, even though I have a professional degree, I do not live a professional lifestyle. I have never had a relationship with a professional woman. I don’t think it’s possible. She would be unable to understand me or my lifestyle, but I can’t say for sure since it hasn’t happened. So professional vs. nonprofessional preference has been important to me and would continue to be important in my choice and, of course, in their mind any prospective partner would also be subjecting me to their preferences. While addictions and psychiatric/criminal history are a factual matter, they can easily become screening questions. I have had a bad experience with partners who have a long history taking psychiatric medications. However, suppose someone is depressed or drinks because they are alone? If they find a partner, this issue may disappear. One problem I see in using these issues to exclude someone from consideration is it may not be apparent before a relationship even begins or in the beginning of one what effect it will have later. It may take a long time, even years, before the full effect is observed, and whether the person with the issues is making any effort to overcome them if they are a problem in the relationship. I will address the question of disabilities below at the end of my discussion of Neil Clark Warren’s books.

So far, I have agreed with Neil Clark Warren’s screening dimensions while distinguishing which dimensions are merely factual. However, I think the category that he calls “Core personal dimensions” should be revised because some of the dimensions in it are really screening questions, because I think they are hard wired, but some of the other dimensions in that group are negotiable lifestyle questions which should be in their own group of lifestyle dimensions. I suggest that the following dimensions should be included in a separate group of dimensions that I would call something like “personal qualities”, because I think they are hard wired. Note that some (the four below plus Dominating/submissive) are for each partner to decide what they want:

Intellect and Education (see also comments below)
Traditional vs. nontraditional personalities
Energy level/ambition/industry
Values (see comments below)

Below are comments about several of the dimensions that I have included in this group, plus some dimensions where it is not clear whether or not their effect is serious enough to be a screening dimension or simply a character trait that a person will have to try to accept in their partner. See also my list below of additional wish list of “personal qualities”.

Intellect: I don’t believe comparing people’s intelligence is useful, but society certainly favors some over others. There are many different kinds of intelligence: practical, managerial, entrepreneurial, theoretical, artistic, working class vs. professional, etc. What is important in my view about this dimension is that I think it is hard-wired, so it really should be included in “personal qualities”. I think that intellects do not necessarily have to match. In my case, I do not want a partner with a similar intellect as mine but with a complementary one. So the issue needs to be considered, but there is no one size fits all. Like intellect, I am not sure comparing people’s education is useful either. Other than developing job skills, it is hard to say what effect education has. In any case, once we get to a certain age, educational level is not likely to change unless a person has tuition money, a career goal, a plan of how to get there and what to do after. Other issues I consider permanent are traditional vs. nontraditional (which can also play out as a lifestyle issue).

I think there is a correlation between intellect, occupation, etc. (which are also related to class) and personality. I place a lot of importance on psychological issues throughout my discussion about relationships, because I think it has a major effect on the success of the relationship. I will discuss theories of personality type in Chapter 12 of Volume III of my book. However, I’m not sure that the theories of personality type capture the full range of inborn differences between people. For example, what if a person needs a partner to have certain personal qualities, e.g. who is attentive, openminded, willing to learn or at least listen, tolerant, flexible, patient, devoted/loyal/supportive, understanding, etc.? These are a kind of wish list. No one will have all of them. Another related personal quality is whether a person is down to earth/practical vs. intellectual/academic. Another opposite of down to earth is flighty/excitable/full of unattainable fantasies, dreams, etc. In my case, I prefer someone down to earth. It seems to me that either a person has the qualities mentioned here or they do not, or to put it another way, if they are going to have those qualities, they must be second nature. If not, instead of having a harmonious relationship, it will be full of tension and resentment. I don’t believe anyone should compromise their essential nature in order to adapt to the needs of a partner. But it is no sacrifice if the qualities a person would like a partner to have are present by nature. I think consideration for the other person, having a sense of proportion about what matters and what doesn’t, as well as communication and effort, are also important.

In Neil Clark Warren’s book, I think his chapter on Values combines personal qualities and lifestyle issues which need to be distinguished and separated into my personal qualities group and lifestyle group to whichever they apply as I mark in parentheses below. In his chapter on Values, Neil Clark Warren’s discussion of values is mainly concerned with money management issues (lifestyle), political and social beliefs (affects personal qualities and lifestyle), etc. He does mention what he considers more basic values such religious practice (affects lifestyle), views about raising children (lifestyle), ethics (personal qualities), etc. I think the subject of values requires a more detailed discussion than in the book before that dimension can be usefully applied. Here is my view starting with a definition of values from the Wikipedia entry titled Value (ethics):

“In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of something or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live … or to describe the significance of different actions. … Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be. … Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior … It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.”

I have placed values in my proposed “personal qualities” group, although someone’s values, which are really their fundamental beliefs, are usually important enough to be a screening issue. Values can be about nearly any subject. Are the subjects of those beliefs all of equal importance? Can any be changed? Can a person who has opposite beliefs as their partner tolerate disagreement? I think it also helps to realize a person’s values can come from many sources: the society they grew up in, family, friends, school and reading, media, religion, experience, human nature, etc. The large variety of sources may account for the wide differences in people’s values, and some beliefs may change over time. Here are examples of subjects about which people have values or beliefs that will affect their actions. The first column of subjects below is from the table of contents of Social and Personal Ethics, 2^nd ed., by William Shaw (Wadsworth, 1996). The second column of subjects below is from the table of contents of Applied Ethics : a Multicultural Approach, by May and Sharratt (Prentice-Hall, 1994). Note that some issues are within the control of the individual. Other issues are more a matter of governments, but still no less important:

This list is not necessarily complete. An important question in my mind is whether there are values about which everyone should agree, beyond what the law allows and doesn’t allow. In other words, I don’t think fundamental values should be a matter of personal preference. As Isaiah Berlin put it, neither he nor I will find acceptable a society where the system of values known as relativism prevails where there is no way to settle extreme differences of opinion and resulting action such as “I like kindness and you like concentration camps”. This comparison seems obvious to resolve, but Volume II of my book outlines widespread harms which are tolerated in American society and not prohibited by law. I will discuss values further in Volume III of my book. Lifestyle is discussed further after the end of my comments on Neil Clark Warren’s book.

There are probably other personal qualities that could be added to my proposed list above, but the ones I included in the list should be enough for me to make the point I want to make. If such personal qualities in one partner are essential to the other partner, and unless these personal qualities are present by nature, they will not suddenly appear. So I think each partner should decide which personal qualities are important to them as screening questions in the version of a computer dating questionnaire that I am proposing here, and those questions need to be asked. I should also point out that a couple consists of two persons, which means that each partner is looking for something in the other, perhaps very different personal qualities. This makes a match that much more difficult. Some of us will also bring certain deficiencies to the relationship. I spent 25 years trying to understand mine. My conclusion from that effort is that change is difficult and while books may help, it may not be enough. Some lessons and skills must be learned through experience. It is difficult for people to change and probably not fair to have too high of expectations for change nor would there be any guarantee that even if an effort was made that it would succeed.

I mentioned mindfulness training earlier in my list of books by Barbara de Angelis. Just to point out how complicated it can be to try assess someone’s else’s personal qualities, from my own personal experience, I looked for a partner with a “down to earth” personality including being attentive. However, much to my surprise, it turned out that this quality was not enough. More than one of my partners listened when a problem was discussed, but there was never any resulting change that would solve the problem. Something in their character prevented it. The person could be attentive (a skill) but not grasp the concept (understanding) of how to use it in the relationship. How do we explain such complexities? Is it because their mind was focused on the self and its mental distractions rather than focusing on being present with their partner? Is it a discomfort with a certain kind of intimacy or possibly being dissatisfied with how I express mine? Is it a question of being judgmental or nonjudgmental as in mindfulness practice? What if the person is simply restless or dissatisfied by nature? The only answer to this particular problem is the same answer I recommend for all the “personal qualities” screening: if the person does not have the personal qualities that the other partner needs to be happy, then there is not much hope that the relationship will succeed in the long term. Mindfulness is a complicated subject which I cannot discuss further here. I will return to it in Chapter 12 of Volume III of my book.

One last point I want to make about adding a “personal qualities” group to the list of dimensions to consider, is that it is not clear to me whether all “good character” qualities like trust, honesty, adaptability, etc. exist independently of a person’s psychology or can be overwhelmed if the person has psychological problems. Another way I like to look at this question is the difference between being incompetent and being malicious. A person can have good personal qualities but bad behavior, because their psychological issues get in the way. The other partner will have to be very understanding to see the difference and be able to accept a person’s deficiencies, especially if they are of a kind that really can’t be changed or take a very long time to change. So it may be a fair conclusion that the “good character” question is yet another part of a person’s psychology.

Neil Clark Warren has two additional groups after his list of “Core personal dimensions”, namely the “Skills that can be developed” group and the “Qualities that can be developed group”. Except for the communication and conflict resolution dimensions in those groups, I believe the dimensions listed are hard wired. Therefore, I think they should be included in my proposed “personal qualities” group. I am willing to believe that communication and conflict resolution can be learned or improved, but my personal experience is that no matter how much effort is put into either one, the effort will not overcome hard wired psychological issues. How important the dimensions of humor, autonomy vs. closeness, and dominance vs. submissiveness are and what effect they have is hard to judge. There are different kinds of humor, so this issue is hard to compare. Autonomy and closeness may be related to my discussion of “relationship style” below. As for dominance and submissiveness, I have had partners who were dominating. I prefer to treat a partner, and I prefer a partner who treats me, as an equal. I have also had partners who were indecisive, which also created conflict. However, I do like partners who are a little bit daring and not afraid of relationships or afraid of what other people will think of them or how they want to live their life. I’m not sure what to call that dimension, maybe part of personality. I also consider myself supportive of feminist beliefs, however I have not met any women who said they were dedicated to feminist beliefs. I would be interested in seeing what would happen if I met one.

I should say here that someone should only consider a relationship, or should discuss with their prospective partner early on, by first doing a lot of soul searching about themselves. How good a partner do they think they are for someone else? What, if anything, can be changed? It takes a lot of honesty to see oneself clearly. I don’t believe the idea that someone who recognizes their problems can easily fix them through therapy or other means. Even many people with problems still want partners. The better solution may be to find a partner who understands the issues and can accept them. Some people will simply require a partner who is willing to accept certain sacrifices. See also the chapter “Rescue Marriage” in Judith Wallerstein’s book The Good Marriage for more on the idea of partners whose strengths and deficiencies are complementary which together can make for a strong couple and not a dysfunctional couple. I think these questions of character are closely related to personality type. I think that a match taking personality type into account may tend to encourage the better qualities and better cope with the deficient ones.

One final issue which I did not see in Neil Clark Warren’s book is the question of acceptance by one partner of a disability in the other partner, not of the kind like a mental issue which would interfere with a relationship, but rather something which also requires acceptance because it can’t be changed. Some disabilities, like physical disabilities are obvious, however some are more subtle like Aspergers Syndrome, where a person has some above average and some deficient skills. Such a person might still make a good partner for the right person. How such a match might be found is something which has not been given enough attention in my opinion. See the last part of this discussion of relationships for my proposed suggestions for all types of persons to find relationships. I will return to the subject of disability again in Chapter 12 of Volume III of my book. I now move on to a few other writers about relationships whose books I have read and liked:

The Five Love Languages : How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to your Mate, by Gary Chapman.

About misunderstanding due to differences in emotional communication between partners which affect how one partner perceives the other’s level of caring, sincerity, etc.

Two in a Bed : The Social System of Couple Bed Sharing, by Paul C. Rosenblatt

Not a relationship book per se, but discusses subjects that make a difference: e.g. sharing a bed, talking and touching, temperature preferences, sleep quality, lighting, noise tolerance, anger, etc.

The Hard Questions for an Authentic Life : 100 Essential Questions for Designing Your Life from the Inside Out, by Susan Piver

The Hard Questions : 100 Essential Questions to Ask before You Say ‘I Do’, by Susan Piver

The above two books and several others like it such as Lies at the Altar, by Robin L. Smith, and Intellectual Foreplay : Questions for Lovers and Lovers-to-be, by Eve and Steven Hogan, consist mainly of questions that a couple could  discuss either at the beginning of a relationship or later. Here’s how Susan Piver describes her purpose in the first title above:

“I learned about the power of asking questions … when I was thinking about getting married. I was deeply in love with my boyfriend, Duncan. We had been together for four years and were certain about our feelings, but I was still very afraid of getting married. Hadn’t all my divorced friends been in love at the time of their marriage? Why would we be any different? In thinking about these things, I realized that getting married wasn’t only about being in love and staying in love – it was about creating a life together that we both loved. I couldn’t find any resources to help us figure out if we could create such a life together or not, so I began writing down questions about money, friends, home, children, spirituality, and so on. We began answering them together and something really amazing happened: it turned out not to matter whether we agreed, disagreed, or didn’t know how to answer any particular question. The act of considering the questions together created a revealing, instructive dialogue between us. … After we were married, some answers began to change – some agreements became disagreements, and vice versa; answers emerged for what was previously unanswerable. We kept checking in with each other, using the questions as guides. We learned that it wasn’t the answers that were valuable – it was the questioning process.” (p.xxii)

Before I mention my comments about these two books, I want to address a question that may occur to some readers, namely my own personal view of marriage. Perhaps I am not qualified to comment, since I haven’t been married, but my view is that signing a piece of paper does not create something which is not already there, namely compatibility. It can also happen, as it did to me, that a potential lifetime partner is met too early in life, decades before I was ready. There may be practical reasons for marriage, such as when there are children. Where marriage is just an option, I want to have confidence that I am making the right decision which means knowing the person over many years time. As for the question of love, I think it means different things to different people and is a topic worth looking into. However, because I think of that subject as more a question of psychology, I will include the subject of love in Chapter 12 of Volume III of my book.

I wanted to pick out the questions that I thought were worth asking from the above and similar books that I have read and came up with the following list more as a mental exercise for myself rather than for the purpose of a discussion that I would actually have with a partner or prospective partner unless they wanted to discuss these subjects. No previous partner of mine expressed any interest in discussing these. Most of these questions are matters of lifestyle:

Preferred living arrangements/type of home/urban/suburban/rural/geographic location
Whether you have children/grown or not/want more
Neatness
Housework
Work/what kind/how many hours/in or out of the home/level of income desired and by whom
Entertainment preferences
Spending habits
Whether you drive/want to travel
Whether you are sociable with friends/family or whether you are a loner
TV habits and amount per day
Food
General health and exercise habits
Day or night person/sleep habits
Conformist or nonconformist/materialistic or nonmaterialistic
Liberal or conservative/activist/observant or not, e.g. politics, religion, equality
Sexual style (see also “relationship style” comments below about “being” vs. “doing”
Future plans, dreams, etc. and how that could affect your relationship

The above list should not be considered complete, nor do I think they are of equal importance. I think the ones of lesser importance are those that are negotiable. For myself and a potential partner, in order to improve the chances of being compatible, I would place more importance on such questions as location (would you be willing as a practical matter to relocate to mine if you don’t already live in the area?), choice of occupation (which I think is closely related to one’s personality, to what kind of person you are, and to how much time and attention your work requires), sociability and entertainment preferences, conformist/nonconformist, materialistic/nonmaterialistic, and sexual style and relationship style (see next paragraph). By nature, and due to my occupation, I’m a homebody. It would be better for me to have a partner who is also a homebody by choice, or due to a disability, and can entertain themselves so they are not bored or resentful with me. While they could simply go off on their own activities by themselves, in my view that would defeat one of the purposes of having a relationship in the first place. I think occupation would have a much greater effect on available time (because it is 5-7 days a week) as opposed to entertainment activities which are less time consuming but can still be a source of conflict if the partners don’t agree on it.

Sexual style is a major issue for those partners to whom a physical relationship is important. However, I think there is a related issue that could be called “relationship style”. It includes entertainment preferences, but goes beyond a mere choice of activities into an issue of more importance. I think partners should agree on which is more important to them: “being” or “doing”. Is a person calm and patient by nature or restless by nature? At least two of my relationships have been with someone who was continually dissatisfied with what is and always thinking of what could be. Their mind was always somewhere else. One even rejected any relationship which was “being like an old married couple”. I don’t think being like an old married couple is bad. I don’t think a compatible relationship is possible without matching these major lifestyle choices.

The question of wanting to have children is a screening question, but whether or not to have a relationship with someone who already has children becomes a lifestyle question for each potential partner to decide. As for me, there is nothing in my background that qualifies me to have children or to be a parent for all the reasons that matter, e.g. emotional, financial, etc. Half of my previous partners had at least one child and half didn’t have any children. Since the children of the partners who had them were old enough to be independent, it was not a factor in the relationship. I don’t think the question of wanting children is subject to compromise. The best solution to that question is to pair together those who want children and pair together those who don’t. I think some of the dimensions in Neil Clark Warren’s list are fundamentally personal qualities but also affect lifestyle: energy levels/ambition/industry (whether one is a homebody or requires constant entertainment), effect of religious beliefs on degree of religious practice, etc. It is possible for a couple to be opposites on some lifestyle issues. I think some issues are more important to be in sync than others.

Finally, I think some of the dimensions in the list are not important enough to matter or they should be included in other categories or they are part of personality type. Even before I first read Neil Clark Warren’s books, I concluded that psychological issues (the effects of how a person’s brain is wired), lifestyle and appearance (chemistry, passion) are what matters, and nearly all of the dimensions above could be included in one of these three categories. The psychological issues should be subject to careful study, what Neil Clark Warren calls screening. My prognosis based on personal experience about a mismatch is not encouraging. In my case, even with a partner who I would not regard as having either problems with character or psychiatric problems, there was constant tension which was nobody’s fault but rather a direct result of conflicting personality types which I don’t think can be changed. By comparison, the mismatch of lifestyle was merely an annoyance. There are other relationship books which I have, many of them could be described as marriage advice books or marriage counseling books, that have more to do with holding onto a relationship that a couple already has rather than advice about finding a relationship, but I haven’t read them so I can’t talk about them at this time. Such books may be useful to singles as well.

Proposal for trying to solve the problem of how to better match up singles

The purpose of the following proposal is to better serve the people who are not being well served by the current system for finding a partner. I am trying to describe below alternatives/changes to the existing commercial online dating market. In order for any of what I suggest to work here, it would be necessary (1) for the U.S. to take relationships more seriously as a social issue, and (2) not to make a commercial enterprise out of it which will not be easy to accomplish due to resistance by the corporations who profit from the present system. The following selection from the article in Wikipedia entitled “Marriage Markets” describes a method requiring little or no funding:

“A marriage market is a public place where parents list advertisements for their children with the aim of finding a marital spouse for them. People then congregate there and read the listings, often in the hope of finding a marital match. Several marriage markets exist in China, such as Shanghai’s marriage market at People’s Square and at several parks and other public places in Beijing, such as shopping malls.”

The above shows that other countries have a history of trying to find ways of making it easier to facilitate relationships than exists in western countries. While internet dating in a way does the same thing, most dating sites are not free. A market also has the advantage of being in one’s local geographic area. The above seems to be designed for families to arrange marriages. To do something like that here, there would need to be a way to accommodate an ad by the actual single person looking for a match. The next step would be government funding. I do not know exactly how the following system works, but it seems it may work better for singles than the above marriage market. The following excerpt is from Wikipedia’s article on Matchmaking:

“In Singapore, the Social Development Unit (SDU), run by the city-state’s government, offers a combination of professional counsel and dating system technology, like many commercial dating services. Thus the role of the matchmaker has become institutionalized, as a bureaucrat, and every citizen in Singapore has access to some subset of the matchmaking services that were once reserved for royalty or upper classes.”

The idea of matching couples by dimensions as described in Neil Clark Warren’s books (but as I mentioned above, I’m not sure to what extent they were transferred to the eHarmony website) is still the most sophisticated idea I have seen. I seem to recall that “computer dating” originated as a questionnaire, whose answers a computer then analyzed and attempted to match with the answers from other questionnaires which had been submitted to the computer dating service. Whether or not the current online dating sites actually do this, my conclusion based on personal experience and my analysis above of the dimensions described by Neil Clark Warren, is that I see two major problems: (1) the pool of “candidates” is not large enough or is scattered among too many websites, and (2) the websites don’t ask enough of the right questions or don’t weight the answers properly.

I don’t remember the details, but I once saw on tv an interview of an average young couple where the male said that looking for a partner should be like shopping for a used car, namely the person looking decides what features they want and looks for someone with those features. While some readers may object to this comparison, it appealed to me when I heard it, but I realized later that besides the question of how to find that person, suppose someone doesn’t know what to look for? I don’t just mean the various dimensions listed above, which a person wouldn’t know about if they hadn’t thought or read about it, but even very basic features like physical characteristics? Not even knowing what to look for makes finding a suitable match difficult. I know that it took many years for me to realize my preferences. When I tried online dating, I thought it would enable me to find a partner that matched my preferences once I knew what those preferences were, but for whatever reason it just didn’t work for me. One problem was I couldn’t enter onto the dating website all the features I wanted because many of those subjects weren’t listed as subjects that could be searched either as describing me or what I was looking for, and there were too few possible candidates.

The only way I can think of to solve these problems requires two changes to the existing online dating system (or some alternative system like those in Asia): (1) To rewrite the dating site questionnaires so they are more detailed and entirely or nearly all objective yes and no answers or choices from among a list of possible answers so it operates more like the original computer dating services where a computer does the matching, and (2) to merge all the dating sites into what I call the Giant Overall Database until someone suggests a better name, with all the singles currently looking for a match. In order to gather the maximum number of “candidates”, there would also need to be some effort to recruit candidates who would not otherwise submit their information to dating sites. It is important to add these names to the pool. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that there are many possible candidates, especially women, who might consider a relationship but for various reasons do not make any effort. The question of how far to extend the geographic range would depend on whether this idea is taken seriously. I have not attempted to actually draft a proposed questionnaire here, since that is premature considering how much attitudes would have to change first, and devising the questionnaire would not be for me to do anyway, but it would need to contain the following sections. See also summary on the last page of my discussion here:

1. Factual questions, such as physical information about self and what one is looking for
2. Screening questions about self and what one is looking for
3. Personal qualities about self and what one is looking for
4. Lifestyle questions about self and what one is looking for
5. Attraction/chemistry is also important including answers about each other’s needs

As for appearance, it all depends on what one partner is willing to accept in the other. Personally, I think each partner should appeal to the other’s physical preferences if possible. I don’t know why, but in my case I do have a preference for southern European/Mediterranean (dark eyes/dark hair) physical appearance, although that does not mean they actually have to be from that area. I don’t know whether I could ignore my preferences if necessary. I also prefer short women because I’m of slender build, and I feel like that is a more comfortable fit. I should think that most people, as I do, also have a preference about body type. As for looks, there is no reason why the woman should be better looking than I am. Otherwise, why would she want me? If a prospective partner is in other respects a good match, with some mismatch in physical preferences, perhaps it would be wise for the other partner to compromise. In other words, how important is any of this? In the end, whatever relationship is possible will come down to what the other partner is willing to accept, which for any prospective partner for me means someone who is willing to live with a writer my age and the lifestyle that goes along with it. I think the computer program that searches for a match would have to be able to assign a priority or weighting of relative importance to each dimension or ask the person in the questionnaire to assign an importance from a 1-5 list.

One of the problems with any kind of online dating service, including the one I propose, is what could generally be called “honesty”. Other than con artists, I don’t think most candidates intentionally misrepresent themselves. However, it is difficult to be honest about oneself. One may even believe that one is being honest while failing to recognize serious character defects. This is probably not uncommon. The only way that I can think of to try to solve this problem is to have trained screeners interview candidates in person and assess whether what they say in their profile corresponds to what the screener observes or could investigate. For those online dating participants with personal safety or privacy concerns about adding their profiles to a massive online dating pool, there is also the possibility of expanding the traditional matchmaking services which rely on in-person screening and interviews to act as intermediaries in making the actual introductions, but a way needs to be found to fund the cost of these services if used for that purpose. Working through intermediaries would also help solve any honesty problem. Does this country or any country wish to take the issue of relationships seriously, or just laugh it off and let the consequences take care of themselves, and take the attitude, as in the case of homeless mental patients, that such issues are of no concern to those whose lives are successful. Lest those in government say relationships are not their concern either, they and the taxpayers are already paying the costs of ignoring the effects.

Related to the question of matching singles and the social cost of not taking this task seriously and instead leaving it up to corporations to run it as a profit making business, whether they actually help the singles or not, is the possibility of  using such a matching system as I am proposing to try to provide care to certain categories of single women. I am making a proposal here that has never been attempted as far as I know. This could probably only work providing the care to women, but I have often wondered what if successful men, or successful women for that matter, presumably without families or with the approval of their families, were willing to use some percentage of their monies to help homeless women, unemployed women, women released from psychiatric hospitals or jails, as a possible placement option for the courts to consider after release, women with addictions and possibly even with backgrounds as street prostitutes, rather than leaving the job of caring for them entirely up to government which is not doing a very good job at it? Just what form the care would take, whether a job, a place to live on or off premises of the sponsor, tuition paid for education or job training, or something more personal, would have to be determined. Even if it isn’t easy to help those women who have problems, it could be attempted on a short or long term basis depending on the particular person, their situation, and their potential for success. Men in a position to help would not necessarily have to possess substantial resources as long as they had some kind of refuge to offer. What justification is there to letting these women fend for themselves on the street when there might be an alternative? Such an idea would require a whole change of American attitude and change in prevailing moral values which would stand in the way. Some women have simply had bad luck and are or about to be homeless or jobless. Why exclude them from the pool of available matches? I had a relationship lasting many years with a partner who did not have a permanent address and was jobless at the time we met. So from personal experience, I can say that the above suggestion is workable for some of these women.

Before leaving my discussion of relationships, I want to mention something about a controversial subject, namely prostitution, because I think that subject is relevant to my computerized matching proposal above. I do not want to take the time to do extensive research about prostitution, however when I did a quick online search using the keywords “alternatives to prostitution” this article appeared entitled “Selling an Alternative to Prostitution” from the website governing.com:

“In Dallas, it’s unknown how many men and women engage in prostitution, but street prostitution alone results in several thousand arrests a year. It’s a revolving door too: The same men and women jailed and released on probation one year, are out on the streets being rearrested the next. A new approach to the world’s oldest profession, however, is hoping to reverse that trend. In 2007, the Dallas Police Department launched the Prostitution Diversion Initiative. The program considers prostitutes sex trade victims, and offers them a multi-step in-patient and out-patient treatment program instead of a criminal record. Once a month, police set up a staging area, roundup prostitutes, confiscate their property and interview them for information about criminal activity. Afterwards, social service workers assess if a prostitute needs STD testing, medical care and drug, alcohol and mental health counseling. Finally, they go before a judge, and as long as they have no felony warrants and seem sincere are given the opportunity to avoid jail and enter rehab. The program’s success has been modest at best: Of the 185 out of 375 women that have chosen rehab, just 21 have turned their lives around. But police see long-term value in the program. It has not only helped them develop leads in unsolved cases but has helped women learn to trust officers. Several cities are considering replicating the initiative …”

It is common knowledge that different attitudes and laws about prostitution prevail in different countries. I cannot speak to whether in some places it has been possible to minimize the problems. I do not want to take the time to do an international study and comparison, so these comments are limited to the U.S. Regardless of men’s motives for seeking such women, it is likely prostitution would not exist except for economic necessity of the women, so this is partly an economic problem. I think most people still do not think that prostitution is a good thing except for entrepreneurs who are profiting from it. I also think that anything that improves conditions for women is a good idea. The above online article suggests that even where there is an alternative to using the law to deal with this situation, and the laws themselves are based on the particular morality and economic system that prevails throughout the U.S., what little is being done now is not working. For a country that claims to be based on Christian principles, it is amazing to me how much exploitation is tolerated. Although some feminists have equated marriage with prostitution, street prostitution is surely not safe for the women from a health, safety and psychological standpoint.

I also do not think that it is a satisfactory answer for the men either. When I was a teenager, out of curiosity I remember reading about prostitution that said receiving sexual services for money cannot bring any satisfaction because it is a business transaction and there is no real feeling possible. It also omits all the other benefits of a relationship. Possibly a distinction should be made between exploited women and women who cater to a richer clientele and who do not do so from the streets, and perhaps have regular customers similar to what Alexa Albert reported in her book on Mustang Ranch, a study of legal prostitution at one particular location in Nevada. Instead of, or in addition to, whatever government funded programs there are to help women that need it, why can’t a private effort be made to find them a place to go? This would surely go against traditional ideas of who should be considered potential partners, but I imagine that every case is different and has to be considered on an individual basis. Aren’t these women entitled to a better life than living on the streets? I see no reason why an effort to make more suitable matches between men and women should discriminate before even finding out if such an idea can work in practice. I would suggest that in considering a relationship with anyone with a problematic background, no matter what it is, would require close questioning over a period of time by the person interested in helping.

The above discussion of prostitution also raises the question of what the word relationship really means to different people. One objection that could be raised to prostitution is that transient relationships are a poor substitute for long term relationships. But does everyone want a long term relationship? I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer here. I think allowance has to be made for different attitudes. My whole reason for discussing relationships on this website is to see whether there is something that could be said that would be useful to those who do not currently have satisfactory relationships. One of the questions that could be asked is why do they have this problem? One explanation could be a person’s social skills. For those with below average social skills, or some psychological issue that makes it more difficult for them to search for someone, some kind of matching service is needed. In my case, it is simply not possible for me to meet potential partners in public places, because I don’t have the social skills necessary to do that. For someone who does, this way of trying to find partners is no problem. I also like to find a relationship with someone I can rely on in various ways. So for me, there is simply no alternative but to look for a long term relationship. That is what liberation would mean to me (see below), but I’m still unconventional, and the form that the relationship would take would still reflect that.

In my section on Henry Miller on this website, I mentioned the idea portrayed by the media that the so called sexual revolution of the 1960s liberated everyone. I don’t believe that one person or group’s lifestyle liberates another. What would real liberation look like? I tried at the beginning of this section of this website to get an idea of how happy people are with their relationships. Those statistics also appear to leave out those without a partner who wish to be with someone or those in a socially disadvantaged category. It is difficult to determine the level of people’s misery. By misery, I mean like that expressed in the quotation from Arthur Schopenhauer that opened this discussion, the daily misery of unmet needs. This is probably a subject that those people who feel that way don’t like to talk about, and even if they did it is likely to be misunderstood by those who don’t feel that way. I’m sure the current system works for some people. I will even concede that various unconventional ways of matching people might also work for some people. Arranged marriages are not unusual throughout history. Some people might be perfectly happy starting a relationship without knowing much about each other or simply don’t want to take the time to ask questions, in the hope that a partial match is better than not having a relationship at all, which is probably pretty common. From my own experience prior to trying to be more systematic about searching for a partner and even after, I can say that trying to maintain a relationship that is mismatched could go either way at any time. I would like to be able to find a better match, but I haven’t been able to find a way so far to search the way I describe above. I think a better match would make the situation more reliable for everyone, which is why I wrote this section of my website to suggest that better matched couples might better meet each other’s needs which is something I consider important, and that there may be ways of doing this which aren’t being tried.

Because this website is more personal than my books, I think any woman reading my website can get a good idea of what I’m like if they are curious, although if my way of seeing the world is too different from theirs, then much of what I say simply won’t make any sense or will be rejected out of hand if it departs too much from their own beliefs. As far as my discussion here about relationships is concerned, if any woman is interested in knowing my answers to the lifestyle questions in my proposed questionnaire above, or has some other question or comment, let me know through the email at the bottom of this website which is also listed in my books. In my books, I mention the movie American Splendor, which portrays the life of comic book writer Harvey Pekar. In the movie, writer and artist Joyce Brabner writes him a letter which led to conversations which led within a short time (in the movie she says she wishes to skip the courtship phase) to them getting and staying married for 25 years until he died. If nothing else, this shows that knowing something first about a potential partner helps. Harvey Pekar’s writings were autobiographical, so what he was like was there for anyone interested to see.

As I mention several times throughout my book, because of the large number of subjects I cover in my books and on this website, it is not necessary to read all of it or to read it in the order in which I wrote it because the discussion of each subject is more or less self contained. I don’t expect the typical reader to be interested in all of the subjects. My books are designed to be a reference. This website can be read the same way. I didn’t set out to do my books and this website differently, I just followed my ideas, with support by other writers, wherever the ideas led me in order to share with the reader what I believe is important and what I think might be useful.

Summary in table form of sample subjects/groups in my proposed online dating questionnaire

I want to include this page as a summary of my above discussion. Notes about table: I have to abbreviate the subjects here. Read above for more details. This summary is mainly designed for the person searching but that person should question their own qualities too. The arrows represent connections between the groups, e.g. subjects in the factual and personal qualities group can become screening subjects, some subjects in the lifestyle group can also be considered personal qualities, and attraction can also be affected by the other groups, e.g. sexual/relationship style. The personal qualities group may present a problem trying to determine from a questionnaire. It is possible they can only be known over time. Personal qualities seem to divide into two types as noted. I have included sexual orientation in the factual group so as not to omit those persons as possible heterosexual partners. Finally, while the below chart may seem to be longer than Neil Clark Warren’s 29 dimensions, it is actually shorter. There are only 5 groups and the first 3 tend to exclude, leaving only the last 2 to consider, and not all subjects apply to everyone because what is important to one person may be quite different than what is important to another. The reason why I place so much importance on keeping these groups separate is because of what subjects are negotiable and what are not. A failed screen excludes someone. Some of lifestyle is negotiable.