![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!YPZY!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9a961d56-a996-4b66-b1f0-b758795704b3_5472x3648.jpeg)
<\/picture><\/div>The relationship ended. You know you need to move on. But it can still be so incredibly hhhaaaarrrrddd.<\/span><\/p>\n Even when your past relationship was clearly unhealthy and nothing like what you wanted, it can be difficult to end it. Maybe you\u2019re in an emotionally detached and empty relationship, but haven\u2019t had the courage to move on. Perhaps you\u2019re working to make things better and hoping that they\u2019ll eventually match your effort. The common thread in each scenario is that you know you\u2019re settling for less than you deserve, you know you never wanted this, and you feel like you just can\u2019t leave.<\/span><\/p>\n In every case, you know what you should do, but can\u2019t quite escape.<\/span><\/p>\n Why is it that the toxicity of a terrible partner is especially addictive?<\/span><\/p>\n Maybe you got out. When you did, you planned on never looking back.<\/span><\/p>\n And yet, it can be hard to implement that plan.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not like you\u2019re not meeting potential partners. Weirdly, the stable, kind, good partners don\u2019t feel quite right. But, the chaotic match from eighteen months ago still preoccupies your thoughts. You know that\u2019s backwards but you feel it anyway.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not you.<\/span><\/p>\n Emotional attachment to an ex-partner takes time to fade. Research shows that, for the typical person, the emotional bond fades entirely around 8 years (Chong & Fraley, 2025). No, this doesn\u2019t mean you\u2019re stuck for almost a decade. But it does show you that ex-partners linger. Also, the fact that your ex is still on your mind isn\u2019t a sign that you had a special connection or that you should go back. It just takes time for that connection to wither.<\/span><\/p>\n But, if attachment takes this long to dissolve for everyone, why does it feel like the bad ones take the longest?Partly, because although you know your ex was low-key toxic, the relationship was also pretty wonderful at some points (especially in retrospect).<\/span><\/p>\n That old relationship you miss, never existed.<\/span><\/p>\n You\u2019re romanticizing a fictional past.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Here\u2019s what it looks like: Your rational side knows you shouldn\u2019t miss it. You do anyway. Part of you craves the uncertainty and drama. It was complicated, mysterious, and exciting. In a weird way, it made you feel alive. But you\u2019re conveniently leaving out the pain and misery you felt at the time.<\/span><\/p>\n Psychologists have a name for this, <\/span>\u201c<\/span>ex-nesia.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/em> Ok, they don\u2019t call it that\u2026but I do, and feel like we all should. <\/span>Researchers actually call it the fading affect bias, which occurs when you more easily forget the negative aspects of past experiences, and more readily remember the positive emotions (Skowronski et al., 2014). (But we can all agree that \u201cex-nesia\u201d is a lot easier to remember than \u201cfading affect bias.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n Although the fading affect bias can promote healthy coping in general (Gibbons et al., 2021), like when mothers forget the pain of childbirth, it backfires for toxic exes. You conveniently forget the worst parts, but remember much of the good.<\/p>\n Your ex-nesia is just one way a terrible partner is hard to move on from. There\u2019s still so much more to it\u2026<\/p>\n The worst partners possess a powerfully alluring combination of inconsistency and incomplete information.<\/span><\/p>\n The worse partners are the best at keeping you guessing.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n You don\u2019t know much about them, their past, or their feelings. It becomes a tantalizing puzzle to solve. (Unfortunately we\u2019re suckers for a good mystery.)<\/span><\/p>\n Who is this person?<\/span><\/p>\n Fair question, because when you just start dating, partners are still a stranger for the first few months. At the exact time period in the relationship when you want to know literally everything about who they are, what they\u2019re like, and how this will turn out\u2026you actually know very little.<\/span><\/p>\n Naturally, your imagination runs wild and you starting filling in the missing information. That\u2019s what I call a F.I.B. (Filling In the Blanks): When you don\u2019t as much as you\u2019d like, you infer the missing parts. And you don\u2019t fill it in with just any information. You use wishful thinking. You hallucinate potential. It\u2019s going to be great, they\u2019re perfect, it\u2019s magical, they\u2019re the one. Really, there\u2019s a lot of false hope.<\/span><\/p>\n Your cipher of a partner encourages it. Why? Because they know your feelings encourage you to give benefit of the doubt in exactly the way that\u2019s most helpful to them. They know they don\u2019t have real substance, so they rely on your fictions. They don\u2019t have to lie, because you\u2019re the one telling yourself the story.<\/span><\/p>\n When you fill in the blanks, you\u2019re no longer dating them,<\/span><\/p>\n you\u2019re dating a story you wrote about them.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Here\u2019s an example of what a blank-filled partner looks like: Recently, a client was describing a conversation with a guy she\u2019s been on three dates with. She asked him, <\/span>\u201cWhat are you looking for?\u201d<\/span><\/em> He hesitated, so she shared that she was looking for something \u201creal,\u201d long-term and committed. He then responds, <\/span>\u201cMe too, I\u2019m just looking for the right person.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Sounds promising, right? Only if you\u2019re F.I.B.ing to yourself. When I suggested this wasn\u2019t a rock solid reply on his part, she countered with <\/span>\u201cWell, he didn\u2019t say he doesn\u2019t want a long-term relationship, so he probably does. Or will.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Sorry, but nope. That\u2019s an overly generous and hopeful interpretation. If that\u2019s really what he meant, he would have said so, and much more clearly. Look at what he actually said. Not much. If he really felt the same as you, how would he have responded? <\/span>\u201cMe too! I\u2019m also looking for something real and long-term.\u201d <\/span><\/em>That\u2019s an unambiguous response that doesn\u2019t require F.I.B.ing. <\/span><\/p>\n Authenticity and honesty is very direct.<\/span><\/p>\n Partners give you blanks by avoiding sharing information and answering questions because they don\u2019t want to tell you something you don\u2019t want to hear.<\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s another example I hear from lots of clients. You ask someone you\u2019re dating, <\/span>\u201cAre we exclusive?\u201d<\/span><\/em> They respond with, <\/span>\u201cWell, I\u2019m not seeing anyone else.\u201d<\/span><\/em> A perfectly unclear response. Unfortunately, if you\u2019re filling in the blanks, you\u2019ll hear it as commitment to exclusivity. But it\u2019s really not. Not even close. It\u2019s cleverly worded confusion. They could just mean right now at this very moment, I\u2019m not seeing anyone. So you know it when you see it, this is what true commitment sounds like, <\/span>\u201cAbsolutely, I only want to be with you and no one else.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Communication researchers have a useful lens here called the warranting principle (Walther & Parks, 2002). When forming impressions of someone, information the other person can\u2019t easily manipulate (what others say about them, what their actual behavior shows) is more reliable than the information they share themselves, which they can carefully curated to present a desired image.<\/span><\/p>\n Now consider what a vague, withholding partner gives you to work with. Nothing verifiable. No warrants at all. The entire impression is self-generated, except the self generating it is you. You curate their image for them. Not only does this type of idealization keep you in bad relationships, it also makes it more difficult to get over previous partner (Imhoff & Banse, 2011).<\/span><\/p>\n Don\u2019t let your feelings about somebody get in the way of the facts. Which means you\u2019re dating based on hope, not reality. You fall for the fantasy of what you wanted to be instead of paying attention to what actually was. Perhaps you convince yourself that you can see what no one can. (Which can make your connection feel artificially unique and special.)<\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019re all guilty of filling in the blanks to some extent. The part that makes the worst partners so captivating is that they bait you into it. They\u2019re purposefully vague. They don\u2019t share much\u2026of anything. What they share, they don\u2019t share easily. You have to work for it. That keeps you hanging onto whatever tiny crumbs they begrudgingly share or accidentally let slip. Those morsels feel more valuable than they should because you had to work for them.<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps you convinced yourself that you saw a side of them others never did. The real problem is that it makes your flimsy connection with an inconsistent and emotionally shutdown partner feel special. All of it keeps you coming back to see if you can get more. The dopamine payoff of the chase for more information is tantalizing (<\/span>Are You a Dopamine Dater?<\/span><\/strong>)<\/span><\/p>\n There\u2019s a reason no one else could see it. It was never there.<\/span><\/p>\n Banking on partner\u2019s hidden potential will leave you broke.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n We\u2019re actually pretty simple when it comes to relationships. We are all attracted to people who make us feel good. If they\u2019re fun, funny, hot, handsome, new, exciting, and interesting we want to spend more time with them.<\/p>\n Even the world\u2019s worst partner has their positive moments, otherwise they wouldn\u2019t ever end up anyone\u2019s partner. Not only that, bad partners are adept at timing. They\u2019re not good most of the time, but they\u2019re amazing in the right moments. They\u2019re masters of the well-timed grand gesture. <\/span>A really sweet text after days of silence. A great night after a bad week. <\/span>Flowers, a gift, a proclamation of \u201cI love you\u201d in the exact moment when you need reassurance.<\/span><\/p>\n The ups and downs are exciting because it builds in a sense of intrigue. You spend days wondering if everything is falling apart. Then you get one amazing day that erases your fears. But then the cycle repeats. Congrats, you <\/span>have a slot machine relationship based on intermittent reinforcement.<\/span><\/p>\n How do slot machines (which are one of the most profitable games in a casino) keep you coming back? Unpredictable rewards. Because casinos (and psychologists) know that not knowing when the good thing is coming, creates stronger attachment than consistent or predictable rewards. But, what anyone who has sat too long at a slot machine can tell you is that the house always wins, which means you lose.<\/span><\/p>\n The worst partners put you on an emotional installment plan.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n The uncertainty around the relationship \u201cpayoffs\u201d get easily mistaken for sparks, chemistry, butterflies, or attraction. Because that\u2019s what we do. When we have a sensation in our body, we label or interpret it however we see fit. Ironically, the exact same uncertain feelings could just as easily qualify as signs of fear, threat, emotional risk, danger, or impending doom. All things equal, what organisms really want is homeostasis, or more plainly, predictability and stability. You don\u2019t actually want all of that uncertainty.<\/span><\/p>\n Want even more proof that spark and \u201cclicking\u201d with someone is overrated? Researchers followed 168 couples from their wedding day for 13 years. The marriages that started with the most intense, cinematic romance were disproportionately the ones that ended in divorce. The couples who lasted started steadier and less sparky (Huston et al., 2001).<\/span><\/p>\n There\u2019s a second problem when it comes to past partners: You can\u2019t even trust your memory of the spark. When researchers listened to newlyweds describe how they met, they could forecast divorce with 87% accuracy (Carr\u00e8re et al., 2000), and couples headed for a breakup recalled their beginnings with more disappointment and chaos (Buehlman et al., 1992).<\/span><\/p>\n Your recall isn\u2019t always accurate though. It\u2019s a story that keeps getting rewritten to match how you feel now. If you miss a past partner, or really want your current situationship to become something more, your memories will reflect your hopes.<\/span><\/p>\n Put those together. The \u201cmagic\u201d you remember from the beginning of the worst relationships is the least trustworthy data you have, twice over. The spark was a bad sign when it happened, and your memory of it has been editing itself ever since.<\/span><\/p>\n Consistently good is better than occasionally great.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n When determining relationship success, baselines matter more than peaks. One great night a month doesn\u2019t cancel out 29 mediocre or painful days.<\/span><\/p>\n Now put the two mechanisms together. The slot machine conditioned you to chase the good feelings. The F.I.B. gave your mind a perfect person to attach that conditioning to. You mind and body get hooked on two different fictions.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s why the worst partners are so hard to detach from. You\u2019re avoiding a loss that isn\u2019t tied to a real person. It\u2019s phantom grief over the loss of a relationship that never existed.<\/span><\/p>\n What you miss, you never had.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n The imaginary version of a person is perfect because it\u2019s not real. That means it can be anything you want it to be in your mind. The old relationship that never quite materialized was still capable of being perfect. And maybe will if you give it another shot. Your current partner who never fully shows up, might, someday, with enough encouragement (or nagging). (Can you hear all of the false hope and anticipation in this?)<\/span><\/p>\n Both are projections. Neither are real. That means you can\u2019t mourn the failed relationship directly. It just sits there, exerting a gravitational pull, making every other possible partner feel inadequate by comparison.<\/span><\/p>\n Scarcity seals it. When one person feels like your only option, you convince yourself to overlook obvious red flags and settle for less than you deserve. It\u2019s not reality, it\u2019s fear. Research shows how much it matters: When we fear being single, letting go of an ex becomes significantly harder (Spielmann et al., 2013), even when we know the relationship wasn\u2019t good for us.<\/span><\/p>\n So no, you\u2019re not weak, broken, or pathetic for still thinking about your worst ex or staying with someone you know is wrong for you.<\/span><\/p>\n The past is data, not destiny. But data only helps if you actually read it, and right now your memory is editing the file. Below are a set of strategies for paid subscribers: the reality-check exercise that overrides ex-nesia, the question that shows you who he actually was, how to write an ending that hands you the closure they never will, and the three scripts for when they resurface. Because they will. In my experience, it takes about a month and half, but they\u2019ll circle back hoping you forgot how bad they were or lowered your standards. Best to get ahead of that to prevent future mistakes.<\/span><\/p>\n The worst partners are damaging because they\u2019re not completely awful. But they\u2019re all full of false hope. The truly great relationship you deserve is with a partner who is full of clarity, consistency, communication, and compatibility. That person doesn\u2019t require any guessing, filling in the blanks, or unwarranted optimism about them changing.<\/span><\/p>\n You\u2019re not asking for too much in your relationship.<\/span><\/p>\n You\u2019re just asking the wrong person.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Hope this helps,<\/p>\n Dr. L<\/p>\n If this helped, a like, share, or restack helps more people find it.<\/p>\n Have a comment? Please share. I read every one.<\/p>\n