![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!gj6k!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7822af5d-0343-4e84-a4c5-418d687397a4_6720x4168.jpeg)
<\/picture><\/div>Twenty minutes\u2026that\u2019s all it takes.<\/p>\n
You\u2019re pretty good at reading people, and you\u2019ve been on enough first dates to know someone\u2019s whole story before the appetizers clear. You\u2019re also an expert at scanning online dating profiles and knowing who to avoid. \u201cNo drama\u201d \u2026no thanks. Gym mirror selfie? Pass. Love bombing? Not falling for it (anymore).<\/p>\n
You\u2019re an expert at seeing the signs.<\/p>\n
You\u2019re also still single.<\/p>\n
Not for lack of trying. You\u2019ve done your time in the dating world and have some battle scars to prove it. You saw the red flags in a past relationship, and even suspected you knew what they meant. But\u2026you were overly hopeful and optimistic to the point that you ignored the signs as long as you could.<\/p>\n
No one can keep that up forever. At some point you realized you couldn\u2019t take it anymore and you promised yourself you\u2019d never miss the signs again.<\/p>\n
You may be overdoing it. Now you see them in everyone.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s red flag thinking, or hyper vigilance over anything that could potentially indicate toxic, unhealthy, or problematic relationship partners or patterns. This makes you \u201cbetter\u201d at anticipating, recognizing, and diagnosing problems or potential warning signs.<\/p>\n
Of course, you didn\u2019t invent red flag thinking all on your own. You absorbed it from a dating culture that treats fast disqualification as a skill and form of self-respect.<\/p>\n
It doesn\u2019t feel like a coincidence that red flag vocabulary took over right as dating apps did.<\/p>\n
The apps gave everyone an endless supply of options, and endless options change how people evaluate their options. In three studies of online dating, researchers found that people started rejecting more profiles almost immediately (Pronk & Denissen, 2020). By the end of a session, their likelihood of accepting someone had dropped 27% from where it started. As they reviewed more profiles, participants grew more pessimistic about the photos and about their own chances.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s weird right? Seeing more options should make you feel like there are, well, more options. Not fewer.<\/p>\n
But not if you\u2019ve taken the red flag pill and every person you see represents a problem to avoid. Then, seeing more profiles reminds you that there are tons of people out there with red flag worthy problems. Not surprisingly, that kinda kills your enthusiasm for meeting any of them.<\/p>\n
Red flag culture empowered and emboldened that rejection mind-set with a vocabulary that made it feel like some combination of wisdom, responsibility, and self-protection.<\/p>\n
Once you\u2019re fluent, every profile or interaction becomes evidence. A grammatical error. A questionable profile picture. A late text. A mention of an ex. A glance at a phone during dinner. A disagreement about something small.<\/p>\n
You stop asking who this person is and start asking what\u2019s wrong with them. The harder you look for danger, the more you find, because almost anything feels like danger to someone looking for it. When you look for problems, your\u2019e more likely to find them.<\/p>\n
Ironically, finding a partner with no visible problems also becomes a red flag because that can only mean that they\u2019re really good at hiding their issues. Everyone you\u2019ll ever date has baggage and some bad habits. Someone who seems to too good to be true, probably is. There is no way to win. Hence, you stay single.<\/p>\n
As humans, we naturally focus on the negative and your brain emphasizes bad information more heavily than good. Decades of research on close relationships, impressions, feedback, and learning show the same thing: Negative events get processed more thoroughly and carry more weight than positive events of the same size (Baumeister et al., 2001).<\/p>\n
Red flag culture took that natural negativity bias, gave it a catchy term and weaponized it against potential dating partners.<\/p>\n
A major problem with identifying red flags is how fast it happens. Your date makes a weird comment. That takes mere seconds to notice. Green flag qualities like trustworthiness takes months to build. In fact, all of the qualities that matter for long-term relationship fulfillment only reveal themselves over time: Support, follow-through, having the tough conversations, repair after a disagreement.<\/p>\n
Red flags are moments. Green flags are patterns.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
That means a flag-based dating culture will alway detect red ones first. Green flags never get a chance. In fact, because you never get far enough to see the green flags, you can convince yourself that they don\u2019t exist. This is an open invitation for believing \u201cthere are no good partners out there.\u201d The fact is there are no perfect partners. Only human ones who have a mix of good and bad qualities. Perfectionism will keep you perpetually single. (For more on this idea, check out <\/span>The Myth of the Complete Package<\/strong>.)<\/span><\/p>\n The other side effect of quick rejection is you never get to test your hypothesis, which makes your judgment always seem right. For example, if you decide a person\u2019s profile picture is a red flag that means they\u2019re narcissistic, you never bother to meet them. As a result, you never get to know if you were right. You simply imagine that you were. You\u2019re training yourself to believe you\u2019re getting more skilled and more sophisticated in your red flag detection. That only encourages more false alarms.<\/p>\n Overly aggressive red flag screening also keeps you from the part of dating that actually matters: Meeting in person. To study compatibility, researchers measured more than 100 traits and preferences in two groups of speed daters before anyone met (Joel et al., 2017). Then they used machine learning to predict who would want whom. The models were good at predicting how picky a given person was and how desirable a given person was. However, they could not predict which specific pairs would click. That part only showed up once two people actually met.<\/p>\n If high powered computers can\u2019t accurately predict who gets along with each other when they meet, what makes you think you\u2019re red flag screening is any better? (no offense)<\/p>\n You can\u2019t filter your way to something like long-term compatibility that only gets built based on in-person interactions over time.<\/p>\n New for paid subscribers:<\/strong> 8 printable practice guides with the exact words to say, from flirting and texting to turning someone down kindly. <\/span>Grab them here<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Standards are about what you require.<\/p>\n Hypervigilance tells you what to fear.<\/p>\n I know, I know. That sounds like semantics, but they really show up differently.<\/p>\n Someone with high standards says, \u201cConsistency matters to me.\u201d Totally fair.<\/p>\n Someone who is hypervigilant thinks, \u201cOne delayed text means they\u2019re pulling away.\u201d We can\u2019t be sure that\u2019s what it means.<\/p>\n Yet, both people would say they have standards.<\/p>\n Rejection sensitivity research reveals how that happens. People who anxiously expect rejection take a partner\u2019s ambiguous behavior and infer hurtful intent (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Based on that read of the situation, they react accordingly (likely in self-protective distancing), which strains the relationship they were trying to protect. Importantly, there was no objective red flag. The interpretation did all the work.<\/p>\n \u201cThey didn\u2019t text tonight\u201d becomes \u201cThey\u2019re losing interest.\u201d<\/span> To an objective outsider, the partner\u2019s behavior is innocent. The story you\u2019re telling is damning.<\/p>\n Rejection and selection are different skills.<\/p>\n Dating apps turned the problem from finding someone into filtering everyone, so the last decade of dating advice trained the first skill and assumed the second would follow.<\/p>\n However, knowing what you don\u2019t want doesn\u2019t make you skilled in knowing how to recognize what you do want (or how to keep it once you find it). You don\u2019t have to completely abandon your flag-detection system. But you would benefit from a recalibration that\u2019s better at identifying green flags.<\/p>\n Someone without red flags isn\u2019t automatically a good partner. The absence of bad isn\u2019t the presence of good.<\/p>\n If your only screening system is a threat detector, the best you can hope for is someone who doesn\u2019t hurt you. You deserve more than that.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Green flags require a bit more effort to detect because most don\u2019t show up on the first date. You can\u2019t spot \u201cOwns their shortcomings\u201d or \u201cCopes well with stress\u201d over cocktails. You see them in week three, when your date is running late and apologizes without a defensive speech, or when their work week falls apart and they don\u2019t take it out on you or the server. Green flags live in small, repeatable moments. When you\u2019ve trained long and hard to scan for red flags, you look right past the good stuff.<\/p>\n One green flag outranks most of the others: who you become around them. My colleagues and I study how relationships reshape the self, and one of the clearest distinctions is between relationships that add to who you are and relationships that shrink you (Mattingly et al., 2014). Over the first few months, notice whether you\u2019re becoming more of yourself around this person or spending your energy managing yourself. Those relationship that help you grow as a person are the way to keep a good relationship going strong.<\/p>\n Reading the whole person and looking for the good parts doesn\u2019t mean ignoring red flags. Some things end it on sight, like cruelty or lying about something that matters. Everything else is data.<\/p>\n Treat each piece of data as a nudge, not a ruling. A gracious reaction to a cancelled plan nudges risk down. A dismissive joke about an ex nudges it up. No single moment should flip you to a final yes or no.<\/p>\n So don\u2019t decide someone\u2019s character from one insensitive comment. Test it. Say something short and honest, like \u201cOuch. That didn\u2019t sound great.\u201d Then watch how they react. Do they get defensive or curious? Do they apologize? Does the behavior change the next time?<\/p>\n Everyone messes up and says the wrong thing at some point. How they respond to your honesty tells you more than anything they said on a curated first date.<\/p>\n You don\u2019t know someone until you\u2019ve seen a flaw surface and watched how they handle it. That takes staying long enough for it to happen, which red flag culture tells you not to do. Everyone you date will disappoint you eventually. A good partner is the one who owns it and repairs it.<\/p>\n Red flag culture holds out for a flawless person who doesn\u2019t exist, when the partner worth choosing is the one you\u2019ve watched handle a flaw well.<\/p>\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\n
\u201cThey\u2019re still friendly with an ex\u201d becomes \u201cThey can\u2019t be trusted.\u201d<\/span>
\u201cThey want to take things slowly\u201d becomes \u201cThey\u2019re emotionally unavailable, like the last one.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n![\"Green](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!TB0B!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd8af6c47-1747-4f73-884b-831c316aa985_720x720.jpeg "\\"Green")
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n