Triggers and Strategies / Outer differences DA and FA

laney Hi. The way you speak about DAs comes off pretty insulting. I know you are coming from a place of trying to understand, so I'm not writing this to bring you down.

There is no way to know what someone is like just by judging from the way they look. That should be a given.

I'm sure you're trying to find the best way to get into a healthy relationship, and the only way towards that is to keep working on yourself.

You'll start feeling more confident, you'll start setting boundaries and you will get better at controlling the behaviors that you don't like, like the fact that you pull away. Once you achieve most of them to a good level, you'll start letting go of potential bad matches easier. Not because they are labeled, but because you will know what YOU want and not accept anything less.

The attachment theory is not to be used to figure out another person, but to figure out the roots of your issues and solve them.

Just because a person shows some aspects of an AP in some departments, doesn't mean they can't be avoidant in others. It goes for ALL styles. Don't get stuck on the labels, noone fits into boxes. Avoid generalization, it's never helpful.

It's good that you seem to be aware of your issues, that's the first step. I'm sure you're working on them too. Sharing characteristics with an insecure attachment style just means you have work to do, it's not a life sentence, you CAN change.

mamut
I disagree that "attachment theory is not to be used to figure out another person," and leading authors on the topic would disagree. The whole premise of Jeb (the author of this site)'s book Bad Boyfriends is about figuring out other people's types. His other book is called "Avoidant: How to Love (or Leave) a Dismissive Partner" and is all about understanding your partner's type and how to deal with it. A summary of another famous book on the topic, Attached, says, "In this book Levine and Heller guide readers in determining what attachment style they and their mate (or potential mate) follow, offering a road map for building stronger, more fulfilling connections with the people they love." The title of yet another book by attachment expert and renowned couples therapist Stan Tatkin? "Wired for Love: How Understanding Your Partner's Brain and Attachment Style Can Help You Defuse Conflict and Build a Secure Relationship."

I wish people would stop parroting the idea that it's unacceptable to try to figure out your partner's type and understand them better and that it's somehow in opposition to understanding yourself better. It's been hugely helpful to me. At a certain point I realized that with some people it's not that easy to categorize them as a certain type and that it doesn't really matter as there is so much to be gained just by recognizing insecure behaviours and where they tend to stem from, having compassion for them and not taking them personally. Deciding whether someone fits more into the DA or FA box isn't going to give you the key to unlock their heart or a crystal ball to predict your future together. But I don't think it's harmful or inappropriate to wonder about.

I also do not see how laney was insulting DAs, were you referring to other posts of theirs? And I thought it went without saying that "outer differences" or "from the outside" meant how can someone tell as an observer, not anything to do with the person's physical looks, but apparently that wasn't clear.

laney

There are threads on this very topic that perhaps you can find with some searching.

mamut "From the outside" only means as an outsider, as a person who is not them. It does not mean from looking at their physical appearance.

Ok, so you misunderstood me. I didn't express myself well. When I said from the outside, I didn't mean dress or appearance. I just meant typing another person as opposed to typing oneself. Like certain behaviors and so on

Now about the using the attachment theory for understanding your partner, I might have been a bit strict on that too. Maybe I need a coffee or a long walk😂

I too have of course looked up my ex's AS so I can understand him better. For me it wasn't very beneficial, first of all because he's an ex, second because as an AP, it enabled me to start assuming things about my ex and taking it as concrete evidence that he behaves in a certain way because this or that.

I see many people on this forum looking to understand (laney, you obviously are not doing this) their exes mostly and almost ignore their own attachment styles and the work they need too. I think that's why I, and others, are opposing to focusing on your ex's AS.

That said, it is extremely beneficial looking into your partner's AS, so you will know how to handle your relationship, even more so if the partner is open to it.

So I think we need to tread carefully when studying another person's AS, especially if it's an ex.

Now I need that coffee 😂

Fair enough, I haven't read much of his books and I do get the impression that he does seem to write based on what will get more people buying the books rather than what is kind and fair to avoidants, but I was just bringing up the books' topics to support my stance that figuring out another person's attachment type is not an outlandish thought exclusive to me.

I agree that it's problematic when someone thinks if only they can figure out the intricacies of their partner's attachment issues and be the perfect accommodating partner everything will work out. 

Oh gosh, yes. I highlighted 2 things here that I think are important.

I guess the only flaw I see in the whole "researching the other person" idea is that skads of people come here asking questions of the forum that they don't even ask their partner directly. That, or they've asked their partner, gotten a clear and concise answer, don't accept it because it's not what they want to hear, and then come here looking for ways around it.


>> I think there is definitely that, but I also think that APs are often confused by mixed signals sent by others. I noticed that I need absolute answers that are clear, consistent and aligned within the answer and with the behavior. So for example, I have had conversations with my ex that I felt going around in loops. A conversation would go along the lines of:
me: do you want to be in a relationship with me or not
him: i'm here aren't i
me: that doesn't answer the question 
him: if you listen carefully it does
me: so am i right to assume that you being here means you do want to be in a relationship with me? 
him: you can assume what you want. 
me:?

every answer is a logical answer in itself, but it never directly answers my question nor provides any sort of emotional assurance but implies it. which brings me to the next point: 

so if you really want to know about a person's preferences it's great to just honestly ask. If they don't know their needs and preferences and cannot communicate them, it will be difficult to forge a healthy relationship but you could get really codependent and try to take care of all that for them. Which is honestly what I see here a lot.

>> I was confused all the time by conversations of these sort. some conversations are direct and clear: yes he loves and appreciates the rship. some conversations are reverse direction: he feels better being single, and he embraces it, and it's his destiny to be single because it's so good. and then mixed conversations like these that just make not much sense unless you "read" into its meaning and assume alot of things that are implied but not spoken. at the beginning, I really tried to understand him by finding out about DAs and about myself (why am I so crazy and needy and sad all the time). Asking him is NO USE because the answers are confusing, or misdirected, or I'm just outright ignored. and I think alot of people who first come to the boards are at that particular stage, where they try to make sense of things.

at some point, people start healing when they stop trying to make sense of things and accept that the situation IS confusing and it's not because they're crazy or stupid (alot of APs feel/act like they're gaslighted, and in a sense they were in their childhood with confusing messages and signals from caregivers). At some point, the switch happens when making sense of the situation is no longer important, and you start looking forward to get away from any of the craziness. This is often a position that DAs already take very firmly without question - do not take care of other people's problems at your own expense. if it's a shit situation, just get out of it even if it makes you sad, but life will go on. it's a very different approach to dealing with confusion. when APs who are not ready to be at this stage, when they get confronted on these boards like that, often feel dismissed and offended because the primary sensemaking mechanism (which is also a survival mechanism) is disrupted without alternatives, as well as being told that they are just simply wrong, almost in their existence as problematic, flawed individuals and stupid for trying to keep relationships going and warm and loving, both of which are core messages to AP's version of attachment wounding. 

these are of course, my own observations, particularly around myself. once I got to a point where I stopped trying to make sense of confusion, I couldn't undersatnd why did I even try to do it in the first place. My new rule is to try a conversation at least twice, but I observe the conversational dynamics rather than being caught in the dynamic. If it is a situation I would usually find confusing (but I don't get confused because I'm observing mindfully and detachedly), I just cut losses and move on. 

as @sherry said, I think good communication is important - on your side, on their side, and as a couple, the willingness and ability to discuss your relationship as itself from each other's point of view, all from a mindful, third party, objective perspective. I'm still trying to figure out what good communication is myself. Asking directly is only one factor of the equation - there're many other elements to it that I don't think are usually discussed in depth here.