Dating sucks. Is it just me or is the act of going out and firing random shots in the dark, just hoping to hit the love of your life, kinda tedious?
Half the time I don’t know what it is I’m looking for, what I actually need in someone. So instead I refer to the wise words of my friends and family, who tell me I need someone who completes me, who is my other half; who eats the olives when I don’t.
So what the heck is this olive theory?
Moreover, why is it still so hard to find the kind of love I need?
Our dating has been made drastically simpler with new technology.
Apps such as Tinder and PlentyofFish have made the search as smooth as a swipe on your phone. Boom. Matched, and within the hour you could be organising a date. However, there’s a problem here. You see, although these apps have made dating simpler, there’s no proof they’ve changed the formula that much.
The process of matching with someone and then communications eventually reaching a level on par with what would be similar if you met in real life, is still just as random as the old fashioned way (despite what the ads would have you believe).
But, I don’t want to be reaching unknowingly into the metaphorical box of love. I need to know what I’m grabbing!
Some turn to the olive theory. This is a nicely packaged way of knowing precisely what you need from a partner, an all-inclusive solution to your problems!
Okay, so, all I need to do is find someone who loves all the things I hate and hates all the things I love.Initially defined in the TV show, How I Met Your Mother it has been used as a criterion for dating in various forms for years. As the story goes, the secret to the steadfast love of main characters, Marshall and Lily, is that whatever Marshall doesn’t like (i.e. olives), Lily does. After all, opposites attract right?
Hang on. That’s doesn’t sound right.
The olive theory is a common misconception made when searching for someone. Through decades of advertising and Disney love stories, we are often lulled into believing that your partner should be the IKEA yellow to your IKEA blue.
This is despite the fact that having drastically different interests is often the cause of dissatisfaction in couples.
It’s not just different regarding olives, but emotional and locational differences too. One of the leading forces behind a loving attachment to someone else, is proximity; unsurprisingly, you need to be physically close to sustain a loving relationship. Believe it or not, there are also many ways to feel attached to somebody. Attachment theory in its purest form suggests there are anywhere up to 9 different attachment styles, some performing better in dating than others.
Although in more urban environments relationships between two very different socio-economic people is not uncommon, in general, those whose relationships last the longest are also those in which partners express similar beliefs; the more similar, the better.
What if I’m a little bit isolationist and I want someone who will coax me out of my shell, bring out my confidence?
Well, my friend, the stars have aligned for you. You may say,
“Oh, he’s a surfer from Cali, so he’s like, super cool and confident, he also isn’t insecure. Like, dreamboat.”
However, all those things like location, olives, views on the world; they’re not particularly connected to confidence, because low self-esteem and anxiety are more or less temporary feelings.
Yes, that’s right, your torment is not permanent, things will change.
This means that as long as you’re willing to help change your own state of mind from terribly anxious to happily secure, there may very well be another ‘you’, out there waiting for you.
Love isn’t quick.
Opening Tinder for the 100th time, won’t increase your odds at love, but at least by knowing what it is you actually need in your life, you can narrow the search.
To that end, finding love can be easy! Because despite what the beauty and the beast might say, what we really want, is ourselves. After all, Marshall really did like the olives in the end.
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (2015). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. New York City, New York, United States of America: Psychology Press.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey, The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193–281). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bossard, J. H. (1932). Residential Propinquity as a Factor in Marriage Selection. The American Journal of Sociology, 38(1), 219-224.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss (2nd ed., Vol. I). New York City, New York, United States of America: Basic Books.
Crawford, D. W., Houts, R. M., Huston, E. L., & George, L. J. (2002). Compatibility, Leisure, and Satisfaction in Marital Relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 433-449.
Finkel, E. J., & Karney, R. B. (2012, Febuary 11). The Dubious Science of Online Dating. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/online-dating-sites-dont-match-hype.html
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, R. B., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.
Hohmann-Marriott, B. E. (2006). Shared beliefs and the union stability of married and cohabitating couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 1015–1028.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 349–421.
Mäenpää, E., & Jalovaara, M. (2013). The effects of homogamy in socio-economic background and education on the transition from cohabitation to marriage. Acta Sociologica, 56(3), 247-263.
Marches, J. R., & Turbeville, G. (1953). Residential Propinquity as a Factor in Marriage Selection. The American Journal of Sociology, 58(1), 592-595.
Murstein, B. (1976). Who Will Marry Whom? Theories and Research in Marital Choice. New York: Springer.