The search for the ideal partnership has taken us in some bizarre directions. Given how data-driven our world is, it’s no wonder that relationship checklists have become the hot new tool. Each of these lists vows to decode the clues to a lasting marriage. They enumerate characteristics, actions, and perceptions to give a detailed approach to determine the match level and identify improvement opportunities. Are we really distilling love down to such simple terms? Or are we just killing the magic with a wave of checklists and rubrics? At OverTraders.com, I truly dig deep into the subtleties of human behavior and market cycles. I think sometimes checklists are appealing because they promise control and order, but really they oversimplify the gorgeous, imperfect chaos of human connection.
I recently had a conversation with my good friend Sarah, actually just after the incident. She firmly believed that her fresh new relationship was doomed to fail since her partner didn’t check enough boxes on her very detailed, self-created checklist. She had a box for everything—from how often we went on date nights to how we displayed our affection. What really struck me was the focus on the very real relationship that she built with this individual. Their smiles and hopes were inspiring, but those stories were left untold. Her considerations were limited to only whether he fit her applicant wish list. This is where the danger lies: reducing a complex emotional bond to a series of transactional requirements.
Perhaps the worst trap of using relationship checklists is how they can reduce complex emotion into simplistic terms. Take the idea of “emotional reactivity,” frequently denounced as a toxic disposition. A simplistic checklist would flag this as an inclination to overreact or be easily offended. Yet this is a disservice because it overlooks the complex web of pieces that can shape emotional responses. Maybe a person is responding to old trauma, new life stress, or actual harm being done to them. By flattening these reactions into a single, negative response, we’re in danger of erasing their lived experiences and emotional reactions.
Additionally, checklists typically do not consider different lived experiences and contexts. Life is not a go-by-the-numbers template, and relationships aren’t either. A one-size-fits-all checklist could punish a partner who is not always on your team in an adversarial situation. What if, instead, they’re providing the great thing about an outdoor perspective, opening your eyes to the truth of the scenario? What if at their core, they’re just focused on being fair and honest, rather than blindly loyal? These nuances are completely lost when we fall back on a boiler plate set of expectations.
So many of these checklists, I’ve found, focus just on those negative feelings—and all the things that could go wrong. Instead when done well they should focus on what is going well in a relationship. This can lead to an uneven and often negative portrayal of initiative at best. It's easy to get caught up in identifying what's "wrong" while overlooking the joy, support, and connection that make the relationship worthwhile. Rather than encouraging thankfulness and joyfulness, supplementary lists that are meant to aid can sow seeds of disappointment and worry.
Beyond that, a fatal flaw of the individualistic approach is the complete lack of focus on the overall context of the relationship. Emotions are often not created in a vacuum. They’re molded by our physical activity, our built environment, and yes, our social determinants too. An extreme case may be a checklist that points out a partner’s lack of empathy. The first one usually fails to consider their past, culture, or present day stressors that change the way they show empathy. By overlooking these important contextual factors, we risk misinterpreting their behavior and unjustly judging their character.
Now, of course, I’m not arguing that all expectations are terrible. Healthy relationships depend on communication and a mutual understanding of each other’s needs and wants. There’s a fundamental difference between engaging in a discussion about your needs and enforcing an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all list of requirements. The former fosters empathy and collaboration, the latter establishes an authoritarian hierarchy and undermines originality.
It’s an unreasonable expectation to put on a partner to be available and supportive emotional crutch at all times. These other needs and feelings—especially their own—are important, too. Mutual support is everything, but so is accountability to acknowledge we are all doing the most we can at any given moment. Expecting your partner to always make you their top priority is unrealistic, and worse, it’s deeply unfair. It can cause exhaustion, bitterness, and eventually, the demise of the partnership.
As a planner, I’ve observed how checklists sometimes help make a self-fulfilling prophecy come true. If you approach the partnership with a checklist of must-haves, you start to focus on everything your partner is doing wrong. That singular focus can sometimes even blind you to their strengths. It ends up creating a revolving door of complaints and frustration, eventually driving them away. Rather than compassionately evolving our understanding, the checklist becomes a weapon of accountability and punishment.
It’s important to keep in mind that cultural backgrounds can largely affect how relationship checklists are received and appreciated. For these cultures, a more systematic process of valuing outcomes might come across as pragmatic and efficient. In those—and many other—cultures, such an act would be seen as invasive or offensive. Western cultures, in particular, with strong cultural values of individual autonomy and gender egalitarianism, may have different expectations compared to more collectivist cultures.
I understand how alluring relationship checklists can be, their duplicitous promise of saving time, effort, and heartache. In a world filled with uncertainty, it's tempting to seek out tools that offer a sense of order and predictability. Love is not an equation. It’s an exhilarating, intimidating, thought-provoking trajectory of push and pull between two fiery mavericks. Its core ingredients are vulnerability, empathy, and a spirit that’s curious enough to welcome imperfection.
Speaking as the person who markets OverTraders.com looking to attract new traders, I get it — I totally get the data metric-focus. I’m painfully aware of the dangers in distilling incredibly complex phenomena into spurious digits. Older economists like Hayek, or social scientists, recognized that relationships, like markets, are inherently unpredictable. There will be mistakes and failures, unforeseen obstacles, and times of deep happiness. Trying to manage the entire dimensional relationship through a checklist doesn’t work. This is about as likely, of course, as predicting the stock market with 100 percent certainty.
Put away the compliance checklists! Find success in creating a partnership by establishing trust, talking to them early and often, and respecting their non-profit mission. Discuss with your fellow co-parent what you both need and want, but be open to what they need and want, too. Ride out the quirks and shine light on the things that make your bond one of a kind. After all, deep, rewarding relationships aren’t just a checklist. They truly flourish on a rock solid base anchored in unconditional love, trust and acceptance.
