1 Introduction

These are flourishing times for romantic love; arguably, even its renaissance. There are many romantic options to choose from and love is on most people’s minds. Yet a romantic abundance may be too much of a good thing. Does such abundance require more or less adequate knowledge about our potential partner? The answer is not straightforward.

Romantic possibilities have always been part of the romantic environment but were less acknowledged and accepted than in current society. The greater centrality of current romantic options is expressed in various aspects, such as the presence of many more options, their greater feasibility, and the greater certainty concerning the willingness of potential partners. Our current romantic environment includes many options like never before, but there is a price to pay for them: people are more likely to feel less satisfied with their current partner and it consequently becomes harder to maintain an enduring romantic relationship. The many options are also more feasible: it is easier to materialize them since they are just one click away and doing so requires less resources. The greater feasibility is due to the knowledge that the optional partner is willing to initiate a romantic (and sexual) relationship: their mere presence on a dating site clearly indicates it. Hence, the major challenge of current lovers is not finding love, but maintaining it. The role of knowledge in the current romantic environment is multifaceted. On the one hand, there is much more available information provided by many digital platforms. On the other hand, the provided information is often superficial and there is less profound information that requires time to be acquired.

Section 2 describes the nature of romantic abundance in current society and the difficulties associated with this abundance. Even if love is “in the air,” the air is often too thin and polluted to permit the development of long-term profound love. I suggest considering romantic abundance as an affective background framework of possibilities, which is similar to moods. Section 3 discusses the role of emotional intuition and deliberate thinking in the romantic realm. Following Spinoza’s claims, I indicate the feasibility of a third capacity, intuitive reasoning, which combines the two and has the greatest truthful value. This capacity is expressed in expert knowledge and is crucial in order to act optimally in times of romantic abundance. Section 4 examines the role of intuition and deliberate thinking in initiating romantic relationships. I focus on three common means of initiating such relationships: sexual (or physical) attraction; the checklist; and love at first sight. Section 5 focuses on the information lovers want to know and pay attention to, information that lovers want to avoid, and information that lovers want to disclose about themselves. Section 6 emphasizes my main claims while indicating the ambivalent nature of romantic abundance and the consequent need to combine intuition and deliberate thinking.

2 The Information Crisis of Current Romantic Abundance

Our current society enjoys abundance of romantic options, which are far greater than what was in past societies. Romantic options were present in many societies, but not in the degree and nature available now. The abundance of available willing partners offline and online is not merely a quantitative factor, as it has a profound qualitative impact upon romantic relationships and in particular upon the issue of romantic exclusivity. In light of the absence of clear romantic boundaries, and the abundance of accessible, willing romantic candidates, love in our society becomes a rather fluid concept and, accordingly, romantic bonds tend to be frailer than in the past (Bauman 2003; Kayser 1993).

Lovers face challenging times in contemporary society, fronting constant doubts over which road to take, as well as constant regrets of the many roads not taken. The abundance of romantic affordances and the perpetual possibility of getting something “better” undermine commitment. Thus, one study found that greater intensity of attraction to an alternative romantic option was linked to lower relationship quality in one’s primary relationship (Belu and O’Sullivan 2024). The gap between the present and the potentially possible can never be bridged, although it seems to be easy to do so. In this manner, the abundance of romantic affordances has become a tyrannical force, keeping us from enjoying the present (Ben-Ze’ev and Goussinsky 2008, Ch. 6).

I suggest considering romantic abundance as an affective background framework of possibilities. This framework has both ontological and epistemological considerations. As John Paul Young says, “Love is in the air, everywhere I look around, love is in the air, every sight and every sound”. Love indeed exists in the air of the romantic environment, and we know it.

The romantic environment is somewhat similar to James Gibson’s (1979) perceptual environment, which is populated with perceptual affordances. In Gibson’s view, affordances have a unique ontological status: “an affordance is neither an objective property nor a subjective property; or it is both, if you like…. It is equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behavior. It is both physical and psychical, yet neither” (1979, 129). Accordingly, Gibson claims that the affordance of something does not change as the need of the observer changes: “The observer may or may not perceive or attend to the affordance, according to his needs, but the affordance, being invariant, is always there to be perceived” (Gibson 1979, 139). The existence of an affordance is a type of potentiality, and possibilities continually exist, even when they are not actually perceived, since it is possible that the perceiver may attend them in the future. When viewing the perceptual environment as a whole, the presence of a perceiver is necessary. However, within this relational environment, the absence of a specific perceiver does not abolish the existence of this affordance (Ben-Ze’ev 1981; 2024).

In the same way, romantic abundance is both an existing part of the romantic environment and a feature of the agent. I suggest considering romantic abundance as an affective background framework, which is somewhat similar to a mood, associated with action readiness. This framework colors our romantic lives and forms a significant background affective attitude against which our motivations to act develop.

Similarly, Thomas Spiegel (2023) considers loneliness as a kind of mood, characterizing moods, background states of mind, as fundamental ways in which one is open to and relates to the world. Spiegel argues that loneliness is ontologically speaking not a purely subjective mental property but a way of being-in-the-world, or a mood. In his view, loneliness is “categorically different from merely subjective feelings, even if the state of being lonely may (even in most cases) be accompanied by a state of feeling lonely” (Spiegel 2023). Loneliness is common in romantic abundance. Such abundance makes the connections between people faster and less profound, thereby significantly decreasing the possibility of long-term profound relationships and, unsurprisingly, increasing the problem of loneliness, since loneliness is not generated by a lack of social connections, but by lack of meaningful, profound social connections (Ben-Ze’ev 2000, 468–470).

Romantic abundance can help many people build and maintain their social lives. This is particularly true for older people, people with different physical limitations and people who belong to groups that suffer from a negative social stigma. However, such abundance prevents many people from achieving romantic profundity. When you have many other romantic options, you are less likely to invest effort and time in improving a current relationship. Hence, more and more people continue searching for a better romantic relationship, which they believe is just around the corner. Missing out on something that seems to be much better than what you have is usually more painful than settling for something that is only tolerably good (Joel at al. 2019). Consequently, there is no rest for lovers, and not because the road of love on which they are traveling is not good enough; it may be a bit boring, but it is still a valuable road—probably one of the best in human history. Yet the road not taken is seen as more attractive and there appear to be many new roads from which to choose. Chasing after short-term alluring romantic options is often the problem and not the solution.

Does romantic abundance increase or decrease the role of knowledge in the romantic environment? The answer is not immediately obvious. On the one hand, people who experience romantic abundance need an increasing amount of information, since they face not only a few possible candidates, but hundreds or thousands of them. Moreover, most candidates are strangers and it is difficult to obtain objective information about them. On the other hand, if people have so many feasible, willing romantic options to choose from, they are less likely to invest a lot of effort into deeply knowing any given candidate. These considerations are not only valid in the initial stage of courting, but also in maintaining an enduring relationship.

A major traditional obstacle in establishing romantic relationships – knowing whether the potential candidates are willing to establish a romantic (and sexual) relationship – has become almost irrelevant since the establishment of dating sites, where willingness is indicated by their mere presence. Moreover, people on these sites often say whether they want a serious, long-term relationship. (In doing so, they considerably decrease the number of potential candidates, but there are still many options left.)

The possible realm is often perceived as lacking any structure. However, this is not the case. As Roy Baumeister and Jessica Alquist rightly argue, “The agent does not confront a chaos of uncertain possibilities, so much as confronting a meaningfully structured set of options and contingencies” (Baumeister and Alquist 2023). Romantic abundance is indeed not chaotic, but rather indeterminate. In circumstances involving high indeterminacy, decision making suffers from greater uncertainty (Van Dijk and Rietveld 2020).

3 Intuition and Deliberation in Romantic Abundance

In this section, I discuss the role in the romantic realm of two major cognitive capacities: emotional intuition and deliberate thinking.

3.1 The Nature of Intuition and Deliberation

The great abundance of romantic information raises the issue of the nature of the optimal cognitive capacity for dealing with such knowledge. Two major capacities are emotional intuition and deliberate thinking.

Emotional attitudes focus upon narrow informational content and the content’s validity is limited to these cases. Deliberate thinking refers to a broader informational content and the content is valid regarding many more circumstances. Deliberate thinking is concerned with the general and the stable, whereas emotions are engaged with the particular and the volatile. These substantial differences cast doubt on whether these capacities can be integrated into one system.

Philosophers and scientists consider deliberate thinking as the highest cognitive tool for gaining knowledge, while emotional intuition has been regarded as epistemologically subversive. A prevailing philosophical tradition, of which Plato, Descartes, Kant and Schopenhauer are some of its prominent representatives, considers thinking to be the essence of the mental realm. Accordingly, the Western tradition has tended to obscure the vital role of emotion in the construction of knowledge (Jaggar 1989). The opposite view, represented, for example, by Hume and Bergson, considers the emotional system to be of greater cognitive value. Hume believes that emotions are extremely useful and that we should prefer their guidance over that of intellectual reasoning (1739-40, 415). Similarly, for Bergson, the ultimate cognitive tool is instinct, which shares many characteristics with emotion. Bergson’s criticism of deliberate thinking is based on its reliance on the stable and unchangeable, whereas reality has exactly the opposite attributes: it is instable and changes frequently (1907, 155).

Spinoza, who praises the value of accurate knowledge, seems to belong to the first tradition when arguing that the wise man “who rightly knows that all things follow from the necessity of the divine nature, and happen according to the eternal laws and rules of nature, will surely find nothing worthy of hate, mockery or disdain, nor anyone whom he will pity” (1677: IVp50s). Spinoza’s view, however, is more complex. Spinoza distinguishes between three levels of knowledge. The first level of knowledge, i.e., emotional intuitive knowledge, which stems from singular or unique things and is based on the senses and imagination, is typically confused and false. Intellectual knowledge, on level two, is based on common and universal notions and is considered as necessarily true, only when we have all relevant information; however, this is usually not the case. Hence, according to Spinoza, the highest form of knowledge is not intellectual knowledge, but a kind of combination of emotion and intellect. Third level intuitive knowledge proceeds from singular things but gives us universal insight into their essence. The name Spinoza gives to this kind of knowledge, “intellectual love of God,” expresses this combination (Spinoza 1677; IIp40s1, 2; IIp47; V5p33; Nadler 2018).

Spinoza’s first level emotional knowledge uses an intuitive mechanism, whereas second level is mainly based on deliberate thinking. The third level is similar to emotional intuition concerning its intuitive mechanism and to deliberate thinking concerning its broad validity and perspective. The third level of knowledge may be called “intuitive reasoning.” Expert knowledge is a case in point: it is intuitive in the sense that it does not result from careful data analysis, but rather from activating pre-existing mental templates (schemata). For example, medical experts and wine experts have developed a perceptual sensitivity that enables them to discern different types of illness or wine without mediating deliberations. Their expertise has been created by a long process of learning, involving, among other things, deliberate thinking. Emotions also entail intuitive knowledge, but people are not necessarily experts in the matters of the heart. Emotional intelligence is an example of intuitive expert knowledge combining emotional intuitions and intellectual deliberations (Ben-Ze’ev and Kerbs 2015; 2024).

The psychological model of expert sensitivity can also be used in the moral realm. Thus, virtuous people, who can be considered as moral experts, are less sensitive to immoral temptations and are more sensitive to moral wrongdoings. The behavior of virtuous people is in accordance with the dictates of reason, but is not solely generated by intellectual deliberations. In a sense, their actions are a kind of rule-described behavior rather than rule-following behavior. The role of moral education is to develop emotional sensitivity that is in accordance with moral standards adopted by both emotional and intellectual perspectives (Ben-Ze’ev 2000, 267–271).

There is a prevailing tendency to conceive the systems of intuition and deliberation as generators of unique responses. This has been so much accepted that the deliberate response is assumed to be beyond the capability of the fast-intuitive processing mode. Wim De Neys (2022) argues that empirical evidence shows that there is no solid ground for assuming the exclusivity of deliberation, which is beyond the reach of the intuitive system. He further claims that instead of allocating unique responses to each system, i.e., intuition and deliberation, we should assume that the intuitive response can also be cued by deliberation. Hence, deliberation can generate different types of responses or intuitions (De Neys 2022).

Steve Ayan (2018) argues that unlike Freud’s view, research indicates that conscious and unconscious processes do not tend to operate in opposition to each other. In fact, even our most reasonable thoughts and actions mainly result from automatic, unconscious processes. Ayan claims that automatic processes play a central role in the mind, allowing us to predict events quickly and accurately as they arise. This automaticity “enables us to function smoothly in the world, becoming conscious when predictions fail, afterwards adjusting to changes in our environment” (Ayan 2018). Constantly being forced to consider every aspect of the situation significantly decreases our survival chances.

3.2 Intuition and Deliberation in Romantic Abundance

Deliberate thinking, essential in human life, requires time and typically involves slow and conscious processes, largely under our voluntary control. The abundance of romantic options decreases the efficiency of such a process, and shortcuts are needed. Intuition provides an appealing shortcut, a fast and automatic dispositional mechanism that expresses past knowledge. This is evident in a longitudinal study on newlywed couples, showing that spouses’ intuitive automatic attitudes, not their conscious deliberate ones, are better predictions of marital satisfaction and happiness (McNulty et al. 2013). However, leaning too much on intuition, which consists of built-in cognitive templates, is risky. Although some of the templates are common to most people, there are others that differ from one person to another, thereby generating misunderstandings. Accordingly, some combination with intellectual deliberation is required. One such combination is developing an intuitive skeptical ability that reduces wrong intuitive judgments (Sunday 2023). However, this skeptical ability relates to searching for mistakes and lies, which is not optimal for developing a romantic relationship in which trust and sincerity are central. A better combination of intuition and deliberation consists of two stages: intuitive optimism followed by reflective realism (Sjåstad & Baumeister 2023). This combination is close to the phenomenon of love at first sight (see discussion below).

Although we should give priority to the heart in romantic relationships, we are not great experts in intuitive matters of our emotions, which often need steering by deliberate thinking. The intuitive heart often gives greater significance to superficial traits, such as physical attractiveness, instead of profound traits as kindness and wisdom. Unlike wine experts, who mainly analyze a fixed state, love experts should analyze ongoing future changes in personality and circumstances. We need an ongoing, dynamic intuitive reasoning that has a learning function as times goes by; machine learning already has such ability (Joel et al. 2020).

4 Intuition and Deliberation in Initiating a Relationship

This section implements the above considerations concerning intuition and deliberation to the stage of initiating romantic relationships, given the presence of romantic abundance. I focus on three common ways of choosing a partner: sexual (or physical) attraction, a comprehensive checklist and love at first sight. Sexual attraction essentially depends on emotional intuition; the checklist is based on deliberate thinking, and love at first sight is a type of intuitive reasoning.

4.1 Sexual (Physical) Attraction

Sexual attraction, which is most valuable in initiating romantic relationships, is partial with a low level of validity in establishing enduring profound love (Hunt et al. 2015). Attractiveness acts as a form of gatekeeper, barring unsuitable candidates. However, sexual attraction is not a comprehensive criterion and its value is not enduring. While at the beginning of a relationship, partners are more excited and feel greater attractiveness, over time, maintaining love needs merely a moderate amount of attractiveness towards one’s partner (Griffin and Langlois 2006).

Despite the limited romantic value of intuitive sexual attraction, it is not without its advantages. Thus, it provides an initial direction of the proper immediate manner of responding. Moreover, one-night stands, wholly dependent on strong sexual attraction, and perceived to be brief, superficial and inconsequential experiences, are not without their value. Fisher (2015), for example, found that about 27% of one-night stands became long-term relationships. Furthermore, The Knot 2021 Jewelry and Engagement Study shows that the application, Tinder, which has a reputation for generating mainly casual sexual relationships, and in particular one-night stands, was nevertheless responsible for pairing about a quarter of newlyweds who met online, making it the best dating app for marriage (Ben-Ze’ev 2023b). Although the main function of sexual attraction is to generate an initial bond, it seems that the quality of this initial stage also has a positive impact on the quality of the relationship that follows (Proulx et al. 2017).

4.2 A Checklist

People often use a long checklist in order to choose a partner. In this manner, one compiles a checklist of an ideal partner’s desirable and undesirable traits, using it as a means to measure prospective partners. The list can be very long (often up to a hundred items), including the desired and unwanted characteristics of our ideal partner, which we use to compare each potential candidate. The list’s central role is to filter out unsuitable candidates. This may appear a natural, appropriate method of finding a partner in an environment with abundant romantic options. However, with a list so large, it is impossible to discern a genuine order of priorities. Another flaw of the list is that it gives scarcely any consideration to the connection between the potential partner and oneself; accordingly, it fails to consider the value of the other person as a suitable partner.

Constant comparison of your partner to others, which is typical of deliberate thinking, is contrary to the spirit of romantic love. Lovers are not in the business of accounting and comparing—they should focus on bettering their own relationship. We should try to imitate the experts, who use rules of thumb that increase the probability of solving problems without using deliberate thinking. Indeed, deliberate thinking is less useful when we lack relevant information. Deliberate thinking is particularly damaging concerning matters of the heart, where much information is missing and intuition is more significant. Gerd Gigerenzer (2007) shows that computer-based versions of the deliberate checklist—a program that weighed eighteen different cues—proved less accurate than following the rule of thumb “get one good reason and ignore the rest of the information.” In the case of long checklists, the choice is often mechanical and superficial without an ability to present a genuine order of priority.

Matthieu Raoelison and colleagues (2020) claim that although smart people, who are higher in their deliberate cognitive capacities, are believed to be better at deliberately correcting biasing erroneous intuitions, findings suggest that their capacity is primarily associated with correct intuitive responding. Rather than being good at deliberately correcting erroneous intuitions, smart reasoners simply seem to have more accurate intuitions (Raoelison et al. 2020). This is also true of the romantic realm.

4.3 Love at First Sight

Unlike physical attraction, which is quite limited in its scope, love at first sight is more comprehensive as it combines an attitude with much more additional information. Some people argue that love at first sight is actually not romantic love at all, since it lacks the knowledge stemming from deliberate thinking and shared activities associated with romantic love (Maurer 2014). I agree that love at first sight lacks the knowledge associated with profound love, but such knowledge is not a necessary condition for all kinds of romantic love, which may involve different degrees of knowledge. Moreover, research indicates that even enduring love involves positive illusions and idealization of the partner (e.g., Miller et al. 2006; Murray et al. 2011). I also agree that love at first sight lacks the shared activities which are so typical of profound love; however, it includes action readiness that is associated with profound love. Love at first sight is indeed not profound love, but it is still a kind of romantic love, involving many of the major features associated with it such as pleasant feelings, intense attraction, a highly positive evaluation of one’s partner, action readiness and the wish to be together and share many activities.

The quality of the initial stage of the relationship has a significant impact on the relationship that follows. This impact is even greater in the case of love at first sight. Indeed, Christine Proulx and colleagues argue that those with positive attitudes toward their partner tend to start their marriage with high, stable levels of marital quality and are more likely to maintain them throughout the years. An additional interesting phenomenon, termed “the honeymoon ceiling effect,” refers to the findings that marital quality rarely increases beyond its initial point of marriage, or prior to it (Proulx et al. 2017; Lorber et al. 2015). The connection between love at first sight and the quality and length of a subsequent relationship is influenced by two opposing factors: (1) the initial positive impression has a positive impact upon the quality of the relationship, and (2) the perceived traits of the partner are based upon projection, rather than actual information, and therefore may be mistaken. Accordingly, in some cases, love at first sight is a promising beginning to profound love, but often it does not endure for long (Sunnafrank and Ramirez 2004; Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra 2007).

The survival chances of initial love increase when we consider love at first meeting (or acquaintance), rather than love at first sight. The combination of intuition and deliberation is more profound in love at first meeting, which provides more time to get to know other characteristics of the person, such as wisdom, wittiness, and a sense of humor, and to become involved in initial common activities, such as conversation. Although love at first sight is often quite valuable, it is not sufficient for providing an adequate, information-based romantic choice for the long term, since it is instantaneous. Conversely, shared activities over time are essential to enduring romantic relationships (Ben-Ze’ev 2019).

5 Information Lovers Want to Attend to, Avoid and Disclose

The abundance of romantic information has created an essential need to pay attention to, avoid and disclose certain information. I discuss here these types of information regarding a potential partner and a current one.

5.1 Information Lovers Want to pay Attention to and Avoid

In light of the abundance of novel romantic information in current society, a constant need is that of continuously deciding whether to pay attention to or avoid romantic information. People typically wish to know as much as possible about their current or potential partner, since such knowledge provides a more comprehensive and profound picture of the person, which often enhances intimacy and profundity, in the spirit of the song, “To know him is to love him”. Greater knowledge about each other enables bringing out the best in each other, thereby enhancing the quality of the relationship (Drigotas 2002).

The issue, however, is more complex. Happiness is not necessarily correlated with detailed information: on the contrary, commonsense wisdom suggests that excessive curiosity, is associated with unhappiness. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden because of their desire to gain further knowledge. In the Pandora myth, all the diseases and troubles of the world were released because of Pandora’s curiosity to know what the box, given to her by the gods, contained. If one’s partner is not clever, more precise information revealing that he ranks in the lowest ten percentile of intelligence, will not make any of them happy.

Knowing the nature of potential partners is often multifaceted, as their profound qualities are mostly detected through shared activities in the long term. In light of current romantic abundance, it is unwise and even impossible to enact such thorough examinations for all potential partners. As suggested above, we should try to imitate the experts: use rules of thumb and focus on a few deal breakers and deal makers, which express your most significant negative and positive qualities in a potential partner. Taking account of these qualities is optimal for flourishing and brings out the best in each other.

Within an enduring romantic relationship, there are also types of information that lovers would like to pay attention to or avoid learning about their partner. Lovers typically want to pay attention to their partner’s positive qualities and avoid the negative ones. When evaluating our enduring partner, a main task is to enhance the positive aspects. This can be done by paying attention to the partner’s qualities, while idealizing them, and avoiding negative information.

Unrealistic idealization involves wearing rose tinted spectacles and looking optimistically at the future, interpreting information as overwhelmingly positive, despite seemingly contrary information about reality. Unexpectedly, this attitude has some positive implications upon relationship satisfaction. Thus, Sandra Murray and colleagues (2011) argue that unrealistic idealization prevents the significant decline of overall marital happiness, which is quite common, and as a result, we may want to encourage people to maintain positive, idealized perceptions of their partner, even if unrealistic. They claim that “seeing a less-than-ideal partner as a reflection of one’s ideals predicted a certain level of protection against the corrosive effects of time: people who initially idealized their partner the most experienced no decline in satisfaction” (Murray et al. 2011).

The view presented here is not that unrealistic idealization is always good, but rather that it is not always bad, and in certain cases it can be beneficial. In this way, steeper declines in satisfaction over the newlywed years might be felt more deeply by those with idealistic biases, as opposed to those with more realistic expectations. In this case, people who believe that their partner mirrors their ideals might be disappointed when time later reveals how their partner falls short of these lofty standards (Murray et al. 2011; McNulty and Karney 2004).

Idealization is different from fantasies. While idealization requires a belief that our positive, optimistic outlook is indeed real, those who indulge in fantasies know that the information they imagine is false. Fantasies involve paying attention to remotely feasible information, (if at all), while momentarily avoiding information concerning its falsity. The fleeting nature of such fantasies makes it centrally valuable in sexual activities (Ben-Ze’ev 2024). Indeed, sexual fantasies are extremely common and effective in coping with personal limitations, normative boundaries and external constraints. One can always fantasize the most outrageous encounters done in exactly the way one wants and with precisely those who one most desire. Hence, it is no wonder that many people fantasize while making love or can achieve orgasm by fantasy alone, with no external stimulation. There are studies indicating that both dyadic fantasies (about an existing partner) and extradyadic fantasies (about other people) are associated with heightened desire. A common process is that of a decrease in frequency of dyadic sexual fantasies and an increase of frequency of extradyadic fantasies (Birnbaum et al. 2019; Hicks and Leitenberg 2001).

We turn, now, to the issue of the information lovers want to avoid. It should be indicated that despite the lovers’ general wish to know as much as possible about their partners, there are certain kinds of information that may harm romantic intimacy and mutual flourishing. The importance of avoiding negative information increases when considering that detecting negative qualities is regarded as more significant than detecting positive qualities. Positive circumstances may improve our situation, but negative circumstances can destroy us. Negative emotions are indeed more noticeable than positive ones. This fact, which has been called “negative bias,” is found everywhere in life, including in close relationships. Accordingly, we are more motivated to avoid bad events than to pursue good ones. From the point of view of our minds, bad is stronger than good (Baumeister et al. 2001).

A seemingly natural way of coping with the current abundance of romantic options is to gain as much as possible information about each candidate and then to make a knowledgeable decision. The major flaw here is that relevant information is added all the time, and chasing after such information for being updated is impossible. Thus, information about a partner’s past lovers, which is of some importance for understanding the partner’s personality, may harbor unpleasantness for the couple. Indeed, a major task of lovers these days is blocking too much negative information. For many, a detailed description of a partner’s previous sexual interactions can cast an unpleasant cloud over their own sexual relationship. Ignorance is particularly preferable in cases of unfaithfulness. Some people feel that “if I don’t know about it, it does not exist.” Others certainly prefer to know about a partner’s affairs, but may still not wish to know all the specifics. In their study on avoiding information about one’s romantic partner, Maryam Hussain and colleagues (2021) found that participants reported to most want to avoid information related to their partner’s past and current sexual behaviors, including infidelity, as well as their partner’s prejudices. People are likely to avoid learning information that could elicit conflict within their relationship, e.g., learning whether their partner has fantasized about sex with someone else. They further found that older adults display greater avoidance than younger ones (Hussain et al. 2021; Ben-Ze’ev 2023a).

We have seen that though lovers seem to wish to know “everything” about the inner lives of their beloved, lovers actually want to perceive how good their beloved is and they do so through constructing an unrealistic idealization of them. Sustaining a sense of security often requires weaving an elaborate story that both embellishes a partner’s virtues and minimizes their faults. Regardless, withholding information is not necessarily hiding it, but retaining one’s deserved privacy. In any case, it seems that often knowledge is not the main dish in the romantic feast.

5.2 Information Lovers Want to Disclose

Thus far, I have discussed the kind of information lovers want to gain and to avoid about their current or potential partners. In this section, I examine what kind of information lovers want to disclose about themselves.

Research indicates that self-disclosure is positively associated with relationship quality including satisfaction, love, and commitment (Sprecher and Hendrick 2004). However, self-disclosure cannot be limitless. We should not tell our partners everything, especially not at the beginning of the relationship. The issue of self-disclosure becomes even more complex in our current romantic environment, where there is an abundance of romantic options, greater varieties of casual sex and romantic relationships are more diverse and flexible. In open marriages and polyamory, the issue of self-disclosure is even more central as it does not concern merely past events, but ongoing current intimate activities, to which one’s romantic partner is highly sensitive (Ben-Ze’ev 2004, Ch. 5; 2022; 2023b).

There are also circumstances in which we are immature, unwilling to reveal our current attitude toward our partner. Some “play-hard-to-get, forcing our partner to make an effort over time, in order to make them want us more. The main problem of playing hard to get is its deceptive and manipulative nature, which prevents us from being who we really are. The “in-due-course” approach, in which you genuinely indicate that you are yet not ready to rush and stumble on the bumpy romantic road, is more optimal. There is no one rigid prescription for an optimal point on the continuum between being easy and hard to get. In most circumstances, the balance is a matter of effort over time, and not merely lucky timing (Ben-Ze’ev 2019).

Erin Carbone and George Loewenstein (2023) claim that whereas privacy is a central issue in our digital age, there are many circumstances in which the drive to disclose information overwhelms the motive to maintain privacy. The pleasure of disclosure may be realized immediately, but, like most other drives, benefits may extend over time. Hence, sharing of private information can be emotionally rewarding and socially beneficial, but they can come at a cost (Carbone and Loewenstein 2023).

The nature and extent of the optimal self-disclosure depends upon various personal and circumstantial factors, which are often associated with the nature and development of the romantic bond. Generally, not revealing anything is problematic and sharing all details may be worse. Open and sincere discussions are significant, though the question of timing is crucial. Unlike the prevailing view that encourages lovers to share their deepest past secrets, it often seems that information avoidance can be valuable in coping with harsh reality. There is no sense in dwelling upon negative events that cannot be changed.

6 Summary and Outlook

The abundance of romantic options makes the necessity of knowledge questionable. On the one hand, lovers want to know “everything” about their current partner; on the other hand, such information may be harmful to the relationships. Knowledge is not always bliss—often ignorance is such bliss.

The above discussion suggests that an intuitive reasoning is most valuable for romantic decisions, and it should be complex, dynamic and with a clear priority order. Such reasoning should take account of long-term considerations, which are generally absent in emotional intuition, and should also be built upon a normative order of priority. Hence, people should focus on a few significant positive and negative qualities. Significant positive traits, such as kindness, wisdom and sensitivity, may be “deal-makers,” promoting enduring romantic thriving and stability. Significant negative traits, like stinginess, stupidity, egoism and laziness, may be “deal-breakers” expressing significant unsuitability for which we may pay dearly. The complexity is even greater in light of a study, which examines the rules of “deal-breakers,” and suggests that most people seem to follow a rule of “no more than four deal-breakers,“, rather than “one deal-breaker and done” (Joel and Charlot 2022). Such circumstances require participation of both intuition and deliberate thinking. Here, we do not decide whether or not to exert more resources to get to our optimal choice, but deal with cases in which a plausible, salient choice is intuitively cued from the outset before we spend any effort at all (De Neys 2022).

This kind of complex decision-making process should combine the determination we want to see in love, with the uncertainty and hesitation characterizing the ambivalent, romantic environment. Determination is expressed in the great emphasis on several essential qualities that we want to be present or absent in our spouse. Uncertainty and hesitation are present in the sense that there are many other qualities whose value depends on complex personal traits and multiple external circumstances.

There are, of course, other optimal manners of evaluating (and in particular, choosing, ) a romantic partner. However, in order to cope with the abundance of romantic options, intuitive reasoning should be combined with different types of cognition. This is quite valuable for creating and maintaining the thrilling experience of falling and staying in love, where, in the words of Dean Martin, “You walk in a dream, but you know you’re not dreaming”.