Sorry Folks, Love is not Blind

BY MEMBERS OF The BASE TEAM

Several members of the team at BASE got swept up in the frenzy of a reality program that had been filmed in our very own city, Love is Blind Season 6 on Netflix, which has now been ranked as the most watched streaming series by Nielson. The network did a great job building the drama and dropping episodes at discrete intervals, and we all gathered to watch the reunion show released on 3/13/24. If you have not caught up on the season, know that we will be spoiling a lot…it’s not like you haven’t had time!

As therapists, we all had different takes on some of the relationship and psychological themes observed in this season. In discussing these themes, we want to make it clear that we are speaking about the way that people and events were filmed and edited by show producers, and recognize that these are not true portrayals of the individuals in the shows. We also would never diagnose or pathologize someone we have not met or evaluated clinically. Understood? 

For Dr. Forbes, one of the big realities portrayed was that love is not blind, and this was evidenced by both the reactions of participants when they met their chosen partner and the backsliding observed this season with people wanting the chance for a possible re-do on their selection. There was an apparent lack of chemistry between Kenneth and Brittany, and AD even inserted herself in a conversation with Kenneth questioning whether or not he had thought through the implications of an interracial marriage. Jeremy actually dumped his chosen fiancé for Sarah Ann, who became the season’s villain for reaching out to make sure that Jeremy knew she was still interested in a relationship with him. A key psychological principle was actually highlighted in this dilemma- we tend to feel less satisfaction with choices we made that feel reversible, versus choices that have a permanent cost. The race to the altar may create a sense of implied permanence, but many of the couples who were engaged had plenty of time and opportunity to rethink their commitments, and all but one couple abandoned their choice.

Dr. Page’s Hot Take: Memory is fallible; Jimmy's recount of his last date with Jessica is a prime example of how differences in memory can impact our relationships.

"Psychology has a long history of studying the ways in which memory can fall short. It is well established that memories can be distorted through a process known as "interference," in which information outside of an event itself influences how we remember said event (Loftus, & Pickrell, 1995). Additionally, the experience of strong emotions can increase the potential for interference to occur (Mather, 2009).

In the reunion episode, audience members heard Jimmy speak about his last date with Jessica lasting ten minutes, while Jessica states that she remembers the date being much longer, an hour and 45 minutes. Producers then show time-stamped footage, showing their final date lasting two hours and thirteen minutes. It is easy for the audience (and other cast members) to make the assumption that Jimmy is intentionally misrepresenting the last date, but a number of factors could have influenced his report. Intense emotions related to anxiety, grief, etc. around ending his relationship with Jessica may have influenced how Jimmy remembers their final date, but also Jimmy has now had countless opportunities for newer information (e.g., watching the season, social events with cast members,  media coverage, etc.) to influence his memory of his final date with Jessica. This means that Jimmy may genuinely remember the date as lasting about ten minutes, making the time-stamped footage a bit shocking to him. These types of errors are incredibly common and are likely to happen to virtually everyone at some point or another.

There's a lesson to be gleaned here when it comes to personal relationships. Often, we may not remember an event in the exact same way as a loved one, friend, or peer, but these differences in memory are not always clear indicators that one side is "wrong" or attempting to manipulate the situation. Instead, if we want to prioritize the relationship over what recount may be factually correct, it can benefit us to take a stance that both parties may be experiencing their version of "truth" and then using that viewpoint to work toward a mutual understanding."

Dr. Hosford’s Hot Take: We are overusing terms that we may not fully understand, especially gaslighting.

TV Guide had declared that LIB Season 5 was the season of gaslighting men, but there were several times when this concept was brought up in Season 6. We often hear the term "gaslighting" on social media, reality shows, and even in our everyday conversations, but what does this really mean? According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, gaslighting is "an extremely effective form of emotional abuse that causes a victim to question their own feelings, instincts, and sanity." Examples of gaslighting include statements such as, "Are you sure that happened? You often forget things," "That's all in your head, you're making it up," or "You're too sensitive." Gaslighting often occurs gradually in relationships and can lead a victim to begin to question their own reality and start to rely more on their partner's definition of reality.

Dr. Daley’s Hot Take: Mode of communication influences the experience of communication; people really are different when they are in the pods. 

If you have ever seen cartoons of therapy, you may have noticed that some of these cartoons depict the therapist sitting behind the client, rather than facing them. This seating arrangement was the standard set up for Freud’s psychoanalysis, where he strongly believed that it was important that the analyst’s reactions and presence was masked to create more openness on behalf of the client. Some examples of actual psychoanalysis spaces can be seen here. In my own work, I saw some of this openness when we were dealing with the pandemic and clients would have phone sessions rather than video or in-person. Their mode of communication and even topics were often very different when visual connections were eliminated. When I used to work with younger kids, I often found that they could be more open in therapy if they did not feel me looking at them, so we would play together or engage in something that shifted focus. Similar guidance is also given to the parents of adolescents- teens often open up more when they do not have to communicate face to face.

A lament that was made by many of the couples was related to how communication changed when they had left the pods. There were additional accusations of possible scripts, as Jessica’s journal appeared to have pasted content in it. What the showrunners said was that the participants were provided with some conversation prompts to help support the dialogue between them, and that seems to match up with some of the interactions seen in the pods. It was amusing that Matthew had come up with his own questions to direct conversations, and his apparent one-note personality seemed to struggle when he encountered pushback from the other participants. It was not surprising when he darted away from the pods, and equally unsurprising that AD recognized (after a couple of post-Clay dates in the real world) that Matthew would not be able to flexibly show up in a relationship- it seemed he had a script in the real world, too.

Additional takeaways:

Emotional regulation does not always turn into co-regulation. Our group as a whole was a little surprised by the soft touch that was given to Chelsea in the reunion, as her big emotional reactions fueled a lot of the drama in the season as a whole. Her relationship with Jimmy highlighted how people who have bigger emotions can be drawn to people who have less emotional variability, and then feel lonely in these relationships. For people who have big emotions, partners whose emotions are more restrained can feel incredibly stabilizing and soothing, but then eventually feel distant and devalued. On the converse, people who have less emotional range tend to be drawn to people who are more reactive and sensitive, because they feel more intensely when paired with someone whose emotions feel bigger. In the attachment world, it can often be viewed as the people who are anxious attachers (What can I do for you?) pairing with people who are more avoidant attachers (What can you do for me?). There were many pairings that had this tone, and in almost all of the pairings the male partner seemed to show up as more avoidant while the female partner was looking to feel more connected and secure. Scenes that highlighted this dynamic included: Brittany watching Kenneth on his phone, AD questioning why Clay would choose to sleep at his place instead of their shared apartment, and Chelsea questioning why Jimmy stays out with his friends.

Meeting family and close friends should happen quickly. Our personality and attachment styles are a blend of our genetics and our experiences, which means that long term relationships are the best indicators of how someone will behave in the long term. Jimmy’s closest friends included someone with whom he had a sexual past, which should raise some concerns about how he respects boundaries in relationships. He seemed to minimize the importance of his family’s perceptions, which also could demonstrate a desire to keep people from being too close. Clay’s mother and father were the unexpected storyline presenting some foundational understanding of why Clay struggled with commitment, whereas AD’s mother and sisters were great models of how the women in her family lift each other up. There were not a lot of males represented in her family system, which could also explain why she was willing to put up with Clay’s pushback on commitment- it seems that neither of them really had great modeling of commitment from males in relationships. 

Sexual intimacy is better off delayed. The only couple to make it to the altar was also a couple that waited for physical intimacy. Physical intimacy blurs our insight, and can hasten attachment to others. Obviously, the whole premise of the show is that strong bonds can be formed in unconventional ways, but physical intimacy is actually a means through which many people find themselves in love with someone who is not a great fit for their long term happiness. In his book. “Dating Radar” high conflict relationship expert Bill Eddy, LCSW, points out that people who are high conflict in relationships also tend to be incredibly seductive, rushing into physical intimacy. Physically intimate relationships blur our access to our rational brains, which make it much harder to extricate yourself from an unhealthy match. Jimmy and Chelsea highlighted this pattern in almost a textbook example- they both kept returning to the relationship even when it was obvious that they weren’t a great match. At one point, Jimmy even stated that the physical intimacy between them was overwhelming him, which triggered defensiveness from Chelsea. It is helpful to be able to hold back on the physical intimacy until you are really sure that there is a workable relationship in other key areas.

Some relevant sources:

Check out this article to read more about the types and signs of gaslighting: thehotline.org/resources/what-is-gaslighting/ , If any of this resonates with you, help is available 24/7 at 1-800-799-7233.

Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric annals, 25(12), 720-725.

Mather, M. (2009). When emotion intensifies memory interference. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 101-120.

Dating Radar: Why your brain says yes to “The One” who will make your life hell. (2017). Bill Eddy and Megan Hunter