Why You Should Look at Conflict Resolution Instead of Asking "What Were Your Past Relationships Like?"

In a video released by the dating-advice YouTube channel Dr. ETI in August 2026, the host confesses a past mistake. He had misread a female acquaintance’s unusually warm gaze and expression as romantic interest and confessed his feelings, only to find that she considered him simply a “good friend”¹. If a single fragmentary signal can be so misleading, responses to questions like “Do you like me?” or “Do you love me?” are equally hard to rely on for reassurance. As the host notes, words can be spun on the spot, but actions leave traces¹.

Rather than directly asking about past relationships or personality traits, observing actions offers more reliable information. Words about feelings or intentions can be fabricated in the moment, but what someone actually does—or fails to do—during specific moments of conflict or fatigue is difficult to improvise convincingly. A key premise applies, however. Fixating on just one or two observed behaviors to categorize someone as an “avoidant type” is like clinging to another fragmentary signal. Instead of labeling the person, look for patterns within repeated contexts.

Distinguish between questions about inner life and factual inquiries

To determine whether someone is genuinely curious about you, examine the nature of conversations from the pre-dating stage. The host of Dr. ETI explains that questions used to gauge romantic interest fall into two categories¹.

The first is “inner-life questions.” These are inquiries aimed at understanding subjective aspects of who you are, such as “What do you like?” or “What do you enjoy doing on weekends?” The host advises that the emergence of such inner-life questions can reasonably be interpreted as a sign of interest¹.

The second is “data questions.” These are inquiries that merely surface facts, such as “Where do you live?”, “How many siblings do you have?”, or “What time do you get off work?” The host recommends leaving such questions as ambiguous, neither confirming nor denying interest¹. For example, asking about your work end time might be groundwork for arranging a meal together afterward, but it could equally be asked merely to align with your own schedule.

Inner-life questions represent an attempt to understand you, whereas data questions resemble a checklist for gathering facts about you. In the next conversation, simply distinguishing whether your counterpart asks about your preferences or only about your home location and work hours can help gauge the depth of the dialogue.

Read durability in how someone steps away during conflict

The concern that direct questions create awkwardness is common among actual couples. In the relationship-advice community Aha!, in response to the question “I’m curious about my partner’s past relationships, but would knowing be harmful?”, multiple respondents noted that asking about the past might upset the other person or even escalate into an argument, and that it might be better not to know².

Instead of probing into past relationships, observing how someone behaves in present conflicts provides far more useful information. In relationship psychology research, John Gottman identified “stonewalling” as one of the strongest predictors of relationship deterioration. This refers to indefinite silence and emotional withdrawal without explanation³.

More important than the fact that someone creates distance after conflict is the manner of their departure. Healthy distance-taking that supports relationship repair involves stating a reason, setting a time to reconnect, and maintaining respect. For instance, one might say, “I need an hour to calm down, but let’s continue talking tonight”³.

In contrast, repeatedly ignoring communication without explanation and maintaining silence without any promise of return creates significant anxiety in the relationship. Post-conflict silence may function as pressure on the other person or as a defense mechanism to manage emotional overload, but whether the person specifies “a reason and a time to return” is a behavioral indicator that can be clearly observed.

Observe patterns in requests for help and in other relationships

Even after dating begins, concrete areas to continue observing can be found in everyday interactions. According to a 2017 study by psychologists Jeffry Simpson and W. Steven Rholes, people who tend to avoid depending on others ask for small favors less frequently than average individuals⁴. They remain uncomfortable with vulnerability even in intimate relationships and hesitate to ask partners for even minor assistance. Conversely, individuals with healthy patterns of intimacy formation view the exchange of light requests as a natural part of interaction.

According to Brooke Feeney, a psychology professor at Carnegie Mellon University, attachment bonds form not only between romantic partners but also in mentor and friend relationships, and similar attachment styles partially manifest in conflicts and distance-keeping among friends⁵.

Observe how your counterpart behaves when experiencing conflict with friends or colleagues. Note whether they interpret a friend setting a boundary as “rejection,” or whether they decline plans and seek physical distance when hurt⁵. Conflict-resolution patterns observed in other relationships serve as a preview of what to expect in romantic situations.

Ask “Can they?” rather than “What type are they?”

After gathering clues through observation, a caution is necessary. Avoid using observational results to definitively categorize the other person into a specific type.

Psychology columnist Freddie deBoer notes that despite exhibiting classic avoidant signs, he was raised not through neglectful strictness but through loving, open parenting. He warns that treating such categories not as interpretive frameworks but as rigid diagnostic tools, divorced from scientific fact, renders them unfalsifiable and thus loses usefulness. He describes this as an experience akin to astrology⁶. Diagnosing someone as “an avoidant type who will never change” based on a single fragmentary behavior is tantamount to being misled by another fragmentary signal.

Instead, media writer Zena advises stopping labeling and shifting the question’s direction. Rather than asking “What type is this person?”, ask “What can this person do when emotions become real?”⁷. When conflict arises, observe whether the person can remain within the relationship, whether they possess the repair capacity to acknowledge mistakes and recover, and whether they can tolerate your disappointment⁷. Even highly competent individuals in workplace or social roles may become helpless in romantic contexts, as visible achievements do not guarantee emotional readiness⁷.

Ultimately, immediate answers gained by directly asking about past relationships or personality traits are likely limited to words constructed on the spot by the other person. However, actions that reveal what someone actually does and does not do in repeated contexts such as conflict, fatigue, or requests for minor help are difficult to fabricate on the spur of the moment. As Dr. ETI suggested to the person seeking advice, redirect the repeated question marks you pose to others toward “In what moments do I feel loved?”¹. The moment you become aware of your own internal standards, the other person’s behavioral signals—clearer and more certain than words—will begin to emerge.