That Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means

How logic may be failing you

“If they wanted to, they would” is one of the most toxic cliches in in the relationship content circuit. It seems logical, but is it?

Nope. It’s fundamentally misleading and can cause real harm.

A lot of relationship content sounds logical.

That’s the problem.

How?

I’m so glad you asked. Let’s start with some very basic logics.

I took a logics course in college, and it was one of my favorite classes. I kept my textbook and still looks things up now and then.

I know, I’m a total nerd.

But you know how common sense isn’t as common as we think? Logic is the same - it’s not as logical as we think. It turns out it’s something we actually need to learn.

The core foundation of logic is that conclusions are made based on 1 or more pieces of information, called premises. Premises can be facts and direct observations, but they often come from common assumptions.

Let’s walk through an example from Logic 101:

Bob flirts with Sally often, therefore he must like her.

The premises are:

1. Bob flirts with Sally often
2. Flirting is an indication of attraction or romantic interest

Therefore, it’s fair to conclude that Bob likes Sally.

Agreed?
Good. (I gave you an easy one.)

But a logical conclusion is only as good as the information it’s built on.

The conclusion can only be true if the premises are both true and complete.

Another example:
We tend to think a lot of things are good for us because they’re natural.
The assumed premise is that natural things are better for us, and I think few people would argue with that.

Shouldn’t they though?

There are a lot of natural things that are not so good for us.

Take opium. Opium is natural, but I don’t recommend it. Unless you happen to have some narcan laying around, which is synthetic. Fruit is also natural, but too much can mess with your insulin. Speaking of insulin, synthetic insulin is often safer and more effective than natural insulin.

Nature isn’t looking so good anymore, is it?

The premise that natural things are automatically better for us is wildly inaccurate, yet most people would agree with that statement.

Let’s go back to Bob & Sally. We know flirting shows you like someone. But we also know plenty of times when it’s used for other reasons, like getting sex, even when the person has no interest in seeing the other person again.

Well I know Bob, and I can tell you he’s a bit of a player. He only flirted with Sally to get laid.

We used what seemed like obvious logic, yet we landed on the wrong conclusion.

Not such an easy one after all, was it?

You’re probably annoyed and thinking some version of

“Well, yeah, obviously that was possible, but I wasn’t thinking of that. Flirting usually means they like you.”

Yep. It often does. But not always, and you knew that. Here are some other very common possibilities:

Wanting an ego boost after a breakup
Being lonely and wanting some human interaction
Being a big flirt who flirts with everyone

There are countless other reasons, yet you took the bait.

See how easy it is to get it wrong, even when it seems so logical?

Flirting doesn’t have one possible motive, it has many. Without more context we can’t know anything. Not because the premise was wrong, but because it wasn’t the only possible explanation.

Things like culture, personal experience, and social influence tend to assign specific assumptions to certain behaviors. And even when we know other reasons, the most widely accepted assumptions get ingrained as the most obvious explanations.

Logic requires a bit of critical thinking, some curiosity, and willingness to accept that you may not know why someone did something, even when it might seem obvious.

If you take nothing else from this post, lock this in your brain: Just because you can’t think of another reasonable explanation for something doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Always assume that you might be wrong.

Here are three of the most common misinterpretations we make about relationship behavior and the inaccurate or incomplete assumptions that drive them.

1. “They know exactly what they’re doing.”

Assumed premise: When someone is being manipulative, they know it. People are aware at all times of what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and exactly what harm it causes.

Reality: Sometimes they are. Most of the time they’re not. (Be honest — neither are you)

People act from fear, shame, attachment wounds, habits, conditioning, identity protection, nervous system responses, and emotional blind spots ALL. THE. TIME.

People often have no idea what they’re actually doing and are oblivious to the harm they may be causing. And if they do have some awareness, they generally believe they have a valid reason that supports some greater good. It doesn’t excuse it, but it can explain it.

---

2. “If they wanted to, they would.”

Assumed premise: If you want something, you will act on it. If you don’t act on it, then you didn’t actually want it.

Reality: Wanting something doesn’t automatically mean you have the capacity to do anything about it. In dating and relationships, it’s actually really common for a person to not go for what they want.

The problem is we often confusion won’t and can’t.
Won’t suggests a choice.
Can’t suggests a limitation.

Big difference.

They may have a huge crush but not act on it out of fear of rejection.
They may want to call or text but don’t want to seem needy.
They may want to leave a relationship but fear the fallout.

Lots of things get in the way of what we want - fear, shame, time, anxiety, social pressure, other obligations, competing forces.

Maybe they want it. Maybe they don’t. Whether or not they act doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about why or why not.

This expression can be incredibly toxic and cause real harm. Please stop saying it.

---

3. “They don’t care.”

Assumed premise: Cold or distant behavior means they don’t care about you.

Reality: Lots of things may cause a person to act flippant or indifferent, but it doesn’t mean they are. It doesn’t mean much of anything on its own.

Look at hit-and-run behavior. They hurt you, and then they avoid you. It could be because they’re an asshole who doesn’t care.

It could also be they’re too ashamed of their behavior, they learned avoidance from their parents, they don’t know what to say or how to face you now, they think they’ve done too much damage that can’t be repaired, or they’re afraid that after what they’ve done, they’ll be rejected. You have no way to know unless they tell you.

Sometimes they don’t care.
Sometimes they actually care a lot.

Their behavior tells you what they did/didn’t do. It doesn’t tell you why.

The biggest mistake in all three of these is that they all assume you can know someone’s motives simply by observing their behavior.

But you can’t know a person’s motives without having a lot more information than just “they did a thing, and I know what that thing means.” Jumping to conclusions like that can be toxic.

Side note: Logical-sounding bad logic is one of the most common tools used in gaslighting and other manipulation strategies. It can be damaging as hell.

Knowing this stuff isn’t just so you can stop saying things like “If they wanted to, they would.” It can also make it easier to tell when someone is manipulating you.

When it comes to understanding relationship behavior, logic will almost always point you in the wrong direction.

Most people aren’t blind or irrational. In fact, they may arrive very cleanly at their conclusion based on the information they have. That makes it really hard to argue with. But they’re often reasoning from inaccurate assumptions they don’t realize they’re making.

If the premises are inaccurate, it doesn’t matter how well you can lay out your logic. There’s a good chance you’re still wrong.

---