“if he wanted to, he would”

[Sonervousimgonnathrowup]

How true it is?

It’s a common enough phrase. Whether it’s a reasonable assessment of the situation, depends.

‘If he wanted to get a well paid job, he would’ is more likely to be untrue in most cases. There may be cases where someone could just get a very well paid job but can’t be arsed. But mostly, people aren’t doing that because there are some complex and hard to overcome barriers in the way.

‘If he wanted to call me, he would’ is more likely to be true. He’s probably got a phone with credit and has your number so, unless you know he’s on a expedition across Antarctica or some more exceptional circumstances, he’s probably just not calling be suse he doesn’t want to.

The neurodiversity suggestion above is one of the possible situations where it might seem like someone could do something or isn’t doing it simply because they don’t want to, but there is something more complex going on.

That’s why the answers you’ve received are of the ‘it depends’ ilk.

Each man is an individual human being. Let's start from there...

@JohnnyPoonani

Another kind of simple behavioural analysis you can do is a ‘should, could, would’ one. You can pretty much draw a vent diagram if these and behaviour is likely to occur at the intersection of all 3. Where it doesn’t you can ask yourself whether it’s because they can’t do it (because they lack the resources or capabilities to do it in the current circumstances), they feel they shouldn’t do it (it’s socially unacceptable in some way, might upset someone they care about, or breaks rules that might jeopardise their livlihood, marriage, etc) or the simply wouldn’t or won’t do it. They just don’t want to. They don’t think it’s important to them.

Where people do something that doesn’t fall into the should, would, could overlap, there’s often some really compelling factor in the circle on the diagram. So if someone does something they should not do - such as has an affair at work - it’s because they could do it, and they quite frankly really want to do it. Despite the fact it’s against company rules/will hurt their spouse/might end in divorce.

They might make all sorts of excuses about it, and try to blame the other party, but they wouldn’t have shagged their PA if they didn’t want to, and didn’t decide that (at least in that moment) that it was more important to them than all the reasons they shouldn’t.

I agree with you @FishcakesWithTooMuchCoriander. But but...
I really want to lose weight. It is the number one thing that would improve my life. I have done it before (when my motivation was to find a man and get married), I am struggling now and don't know why that elusive 'switch' can't be turned back on.
I also think fear is a huge barrier. I do know people who have been in love with someone but fear has stopped them from making the leap. Fear of what - not rejection as they expect that, but fear it won't be as they have imagined it? That their fantasy of life with this person is much better (not to mention easier) than the reality?
My son has trained for a certain career. He got a break early on which went very badly (not as badly as he thinks, and it wasn't his fault at all), but it has paralysed him. It knocked his confidence so much that he has struggled ever since. He really really wants it - it's the focus of his days. But It's fear - of humiliating himself again I believe - that has stopped him from trying again.

Very true when it comes to men and relationships

I knew what you meant, OP. And yes, in my experience, it is true. (Especially when it comes to marriage - thread after thread on here on that one and the answer is always the same…..)

Fear is a very big barrier to many things. And one that it’s absolutely legitimate to acknowledge. Fear affects your capability to do something. Even if the fears aren’t reasonable (to the outside observer).

Motivation can also be more complex than ‘wanting’. It can be about all the little habits that make up your life. Your habits are caught up in weight in all sorts of ways.

Losing weight is hugely complex and it really isn’t helpful to reduce it to motivation alone. It’s one of those cases where - even if we know we are making excuses, and making mountains out of molehills - it really is never as simple as people being holier than thou about diet and exercise like to admit.

Human behaviour is not straightforward. Context always matters a great deal.

It is almost always true.
For men and women.

There are very few situations where they actually genuinely can't be together. Whole life prison sentence. Opposite sides of the world and both penniless. Those sorts of things.

But mostly it's not the most important thing to them. They don't want it more than they want whatever it is that's the block.

Like a spouse, for example.

You may as well sit there with a bunch of daiseys, saying he loves me , he loves me not.

If someone loves you, you know.

There is no doubt, you trust they will think of you above all others and be willing to overcome reasonable obstacles to be with you.

It's not love if they make you feel sub standard, the choice of being together or not is not optional if they truly love you.

@FishcakesWithTooMuchCoriander I'm getting goose bumps reading this because it's so simple I've often wanted a rule, something straight forward to end all this angst about other's behaviours and to understand them and how and why they do what they do. I'm so glad you had the time to be on MN today because you've clarified a lot of things to me. I loved reading your replies so thank you! Very fascinating I feel like I've discovered some sorcery 😂

So in your example of a work affair with the PA:
Should: No due to work policy, potential divorce
Could: Yes they are up for it and have the opportunities to do it
Would: Yes deep down they want to do it
= Sufficient compulsion to have the affair

Appling to the guy who doesn't call you despite having your number:
Should he call a work colleague and ask her out? No it's against work rules and could be awkward
Could he call her? Yes he is capable of doing so if he wanted to he has her number and enough credit
Would he call her? Yes if he wanted it enough

Which goes back to the 'if he wanted to he would'. Yes, I'd say it's possibly 99% true in most cases!

@JohnnyPoonani

To some extent, yes. These kind of analyses can help to think things through.

but they are always simplifications. So it’s less about giving ‘the answer’ than some tools to ask questions to help understand particular situations.

For example, the coulds, shoulds and woulds in an affair might line up like that but still be more complex. The marriage may be a mess anyway, which affects the assessment of the ‘shoulds’. If it feels like divorce is more or less inevitable or that their spouse doesn’t care about them, people may do things they wouldn’t in other circumstances.

Which is only to say that a lot of empathy and exploration of context can be required. And that kind of empathetic approach can sometimes feel like a further betrayal to the cheated on spouse, or worse like victim blaming.

it’s always complex.

If he actually cared (didn’t just want sex) he’d be romantic (not lovebombing),

Neither me or DP have a romantic bone in our bodies, doesn't mean we don't care about each other.

@easyday I know that was addressed to Fish but I just wanted to say that I too thought of the weight loss thing when Fish at post 12:13 said
'Motivation can also be about habits - do my general habits support this happening? That’s why New Years resolutions often fail.'
Looking at my past the times I failed to lose weight where when my habits were still stuck in the old eating way (open a packet crisps and bottle of wine mindlessly that was purchased without thinking at the supermarket as a matter of habit, plonk myself on the sofa in front of the TV at 7pm as a habitual ritual).

@FishcakesWithTooMuchCoriander very wise yes a lot to think about. If only there was one easy shortcut or perhaps a way to read other's minds! Human behaviour and psychology are amazing subjects. Plenty of food for thought :)

I guess one potential use for this kind of analysis is helping people to figure out what they need in a partner. And also where they’re finding themselves tied up in knots trying to interpret or explain away the absence of certain behaviours.

Recognising that you need and want someone who can and will be romantic is fine. To some extent it matters not a jot whether them not doing so is a capability thing (they just aren’t a romantic person) or a motivation thing (they don’t want to be) or both. What matters is recognising that you need someone who does this, and you don’t need to go finding reasons to explain why they don’t do it. You can just accept they don’t. So they’re not for you.

of course, it might also be that they don’t know you’d like them to do that. So you can have the conversation and then rule that out. It just gives you a way of approaching a problem or coming to your own decision, rather than an answer in itself.

Like any glib truism it can a useful guide, or can be meaningless/potentially harmful if used to analyse any specific person or behaviour without context.

It's particularly problematic when applied to one group (ie men) and not others, or holding others to a higher standard than we do ourselves.

Surely you have to have romantic attraction to be together in the first place?
It’s not just about actions…

Yes, I think this is absolutely true. When I was dating, I rarely met anyone who truly followed through with all they promised. And then I met Dh. If we made plans, he kept them, even if he had other offers of things to do. If he said he’d be there at 7, he was (didn’t just get distracted at the pub with friends and roll in at 8:30). When we started thinking about the future after a few months together, he said what he wanted and how he thought we might make it happen. He kept his word and did just that. He’s the same with friends and still that way after 12 years of marriage. I’d never experienced that before, so I knew he was a keeper. For the right person, you’ll be worth it.