this was pretty accurate.

now what about the psychos who put all their efforts into making a great first impression?

This exercise definitely made me think about what works in a relationship.

When you look at it like that, it does make sense. In those first 15 minutes you really see traits that you don't necessairly want to see. don't ignore those!!!

oooh very interesting. i'm going to give that a try.

...and if we judged everyone we met so stringently, we'd all be alone, all the time...

Hind sight is 20/20.

Of course someone's traits will be apparent when you meet them and thereafter. That doesn't indicate at all that we can with, certainty tell, which traits will and won't be deal-breakers to us in a long-term relationship. You can do the same thing with people you still know and love, or feel indifferently about. This is just an exercise in recognizing people's consistencies.

this is stupid

I wanted to be impressed with this, but what about relationships that end because of abuse?

I know that I'm being a wet blanket, but the problem with this exercise and much of what is offered as relationship advice, is that when it comes right down to it, it's purely anecdotal. Annoying people like me who want real data don't place any faith in this kind of thing, because it hasn't really been tested. For instance, we've all heard anecdotes of the happily married couple where one didn't like the other at all on the first date, which completely contradicts the premise of this exercise. With anecdotes that contradict each other, who's to say which is right? Sadly, you have to be scientific (sorry), and to use statistical inference (sorry again).

This exercise is open to all of the pitfalls of anecdotal information. It's easy to make after-the-fact rationalizations (which is how "psychics" convince some people that failed predictions were really successes). I can see someone doing this exercise, knowing how it's supposed to work, and thinking, "yes, now that I think of it [Joe/Jane] made me feel just a touch [intimidated/defensive/whatever], and that's what eventually broke us up." Making such a judgment on a single years- or decades-old memory, when you "know" what that judgment is "supposed" to be, is treacherously difficult to be unbiased about. That's why similar scientific research always involves double blinding.

When you add confirmation bias, people can start to believe that something must be true, without it necessarily being so. (That's where people tend to remember the instances that confirm their beliefs and dismiss, or not remember, those that contradict them.) There's also biased reporting, where successes are more likely to be reported than failures, furthering the chances that something that's not true can nonetheless become "common knowledge".

Hey, maybe it is a good predictor of a successful relationship. Maybe it's actually been scientifically tested -- a protocol designed, a precise designation made of when a relationship has lasted long enough to be called successful, a statistically significant number of randomly selected people tested (by writing down their first impressions right after their first meeting -- not after they've broken up), and couples followed long-term to see if there really is a correlation between the first 15 minute impression and relationship longevity. But somehow, I doubt it, and until actual data is available, it's just an amusing exercise.