@AlphaMale I suppose we differ on the definition of what somebody's "nature" is. I think that a person's nature is what he or she does if you remove consequences and accountability and just let them do what comes naturally. That's the kind of animal they are. Their default programming if you don't force them to do something different. You seem to be defining "nature" differently, as some kind of resonance - something that we might not naturally do unless forced to by external factors, but once we fall into that role, it resonates with us and we feel some sense of fulfillment in our souls.

I think that second definition is all social engineering. A man feels pride when he cares for his family because he's spent his entire life being told that he's supposed to do that and that it's a satisfying accomplishment worthy of pride. A woman feels pride when she has the perfect family that makes the perfect pictures on Facebook because that's what she's been told she's supposed to do and what other women validate her for doing.

If we waved a magic wand and deleted all of these social teachings from everybody, they probably wouldn't feel this satisfaction and resonance with their productive, non-hedonistic lifestyles. Probably. That's a question of faith at that point. Whether you believe there's some inborn part of the human soul that gives us this feeling, even though the behaviors that lead to it aren't completely natural.

It's not human nature to feel happy and fulfilled. It's human nature to be afraid and angry and paranoid all the time. That's what keeps animals alive in the wilderness. A happy man who's fulfilled gets eaten by a predator, while the man's who's constantly afraid and paranoid spots the danger or a man who's constantly angry kills the predator. The idea that "If I do this thing that doesn't come naturally to me in the absence of external factors forcing me to do it, I feel happy and fulfilled" doesn't make something our nature.

@AlphaMale I see what you're saying, and it makes a good simple caveat for young inexperienced daters to help avoid a common pitfall or three.

However, getting to know a person is as much an art as a science, and we're working with brain firmware that evolved under conditions where we had a long track record of observing potential mates over time. The anonymity of modern life means every new potential mate is a TOTAL STRANGER that you must assemble a life history and global assessment of on the fly. Red/green flags are one component of systematizing this process; they're a tool not a crystal ball into a stranger's soul.

Things like BPD, face tattoos, "All my exes raped me," and children from multiple fathers don't even fall within the set of "flags" at all to me; these are show stoppers.

It's a lot easier to reduce someone to a clear "red flag" or showstopper when you're reading someone else's description of them, than when you're personally immersed in the encounter with them taking in information through all channels.

I see a lot of people in AskTRP treating flags like a working version of the One Single Proof fallacy.