Good news, everyone!
So, INTJs are perhaps one of the most solitary creatures in the world, a fate that seems both predestined and chosen. And while INTJs can survive—and some even thrive—in a solitary existence, there are some who are still susceptible to romance, and some who even desire it. After all, the ache to be known and understood, and to know and understand another is not easily dismissed. But as we are talking about INTJs, not any person will do. There are some people who seem to be in a new relationship every week. I don’t know how they do it, but I get the distinct impression that these people aren’t very picky about the sort of person they embrace. For INTJs, that is not the case. Love is nice, but the love of an extraordinary person is better. But what does that mean? What do INTJs look for in a romantic partner?
Originally, when I wrote this, I only had three criteria: speculative discussion, rational decisions, and undying loyalty. But since then, I have reworked this blog and expounded greatly. Let’s get on with it!
1. Creativity
Originally, this was “speculative discussion”, but I have since changed it to creativity, because that’s what speculative discussion is based on, and further, INTJs desire a partner who is creative in more than just what they talk about. Due to their Ni-dominant function stack, INTJs possess big imaginations and boundless wonder. They are interested in many subjects, exploring different ideas, and looking for the truth. And while INTJs can certainly do that alone, the journey into the unknown is always better with a close friend, especially one who is also Intuitive, or preferably Intuitive-dominant. The truth is out there and INTJs want to know it, so having someone in their life that can think like they do is very much appreciated. Someone who not only thinks outside the box, but looks far beyond it.
2. An Appreciation for Rationality
This was also one of the original qualities and was limited to “rational decisions”. I say limited to because it made it seem like there was no hope for Feelers to be partnered with an INTJ. But some decisions are made based on emotions, even by INTJs, and some are made based on logic, even by Feelers. Therefore, what’s most important is that INTJs find a partner who can appreciate rationality and rational decisions.
Some INTJs will invariably end up with other Thinking types, and in those relationships, both partners will definitely appreciate and practice the rational. However, things can become a little tricky when involving Feelers. If an INTJ were to court an IFP or EFP, who has Fi for their dominant and auxiliary function, respectively, the partner may push the INTJ to make a decision that benefits the marginalized, whereas EFJs and IFJs who have Fe in their dominant and auxiliary function, respectively, would push their INTJ to make a decision that makes everyone happy. Unfortunately, sometimes that can’t be done. So, what an INTJ would like is for their Feeler partner to understand and appreciate a rational decision when it needs to be made because more than likely, it will come to the INTJ to make that decision. And for those times when the Feeler partner does need to make the rational decision, they can count on their INTJ to support them.
3. Undying Loyalty
Old or new version of this blog, this is one that remains essential and true. INTJs do not trust easily. I’m not entirely sure why this is, but it’s probably because we know we’re different from most.
Ni is our dominant function, which most of the population doesn’t have, and as a result can make us seem weird. Te is our auxiliary function, which again, most of the population doesn’t have. Basically that means we more readily apply logic where most other types prefer to use Sensing (tradition [Si] or novelty [Se]) or Feeling (individual [Fi] or group [Fe]). This basically means we’re rational weirdos, and buries Fi in our tertiary function, which is then mostly utilized to protect the individual because the individual has spent most of its lifetime being mocked and harassed for being different.
As a result, we are guarded people. Before we open up to anyone, we need to make sure they are completely loyal to us. We are not merciful towards traitors, especially those within our inner circle. So how much less merciful will be towards a traitor that has occupied our hearts and shared our beds? They will have access to our most intimate thoughts and feelings, and while no one’s most intimate thoughts and feelings should be treated lightly, an INTJ’s should be treated even less lightly. Remember, I said INTJs have been mocked and harassed for a good portion of their lives, so how much more could we suffer if someone were to totally betray us? So, a close, unwavering confidant is worth more than their weight in gold to an INTJ.
4. Extraordinariness
INTJs aren’t normal, average, or ordinary in any sense. Likely due to our dominant function, normality bores us to tears and we despise the ordinary. As a result, we desire the uncommon, the extraordinary, in all things, and so too, it is with our romantic partner. We want someone who is extraordinary, but what does that mean exactly?
“Extraordinary” is a broad term. People can be extraordinary in a lot of ways. You can be extraordinary because you run an exceptionally short mile. You can be extraordinary because you have a perfect credit score. You can be extraordinary because you understand the cello in a way that is even beyond the understanding of many virtuosos. So, what sort of extraordinary are INTJs looking for in their partners?
To be sure, to some extent, every INTJ will be a little different. I for instance want a girl who is well-endowed with a slim waist, which is extraordinary when you consider the average waist measurement of the average American woman who has a large bra size. However, you may think that being “extraordinary” means you have to be hyper-intelligent or super creative. Beneficial traits to be sure when consorting with an INTJ, but not necessary. To be honest, the fact that you’re willing to put up with us, listen to us, and love us makes you extraordinary to begin with. Is that enough? Well, for most INTJs, it will be enough for us to grant you a chance. But hopefully, one extraordinary quality begets another.
5. Belief in Us and Encouragement
Those who are close to us will know that INTJs can be right, ornery cusses. Besides the usual case of resting-bitch-face, we can become moody. And sometimes, we can become depressed. I’m not too sure how this happens as my research into the INTJ Shadow is incomplete, but hidden within our Ni is Ne, which can cause us to doubt ourselves and everything we’ve ever believed in. In times like those, we’re going to need someone to believe in us. Someone who has seen us at our best and knows how to pick us up when we feel low.
But more than that, we need someone who believes in our ideas and dreams. Again, what with Ni on top of our stack, we have some pretty big dreams, and we need someone who can believe in our ability to reach those dreams, and to push us further. We need a cheerleader. We need someone who can tell us that we can make the impossible possible, that our Ni-visions are not mere fever dreams. We need someone to believe in us and encourage us, and we’ll do the exact same for you.
6. Understanding, Preferably an Appreciation, of Our Hobbies
When I was younger and believed that online dating worked, I made profiles stating my interests and hobbies, and then saying that I didn’t need a partner with whom to enjoy them. I based that belief on looking at my parents and seeing what their hobbies were, and seeing whether or not they enjoyed them together. To be sure, they both have their own hobbies that the other doesn’t get involved in. Anyway, I also wrote in those profiles that I just needed someone who wouldn’t disparage those hobbies. After all, one of them is video games, and there are still some women today who think video games are childish.
Nowadays, though, I would like to alter my position slightly: with a strong Fi—a strong need to see my individual self validated—I no longer think that not disparaging my hobbies is enough. I need someone who understands my hobbies. Why? Because they’re a part of who I am and what makes me, me.
What would be better though is a partner that appreciates my hobbies. Again, they made me who I am, and if you appreciate what and who I am, that means you automatically appreciate the experiences that formed me. I’m not saying that you have to do them with me, although it would be nice, but if you love me, you should appreciate the part they had in making me so lovable.
7. Attractiveness
Beauty is important. Let’s not indulge political correctness (it has no place on this blog or website!) and say it isn’t. After all, INTJs do possess Se. It may be our inferior function, but we certainly entertain certain aesthetics in our lives. Therefore, why should we not entertain a certain aesthetic when it comes to our partner? I can’t speak for all INTJs, and so, I’m sure some of them place less value on physical attractiveness, but I’m sure if you asked them which they would prefer, a perfect partner in an ugly package or a perfect partner in a beautiful package, they would go with the latter.
Of course, though, it is a bit of a disservice to attractiveness to limit it to physical beauty. I have met girls that weren’t the prettiest, but something about them did make me want to jump their bones. So, to some extent, some INTJs will define “attractiveness” differently. Who knows? You may find an INTJ that doesn’t care about beauty, and prefers that their partner be a real snazzy dresser. My advice—if you really want that INTJ, play to their aesthetic as much as you can without betraying who you are.
8. Intelligence
Now, if the other seven points didn’t have you shaking in your boots, this one probably will. Yes, INTJs are smart. Really smart. And even if we aren’t that smart, we’re still intellectuals—we have intellectual pursuits and we pursue other things intellectually. Therefore, it can seem a daunting task to be intelligent enough for an INTJ. And doubtlessly, some INTJs will place a great importance on intelligence. My personal standing, however, is that while I don’t think of intelligence as being sexy, I do definitely think the lack of it is a turn-off. Stupidity isn’t cute. But you don’t have to be supra-intelligent—just intelligent enough, which unfortunately will be defined by your target INTJ.
9. Honesty
INTJs want honesty. If we ask the question, “Do I look fat in this?”, we want the honest answer. Yes, it probably will hurt our feelings, but you can only get ahead in life by kissing the ass of your boss. You kiss the ass of your partner, and six months down the line, the only thing you’ll have accomplished is making a fatter ass to kiss.
I have a shirt that I created for Transcendent Tees that goes “by knowing where we came from, we can appreciate where we are, and understand where we are going.” I was inspired to make that shirt after looking at what little I had accomplished last year. By knowing what little I had done, and how it was I had done so little, I was able to appreciate why I’m a failure in the present, and understand what it was that I needed to change so I could be a success in the future. That’s why I’ve bothered with making a comprehensive Google Sheet as a means of recording my daily activities and the means by which I want to achieve my dreams. Do I feel like a loser? You bet I do! But by facing the truth of my situation, I was able to figure out the means of making sure I don’t repeat it.
Honesty is the best policy, and we INTJs want it, even from our partners, and even if it hurts.
10. Integrity
And going along with honesty, another thing we expect from our partners is integrity. Now, integrity can mean a lot of things, too. But in this sense, what I mean is we don’t want fakes or frauds. In point 7, I advised you to work to our aesthetic so we can see you as attractive, but only in so far as you don’t betray yourself. We don’t want you being something you’re not. We want honesty for ourselves, and we want it for you. If you feel like you have to change yourself to make us happy, then I’ve got news for you, you’re not meant to be with us. Or at the very least, you’re not meant to be with that particular INTJ. We’re true to who we are, and we expect it from you as well.
Conclusion
When I first wrote this, I concluded with a section comparing rational love to passionate love. I think my point was that INTJs prioritize rational love over passionate, and while that is still true, that doesn’t mean that INTJs aren’t susceptible to passion. I wouldn’t keep this blog if I wasn’t passionate about it (God knows I’m not getting paid!), and further, INTJs are supposed to be demons in the sack. But, I’m pretty sure that we can be rationally passionate about rational love, and passionately rational about passionate love, as I hope this blog has made clear. These ten points—some of them are rational, but some of them aren’t. No one is completely of one nature and not the other—INTJs included. And hopefully, we can meet such a person who helps bring these ten qualities to our relationship.
So, what do you think? Are these the qualities you look for in a romantic partner, or am I missing something? Let me know in the comments below.
Thank you for your patronage.
Follow me on Social Media:
FB: https://www.facebook.com/bryanclaesch
IG: https://www.instagram.com/bryanclaesch/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BryanofAllTrade
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/bryanclaesch/
Do INTJs expect their romantic partner to fulfill *all* of their social needs? Put another way, will INTJs maintain friendships after finding an acceptable romantic relationship? Additionally, will an INTJ always interpret intense feelings of affection or attraction as romantic / sexual, or could they also have a loving relationship with an (emotionally) intimate friend?
According to my observations, most introverts retreat into their romantic relationships. I can understand getting caught up in a passionate romance, but it kinda cheapens prior friendships with them when friendships are dismissed so easily. As an extrovert, I’d like to understand why these friendships are tossed to the side in the first place. Is it done out of apathy (i.e., the friends are no longer socially necessary) or out of emotional necessity (i.e., the introvert doesn’t have enough resources to prioritize the romantic relationship while maintaining old friendships)?
Well, sort of. I think some of it is convenience (why go out with other people when the most important person in your world is right here) and some of it idealistic (looking for the best friend romance). It’s about having that one person in whom you can confide everything and bond to unconditionally. That one person becomes your everything, so why bother with anything else? Some of it is emotional necessity, some of it is logic and convenience. I wouldn’t say it cheapens previous friendships because those experiences can help an introvert discover more about who he is and what he wants socially, and even romantically. But that’s from the perspective of the introvert himself, not the friend.
To answer your first questions, I would say most INTJs would prefer intense feelings of affection or attraction to always be romantic rather than coming from an emotionally intimate friend. I say this, because I have had emotionally intimate friends who I wanted to bond to romantically, but was unable to either because the friend wasn’t interested or was already in a romantic relationship, and I ended up playing myself. Sure, such things could be avoided with a bit of emotionally maturity, but I would also argue that an INTJ will never let “just a friend” know their most intimate thoughts and feelings–there will always be a barrier of some sort for protection. Ergo, intimacy can only be expressed intimately.
So, while an INTJ may not necessarily expect a romantic partner to fulfill all of their social needs, that is certainly the ideal that they work towards for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, convenience, idealism, personal boundaries, and lack of resources.
Thank you for your blunt honesty! Overall, the answer is pretty disappointing, but I think it’s such a common approach to relationships that my disappointment is more for the limitations of human love and friendship in general than INTJs in particular. I have a lot of thoughts on the transactional nature of relationships that are difficult to condense into a single comment, but I’ll try to be brief. For clarity, I’ll call the INTJ “the introvert,” but I really think this could apply to anyone.
Firstly, I understand the appeal of finding “your person,” one relationship to rule them all, but both in practice and on a logical level it seems to be problematic for everyone involved. A forgotten friend won’t be comforted that the relationship they invested so much in helped the introvert that ditched them “break the ice,” get through a rough patch, or learn more about themselves – they’ll still feel used if they weren’t previously aware of the arrangement.
And what kind of message does that send to “the one” anyway? If you discard significant connections and bonds as a matter of convenience, this new all-encompassing relationship must be at least partially appealing for its convenience, a conditional relationship at its foundation. The converse scenario is one reason socially successful people are so attractive – if a person cultivates healthy relationships and treats those relationships with respect, you can expect them to bring that same level of respect to a romance, even when you make mistakes or aren’t at your best. In other words, I think we all desire otherworldly unconditional love from others even when we’re incapable of giving it ourselves. However, it’s illogical to expect a healthy form of love to appear in romance when we haven’t ever nurtured it in our friendships. Ultimately, all of the introvert’s critical emotional and social needs will be concentrated onto one person, setting that person up for failure while putting undue strain on the relationship. If enough pressure builds, the significant other may eventually fall from their pedestal, only then discovering that the acceptance and validation they previously enjoyed was conditionally based on a fantastical construct of a “super partner,” one who could magically fulfill all human needs.
Thus, the last person cheated by this dynamic is the introvert. Unconditional love requires inhuman perfection, and as the introvert chases after this unobtainable quality, they grow disillusioned with other humans, love, and relationships in general. Over time this can take a considerable toll on their mental health and worldview. Out of fear, they’ve taken a relationship with beautiful potential and strained it to a point of unnecessary stress and conflict. It will never be as healthy as it could’ve been, and the relationship may not survive where it could’ve grown. Furthermore, even if the introvert manages to temper their expectations and avoid becoming embittered, they have stunted their own personal growth. Instead of working on themselves, they expect their partner to compensate for all of their deficiencies. Instead of learning from other relationships, they’ve cut themselves off and decided they’re a finished work. Effectively, they’ll never be as good of a partner to “their person” as they could’ve been.
Ugh, I’m sorry! This response is already way longer than what I was expecting, but just one more point:
As I said before, I emphasize with searching for unconditional love and “the one” because I wanted the same and I have the same tendencies. This was a hard-won lesson for me, but eventually I realized conditional relationships are desirable (at least where imperfect humans are concerned). A conditional relationship is a fair and accountable relationship. You have to be able to reward people for doing the right thing and behaving well. That’s part of recognizing them as “special.” If you treat someone who behaves poorly just the same as someone who behaves well, both have no incentive to improve or behave well. (“To those who have more is given,” and all that good stuff.) In the case of a relationship, someone “letting themselves go” or being neglectful or malicious in some way shouldn’t be written off in an unconditional “blank check.” If you truly love someone, you don’t want to cheat them, and a conditional relationship shouldn’t be an issue because you never want to hurt them in the first place.
Wow…this is a lot to unpack. I’ll try to go through this by paragraph in the hopes of keeping it organized.
To your first point, I would like to challenge your assertion that the friend would feel used. Friendships end for a lot of reasons–sometimes because we are not the same people at the start of them as we were at the beginning, which can be in part due to the influence of the friend. But, generally, I would argue that no friend is simply discarded and forgotten, especially if there are good times to remember. It’s just that in times where the choice is between your person and the friend, you would choose your person because they are a better social match. But in those times where you don’t need to choose, there’s nothing stopping you from seeing the friend in honor of the good memories. Although, to help prevent this from happening, this is part of the reason why I think introverts should in general end up with extraverts as extraverts will help push an introvert to be social. Introverts have a bad habit of making plans to be social, but losing their nerve in the 11th hour, even if past instances prove their reticence wrong.
Regarding your second point, I don’t know, socially successful people don’t come across as attractive to me. I can understand your point about them putting the same effort into a friendship as they would a relationship, but if I met a woman with few or no friends, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that she’s socially unsuccessful or is incapable of putting effort into her relationships. I would sooner assume she’s untested or no one has ever held her interest before. Social success is not a quality I seek in a partner, and from what I understand, that tends to be something women look for in men, but not something men look for in women. It could also be something extraverts value because since they have so many connections, they understand the value of social success. That’s not really something introverts are interested in. Further, I don’t think it’s illogical to expect healthy love in romance when it hasn’t been present in friendships. Romantic relationships and friendships have different dynamics, so connection manifests itself in different ways. They can be similar, but the feelings and intentions behind them are different. I relate to my friends differently than I relate to my romantic interests. For instance, I’m much more likely to take a personal interest in a partner and more likely to support her through a challenge, whereas for friends, I would stand further back.
To your third point, I must disagree again. I think it is possible to love someone unconditionally and not have that someone assume they’re done developing. I mean–since we’ve already broached the religious barrier–we know that God loves us unconditionally, but that doesn’t mean that our spot in Heaven is guaranteed, nor does it mean that we assume we’re done growing. We know we’re imperfect and capable of failing, and we admit to it, but that doesn’t change how God feels about us. Since we know what we can hurt Him and our relationship with Him, we try to be better. So, I feel it would be the same in a relationship. Even if I do bond with someone unconditionally, I don’t expect them to overlook my shortcomings, nor do I expect them to overlook the times I hurt them. In order to reap the benefits of their unconditional love, I have to choose them–I have to keep from hurting them. In order to keep that bond unconditional, I have to work at it (as does she), and ensure that it stays that way. Although, I guess in that case it’s no longer “unconditional”, is it? Hmm, perhaps I need to further ponder what I meant by “unconditional”. Perhaps I only meant it as the ideal and not the reality. The goal/expectation/standard, but not the actual result.
I think we may be making different assumptions right now about what this transition between relationships (friends to significant other) would look like. I understand that people drift apart over time and don’t always remain friends. I’ve experienced my fair share of this. However, there’s a big difference between more infrequent communication and burning a bridge or ghosting. With clear communication comes closure, but I’m talking about cases where one party knows the score and the other is in the dark. This is where we probably disagree, but I think this scenario is the rule not the exception. In many of these cases you can sit back and track the health of someone’s romantic relationship by monitoring when they choose to re-engage their friends. The significant other leaves, then suddenly they’re interested in their friends again. They’re fighting with their significant other and suddenly they want to chat, usually so they can vent about said significant other. Etcetera etcetera. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say this is the norm – I think you’d be hard-pressed to find an adult who hasn’t witnessed this kind of behavior. There are lots of excuses for it, but at the end of the day, people are using their friends like a drug or a crutch or a placeholder, not treating them with respect. You can see this same mentality carry over to romantic relationships, and even parenting, but that’s an essay for another day.
In the scenario you’re talking about, where a person starts a romantic relationship then drifts apart from a friend amicably, that assumes the friend is no longer strongly attached to this person, or that the person can easily be replaced at this point. I assume this because otherwise there will be an emotional absence, with the friend potentially left high and dry. If the friend wasn’t relying on them for anything it could work. However, if two friends have a strong connection, I would assume they at least rely on each other for social interaction and, if it’s a special connection, that it can’t be easily replaced. If it’s a meaningful friendship, I believe it should be considered on its own merits, not shoehorned in to fit someone’s dating life.
Unfortunately, it seems this is just another place we disagree – I don’t think friendships are different from romantic relationships outside of sex and reproduction. Responsibilities to a spouse may take priority, but if you’ve maintained a support network it shouldn’t be consuming all of your resources. For example, friends of mine just had a baby and the INTP wife spends most of her time visiting her family or taking care of the baby on her own, leaving the ENTJ husband plenty of time to hang out with his friends. People don’t usually forgo having friends because of their family, and they’ll make time for friendships and entertainment around their various responsibilities. So, I think the major differences between how a friend connection and a romantic connection are treated are presumed physical intimacy and presumed convenience. I say ‘presumed’ because it’s not guaranteed to last, and just watch how quickly some people stray once either presumption dries up. Again, both types of connection require work, and I think it’s misguided to put it all onto one relationship. If a person still has close connections with a few friends, maybe it won’t feel so bad when their significant other is going through a rough patch and needs some space. Maybe it’ll be easier to keep the spark alive in their relationship when they can still share experiences from outside of their romantic bubble.
I’m a bit surprised you wouldn’t find social success attractive, but then again, I used that term for the sake of brevity and didn’t define it. I don’t measure social success by number of friends but by demonstrated social skill. For instance, I met an INTJ earlier today that I consider socially successful due to a history of healthy romantic relationships and his ease at bantering and holding up an interesting conversation. When someone knows how to handle themselves in social situations, it indicates they can provide a smoothly functioning family life and protect or promote the family’s status in their community. I think it’s natural to find something beneficial attractive, but I can see how it would also no longer appear beneficial if an individual feared their partner’s social success/skill made it more likely they’d leave them. In other words, I understand that attractiveness is an assessment based in stability as much as it is in “curb appeal.” So, now that I’ve deconstructed the thought a bit, I think my original point was that whatever looks like it would contribute to a healthy and beneficial relationship becomes attractive.
Bottom line: Most people don’t value friendship enough until later in life when they wind up all lonely and disillusioned (just visit the pit of despair that is a nursing home). If *I* sound wound up, it’s because it genuinely disturbs me that people choose to ignore this storm on the distant horizon. These days everyone acts like they have more time than they do, like they can afford to wait to plant the crop then harvest at the end anyway. But, if you’re going to put all your eggs in one basket, you’ve got to wait until you find the perfect “one” or else the all-in-one approach is not going to work. What a miserable fiasco. Simply put, romance is not a shortcut to social fulfillment. I’m tired of watching people suffer, but what’s even the point in sharing knowledge and experience with each other when everyone only believes what they want to be true?
There’s a C.S. Lewis quote, “If we find ourselves with a desire *that nothing* in this *world* can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.” He was far more knowledgeable about Christianity than I, but I share his sentiment and believe it applies to the desire for perfect love and romance. God wants us to seek a relationship with Him. One interpretation of Adam & Eve’s fall is that Adam chose Eve over God, lusting after Eve, this reflection of himself. I think too many people, myself included, have at some point made romantic love or the idea of a significant other into a false idol. Along the same vein, Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 that you should show compassion to everyone (“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’”), not just one person or those most socially compatible. Maybe that’s a bit unfair in the context of friendships, which are more of a commitment than charity, but my point is that even “lesser” relationships should be treated with respect and resolved as gracefully as possible. I don’t think I’ve studied nearly enough to evaluate your third rebuttal about God and Heaven, but I do believe God is in everyone (like Matthew 25:40&45 said), so if I’m supposed to return His unconditional love, I believe I should be returning it to everyone, not just the ones I like most. Still, I have plenty to think about – thank you for giving me some alternative points to consider.
I don’t have much to say to this as it seems you have more general life experience than me, so I can’t argue some points. Though, I do have a pair of friends who are expecting their first child, so it will be interesting to see if the same thing happens as in your example (the husband is an ENTJ too–not sure about her MBTI). One thing I would say is that to your first point, I think I was assuming that the friendship in question wasn’t like a best friend situation or one in which the friend was a replacement for a romantic relationship. If that were the case, you would have a point. But that’s not where I was coming from.
I’m sorry for turning this conversation so argumentative in the first place. I think I get carried away trying to find the solution to a problem that likely has no earthly answer. We all do our best to make sense of the world according to our own life experience, and who’s to say one set of experiences is more valid than another? I see you asking many of the same questions as me and think maybe you have some of the pieces to the puzzle that I’m missing and vice-versa. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to write about all of these topics.
P.S. I was assuming a close friendship since those are the ones I consider to have a “connection.” In other friendships, friends don’t really rely on each other imo.