SCRIPT CHECK · 60 SECONDS
Five quick questions show how often it appears, how believable it feels, and what it makes you avoid. You’ll get one private next step.
This is not a diagnosis and there is no pass or fail. It measures the current frequency, credibility, and behavioral cost of “Their ex was more attractive than me”, including the private rule underneath it: The ex was more attractive, more interesting, more everything—and I know it because the math always adds up that way. You measure yourself using complete, realistic self-knowledge and measure the ex using imagined, idealized information.…
QUIET
“Their ex was more attractive than me” appears, but it rarely gets the final say. Keep this line available for higher-pressure moments: “The scoreboard only runs in one direction. I'm using a microscope on myself and a soft-focus lens on someone I've never actually met.”
PRESENT
“Their ex was more attractive than me” wins some small decisions before you catch it. Your useful interruption is: “My partner chose to stay. That's a data point. The imaginary scoreboard has no data points.”
ACTIVE
“Their ex was more attractive than me” is shaping action often enough to deserve a deliberate counterexample. Start privately and concretely: Write down three specific things you actually know about the ex's appearance from direct observation. Notice how short the list is. This is what's real.
DOMINANT
Right now, “Their ex was more attractive than me” is steering many of the moments you measured. That is a pattern reading, not a diagnosis or character verdict. Begin with one reversible receipt: Write down three specific things you actually know about the ex's appearance from direct observation. Notice how short the list is. This is what's real.