Life Was Simpler Before We Started Labeling Everyone’s Attachment Style

No more avoidant excuses: actions over labels.

In the age of TikTok therapy and Instagram infographics, we’ve become a society obsessed with dissecting every quirk in our relationships through the lens of psychology. Attachment theory — originally developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth in the mid-20th century — has exploded into pop culture. Suddenly, everyone’s either “secure,” “anxious,” “avoidant,” or “disorganized.”

It’s everywhere: podcasts, self-help books, even dating app bios where people proudly (or apologetically) declare their style like it’s a zodiac sign.

I’ll admit, I’ve been guilty of this too, making excuses for someone’s behavior because of their attachment style or hanging on longer than I should because I convinced myself they just needed a little extra help. But honestly, was life really this complicated before we had all these labels? I don’t believe it was.

There was a time when we just took people’s behaviors at face value, without turning every interaction into a amateur therapy session. And honestly? It felt easier, more straightforward, and less exhausting.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words and Labels

If someone ghosted you, you didn’t scroll through Reddit trying to diagnose complex trauma you simply thought, No deep dives into their childhood trauma or fears of intimacy. You simply thought, “They’re not interested.” No 10-step psych eval needed. It just meant they didn’t want you enough to show up. Harsh? Maybe. But it cut through the noise.

Sure, maybe they were avoidant, psychology-wise. But that didn’t give them the right to use you and toss aside your feelings. Yet, it’s always easier for us to blame ourselves — believing we could fix someone labeled “avoidant” rather than holding them accountable for doing the hard work on themselves.

In the pre-label era, assumptions were based on what was right in front of us. If a partner pulled away during conflict, we didn’t rationalize it as “dismissive-avoidant tendencies stemming from emotional unavailability.” You saw someone who wasn’t prioritizing the relationship and you moved on or addressed it without an army of therapists lurking in your head. That directness had perks:

• Less Overanalysis: Without labels, we didn’t spend hours scrolling or quizzing friends about whether our ex’s hot and cold behavior was “anxious-avoidant” or just plain flaky. We moved on faster because the explanation was simple: It wasn’t working.
• No Excuses for Bad Behavior: Labels can sometimes act as shields. “Oh, he’s avoidant, so he needs space — it’s not his fault.” But what if it’s just rudeness or incompatibility? By assuming what people show us, we hold them (and ourselves) accountable. Without the labels, we hold people accountable instead of giving them a hall pass
• More Authentic Connections: When we slap labels on people early, we trap them (and ourselves) in stereotypes. “She’s anxious, so she’ll always need reassurance.” Without that box, we respond to the actual person in front of us, which feels more real, less scripted.

Take a classic scenario: a date cancels at the last minute. Old-school thinking? “Not reliable — next.” New age zoom in? “maybe they have fearful-avoidant tendencies and are testing boundaries…” The latter keeps you stuck in a loop of hope and confusion, while the former frees you up to find someone who shows up consistently.

I lost count of how many times I psychoanalyzed people, spotting psychological patterns they didn’t even see in themselves. I told myself, “They act this way because of their family,” or “They’re distant because they don’t know how to handle conflict.” But in the end, the outcome was always the same — something that might have been avoided if I hadn’t overthought it, sparing myself a lot of unnecessary pain.

The Fine Line Between Awareness and Paranoia

Don’t get me wrong, attachment theory is a game changer in therapy and deep self reflection. It sheds light on how early experiences, like inconsistent caregiving, can shape the anxieties and patterns we carry into adult relationships.

I’m in therapy myself, working through my own challenges uncovered by these truths. But when attachment theory seeps into everyday chats and casual scrolls, its complexity gets flattened, losing all the nuance that makes it truly meaningful.

Social media amplifies this. A quick search for “attachment styles” yields millions of results, often oversimplified. We diagnose strangers based on a single tweet or story. This hyper awareness can make us paranoid: Is my friend’s silence “avoidant” or just a busy day? It turns normal human variability into pathology.

This shift has turned dating into a minefield, where everyone’s overanalyzing instead of simply enjoying the moment. And it’s not just about the people we date, we find ourselves psychoanalyzing who our friends are seeing too.

Often the answer is much simpler: it’s not that avoidants don’t deserve love, it’s that until they learn how to handle it, they won’t truly have it. And guess what? It’s not your job to teach them that. They’ll do the work, if they want it badly enough.

Bring simplicity back

So, how do we reclaim that simplicity? Start by questioning the labels. Next time someone flakes, try assuming it’s exactly what it looks like — no more, no less.

Of course, if patterns persist and affect your well being, seek real professional help. But for everyday interactions? Let’s assume people mean what they show. It might sting more upfront, but it saves energy in the long run.

Life was easier when we didn’t overcomplicate love with categories. Maybe it’s time to go back to basics: If they want you, they’ll show it. No labels required.

Don’t miss any of my articles; subscribe to my email list

Life Was Simpler Before We Started Labeling Everyone’s Attachment Style was originally published in Hello, Love on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.