When Nervous Systems Collide
Waiting for the Other to Go First
The parallel bowling lanes in the image above offer a visual metaphor for two nervous systems within one relationship. Both may be moving towards the same hope of connection, but they begin from different positions and carry different protective responses.
The waiting balls capture the relational stalemate: each person is ready for something to happen, but both may be waiting for the other to initiate. The pins in the distance represent the hoped-for outcome, while the gutters, dividing lines and warning signs suggest the boundaries, risks and misunderstandings that shape how each person moves.
The image holds the moment before impact – before one small movement sets everything else in motion.
When two people both want to be chosen but cannot always name what they need
One person is privately asking:
Will you choose me?
The other is wondering:
Why do I always have to be the one who reaches out? If they really loved me they would get in touch.
Both want reassurance. Both want to know that they matter. Both are waiting for the other person to do something that makes the relationship feel safer.
But neither feels safe enough to say what they need.
This can create a painful relational stalemate.
It is not only about wanting to be chosen as a partner. Being chosen may represent many different needs:
- being acknowledged;
- being prioritised;
- receiving reassurance;
- being included in decisions;
- experiencing consistency;
- feeling wanted without having to prove our value;
- knowing where the relationship is going;
- trusting that our vulnerability will be handled with care.
Sometimes we know exactly what we need but feel unable to ask.
Sometimes, particularly as neurodivergent people, we may not yet understand what the need is.
We only know that something does not feel right.
When neither person feels safe enough to go first
Two people can care deeply about each other while both waiting for evidence that it is safe to show it.
Each person may be privately asking:
- Will you choose me?
- Will you reach for me first?
- Will you notice that I am struggling?
- Will you reassure me without making me ask?
- Will you show me that I matter?
- Will you understand what I need before I can explain it?
- Will you risk being vulnerable before I do?
Neither person wants to expose the depth of their feelings without some guarantee that those feelings will be reciprocated.
One person thinks:
If they wanted me, they would contact me.
The other thinks exactly the same thing.
Each silence becomes evidence. Each delay becomes an answer. Each unspoken need becomes another reason to believe that they do not matter.
What if I do not know what I need?
We often tell people to communicate their needs.
But this assumes that we can identify the need, find the words and communicate it while our nervous system has enough capacity to do so.
That is not always accessible.
Some neurodivergent people experience differences in interoception – the ability to notice and interpret what is happening inside the body. Some may also experience alexithymia, which can make identifying or describing emotions more difficult.
We may notice the distress before we understand the need beneath it.
We might know:
- my chest feels tight;
- I cannot settle;
- I want to leave;
- I feel angry;
- I cannot stop replaying the conversation;
- I need something from this person;
- I do not know what that something is.
The need may only become clear hours or days later.
Perhaps I needed reassurance.
Perhaps I needed honesty.
Perhaps I needed more time to process.
Perhaps I needed the other person to acknowledge what happened before trying to solve it.
Perhaps I needed space – but also confirmation that the relationship would still be there when I returned.
Difficulty identifying a need does not mean that the need is not real.
When the present carries the past
Two people may be responding to the same present-day situation, but their nervous systems may not be responding only to what is happening now.
Earlier experiences can shape what we expect from relationships and how quickly we detect possible rejection.
This might include:
- inconsistent or unpredictable care;
- emotional needs being ignored or minimised;
- affection being withdrawn following conflict;
- being told that we were too sensitive, difficult or dramatic;
- having to monitor adults’ moods to remain safe;
- bullying, exclusion or racialised rejection;
- repeated criticism of neurodivergent behaviour;
- learning that expressing a need could lead to punishment, shame or abandonment.
Not every person who experiences rejection sensitivity has childhood trauma. There may not be one identifiable event. Sometimes it is the accumulation of repeated moments in which a child felt misunderstood, corrected, excluded or unable to access the connection they needed.
Research into rejection sensitivity in ADHD has suggested that earlier interpersonal rejection and repeated criticism may contribute to sensitisation over time. This means the nervous system may become increasingly prepared to notice possible signs of rejection – even when the present situation remains unclear.
A delayed message may not feel like only a delayed message.
Silence after conflict may carry the memory of affection being withdrawn.
A request for space may feel like the beginning of abandonment.
A change in somebody’s tone may activate years of monitoring for danger.
The response is happening in the present, but some of its intensity may belong to what the present moment resembles.
This does not mean that the reaction is imagined or that everything should be attributed to childhood. There may also be genuine inconsistency, dishonesty or rejection within the current relationship.
The question is not:
“Is this the past or the present?”
It may be more helpful to ask:
“What is happening now – and what earlier experience might this moment be touching?”
When two nervous systems collide, each person may be protecting a much younger version of themselves without consciously recognising it.
When “choose me” means “notice me”
Sometimes the wish to be chosen is not asking for a dramatic declaration of love.
It may mean:
- Notice that I have gone quiet.
- Ask me what changed.
- Include me when you make decisions.
- Do not only reach for me only when you need something.
- Show me that I am part of your life.
- Recognise the care I already give.
When these needs remain unspoken, the other person may have no idea that a test is taking place.
They may believe they are respecting space when their partner experiences abandonment.
They may avoid asking questions because they do not want to apply pressure, while their partner interprets the silence as a lack of interest.
They may wait for a direct request that the other person cannot yet formulate.
Both people may believe they are protecting the relationship while becoming increasingly disconnected from each other.
When love becomes a series of tests
Instead of expressing a need directly, we may create an unspoken test:
- withdrawing to see whether we are followed;
- waiting to see who sends the first message;
- mentioning another person to provoke jealousy;
- withholding affection;
- changing something on social media;
- saying “I’m fine” while hoping the other person notices that we are not;
- threatening to leave in the hope of being asked to stay.
The test may be asking:
Will you notice me without my having to risk asking?
If the other person does not recognise the test, the original fear feels confirmed:
I knew I did not matter.
But the other person may also be running their own test:
If I mattered, they would tell me what was wrong.
Both people are waiting for proof. Neither understands that the other is also frightened.
When nervous systems collide
A relationship involves more than two sets of thoughts, feelings and intentions. It also involves two nervous systems continually noticing and responding to each other.
One person may reach for closeness when they feel unsafe.
The other may need distance before they can process what is happening.
One person’s silence may be an attempt to prevent the situation from escalating.
The other experiences that silence as abandonment.
One person asks repeated questions because uncertainty feels unbearable.
The other experiences those questions as pressure and becomes increasingly unable to respond.
Each person’s attempt to find safety inadvertently activates the other person’s protection.
The more one reaches, the more the other withdraws.
The more one withdraws, the more urgently the other reaches.
This is what I mean when I describe two nervous systems colliding.
It does not necessarily mean that either person intends to hurt the other. Both may be attempting to protect themselves and preserve the relationship – but using strategies that create greater disconnection between them.
The problem is no longer only the original disagreement. The protective responses themselves have become part of the perceived threat.
Understanding this does not remove accountability or mean that every behaviour should be accepted.
It helps us recognise the cycle so that we can begin asking:
What is my nervous system trying to protect?
What might the other person’s nervous system be responding to?
Is my attempt to feel safer making the relationship feel less safe for them?
What could help us pause the cycle without requiring either person to ignore their needs?
The pursue-and-withdraw cycle
One of the most recognisable ways nervous systems can collide is through a pursue-and-withdraw cycle.
One person may pursue reassurance while the other becomes overwhelmed and withdraws.
The withdrawal activates the first person’s rejection sensitivity, so they pursue more intensely.
The increased pursuit feels like pressure, criticism or control to the withdrawing partner, so they create greater distance.
Eventually, the pursuing partner feels humiliated and withdraws too.
The original withdrawing partner then experiences that distance as rejection and begins to pursue.
These are not always fixed roles. Two people can repeatedly exchange places.
The cycle becomes:
Reach for me.
That feels too much.
Please don’t leave me.
I need more space.
Why aren’t you fighting for us?
Why won’t you listen when I say I need time?
Underneath the conflict, both may be trying to establish whether they are safe, wanted and important.
When reassurance struggles to land
A partner may say, “I love you,” but the reassurance does not settle.
The other person may wonder:
- Do you really mean it?
- Are you only saying it because I asked?
- Will you still feel this tomorrow?
- Why did you not show it earlier?
- If you love me, why did that other thing happen?
- What if I trust this and then lose it?
The nervous system continues searching for evidence of danger while positive evidence is treated as temporary or unreliable.
This does not mean that a partner should be expected to provide limitless reassurance.
Reassurance is most supportive when it is accompanied by consistent behaviour. Words may struggle to land when they repeatedly conflict with what is happening in the relationship.
Keeping a private score
When needs remain unspoken, both people may begin keeping score.
Each remembers:
- who apologised first;
- who initiated the last conversation;
- who sent more messages;
- who last initiated affection or intimacy;
- who showed up during a difficult moment;
- whose work received more encouragement;
- who was acknowledged publicly;
- who made the greater sacrifice.
Neither person may explain that they are keeping score. Both simply feel increasingly unchosen.
The score becomes an attempt to answer a question that has never been asked directly:
Do I matter to you as much as you matter to me?
What happens when both people avoid the decision?
Sometimes both people want the relationship, but neither wants responsibility for choosing it.
One says:
“Tell me what you want.”
The other responds:
“I want you to decide.”
Each is asking the other person to carry the risk.
Choosing means accepting that the decision could be wrong. It means becoming visible, risking rejection and taking responsibility for what happens next.
Waiting to be chosen can feel safer because the other person becomes responsible for the outcome.
But a relationship cannot be sustained by two people standing still and waiting for the other to make it real.
The question must eventually move from:
“Are you going to choose me?”
to:
“Am I choosing this person – and have I made that choice possible for them to see?”
Recognising what is happening
The first stage of the R.U.D Process® is Recognise.
The Four S’s can help both people gather information before trying to resolve the conflict.
Situation
What observably happened?
During a difficult conversation, I told them to go away. They left and did not contact me afterwards.
State
What nervous-system state am I experiencing?
I feel abandoned, activated and unable to risk contacting them first.
Story
What meaning am I making?
If I mattered, they would have realised that I was overwhelmed and checked on me. Their silence proves that they do not care.
Sensation
What am I noticing in my body?
My stomach feels heavy. My chest is tight. I keep reaching for my phone and then putting it down.
The other person may recognise something very different.
Situation: They told me to go away, so I left and did not contact them.
State: I feel hurt, confused and guarded. I am trying to respect what they asked me to do.
Story: They do not want me near them. If I contact them, I may be rejected again or accused of ignoring their boundary.
Sensation: My body feels tense and heavy. I want to reach out, but I stop myself.
The same words can hold two very different meanings.
One person may use “go away” to communicate:
“I am overwhelmed. I need this interaction to stop – but I still need to know that you care.”
The other may hear:
“Leave me alone. I do not want contact with you.”
At this stage, we are gathering information – not deciding whose interpretation is correct.
The example shows why steady words and an agreed route back to communication can matter.
Unravelling and understanding the pattern
The next stage is Unravel & Understand.
We begin with three prompts.
What got us there?
- What was the immediate trigger?
- Was there a real, anticipated or perceived rejection?
- What did each person say- or leave unsaid?
- Did either person move into fight, flight, freeze, shutdown or people-pleasing?
- What earlier experiences did the situation touch?
- Did either person understand what they needed at the time?
What kept us there?
- Did we assume the other person should know what we needed?
- Were we both waiting for the other to initiate?
- Did silence become evidence of rejection?
- Were we creating tests instead of making requests?
- Did we seek answers through social media or somebody else’s behaviour?
- Were friends, relatives or other people interpreting the relationship for us?
- Did reassurance conflict with what was happening in practice?
- Were we both protecting ourselves from responsibility for a decision?
- Was there genuine dishonesty, inconsistency or harm that had not been acknowledged?
When direct communication does not feel safe or trustworthy, we may begin collecting clues.
Unravelling asks us to separate:
- what happened;
- what we were told;
- what we inferred;
- what our nervous system predicted;
- what we needed but could not yet name.
What gets us out of there?
This is not about forcing the nervous system to settle or preserving every relationship.
It is about identifying what might create enough capacity for a clearer choice.
We might need:
- time to process, with an agreed time to return;
- a written message rather than an immediate conversation;
- acknowledgement before problem-solving;
- a clear answer rather than further ambiguity;
- reassurance supported by consistent behaviour;
- a boundary around secrecy, threats or disappearing;
- support identifying the need beneath the reaction;
- permission to end a conversation without ending the relationship;
- acceptance that the relationship may not be able to meet an important need.
“Getting out” might mean repairing the connection.
It might also mean recognising that repeatedly asking an unavailable person to meet the same need is keeping us stuck.
Developing steadier ways to ask
The final stage of the R.U.D Process® is Diffuse & Develop.
We are not trying to find perfect words. We are creating enough space to try steadier ones.
That might sound like:
“I know I told you to go away. What I meant was that I needed the interaction to stop because I was overwhelmed. I did not mean that I never wanted you to contact me again.”
“Something feels wrong, but I cannot identify the need yet. Can I have some time and come back to this conversation?”
“When neither of us made contact, I created the story that I did not matter. What was happening for you?”
“I am looking for reassurance, but I also need consistency between what you say and what happens.”
“I notice that I am waiting for you to make the decision so that I do not have to risk making it myself.”
“I care about you, and I need to know whether we are both actively choosing this relationship.”
Needs can also be made more accessible by offering possibilities:
“Do I need reassurance, clarity, time, space, affection, practical support, acknowledgement, repair – or something else?”
We may not know immediately.
The purpose is not to demand an instant answer. It is to begin making the internal experience more visible.
Understanding the cycle does not remove accountability
It is important not to create false equivalence.
Two people may both experience rejection sensitivity while behaving very differently.
One person’s protective withdrawal is not equivalent to another person’s deception, coercion, aggression or repeated violation of boundaries.
One person may struggle to articulate a need while the other knowingly withholds information.
Both nervous systems matter, but understanding both does not require us to pretend that every behaviour carries equal responsibility or impact.
RSD-informed relationship work should not be used to explain away genuine harm.
Moving from mind-reading to shared understanding
A relationship can begin to change when both people stop asking the other to prove their love through mind-reading.
This may involve:
- making direct requests instead of creating tests;
- acknowledging when we do not yet know what we need;
- offering reassurance without being forced to;
- allowing reassurance time to register;
- naming protective withdrawal before disappearing;
- agreeing when and how a paused conversation will resume;
- making our own decisions;
- tolerating the vulnerability of reaching first;
- recognising that being chosen is not the same as having every need met;
- accepting that love cannot make an incompatible relationship safe or sustainable.
Being chosen matters.
Having our needs recognised matters.
But we also need to ask whether we are choosing the other person – and whether we are taking responsibility for expressing, exploring and negotiating our needs with them.
When nervous systems collide, the work is not to decide whose nervous system is right or wrong.
It is to recognise the cycle, understand what each person is protecting and create enough space for both people to communicate what they need.
Sometimes two people do not lose each other because there was no love between them.
They lose each other because both were waiting to be chosen, and neither felt safe enough – or had enough capacity – to express what they needed.
Each silence became evidence.
Each withdrawal became an answer.
Each unspoken need became another reason to believe they did not matter.
The work is not simply to ask:
“Will you choose me?”
It is also to ask:
“Am I choosing you – and have I made that choice and my needs possible for you to understand?”
If these patterns feel familiar, the R.U.D Process® offers a way to begin recognising what is happening, unravelling and understanding the different layers, and developing steadier ways to communicate and respond.
Don’t want to miss future articles? Join the mailing list below.