Self-check · Relationships
Am I Dating a Chud? Fifteen questions behind the joke
A free, private red-flag check built on what actually predicts whether a relationship works — respect, effort, how conflict goes, and whether your lives fit. The slang is the door; the question is real.
A self-reflection tool, not a diagnosis, and not a verdict on your partner. If you are afraid of them, this is the wrong tool.
-
BEHIND THE JOKE15 questionsOn respect, effort, conflict and whether your lives fit.
-
RESEARCH, NOT VIBESBuilt on what predicts outcomesThe patterns that actually forecast whether couples last, rather than a list of pet peeves.
-
PRIVATENothing is saved or sentFree, no account, no sign-up. Your result stays in your browser.
A self-check
Take the chud quiz
Fifteen statements about how this relationship actually runs. About two minutes, and the result appears only in your browser.
Your result
What the ranges mean
- 0–15 Mostly green flags — the basics are in place
- 16–30 Some things worth talking about — real issues, not the wrong person
- 31–45 Real red flags — patterns worth taking seriously
- 46–60 Serious doubts — consistently bad for you
Each statement scores 0 to 4 across fifteen items, for a total of 0–60. The shape matters more than the number: a relationship that is good in most ways and badly wrong in one can land mid-range and still be the thing making you unhappy.
Contempt — mockery, eye-rolling, talking down. Of the interaction patterns that predict trouble, it is the most corrosive.
The short answer
What actually predicts a relationship working?
How two people treat each other during disagreement, how much effort runs in each direction, and whether their lives and values broadly fit. The best-known account comes from John Gottman and Robert Levenson, who recorded couples discussing points of conflict and followed them for years. Their work identified a small set of interaction patterns — criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling — that recur in relationships heading for trouble. Contempt, which means treating a partner with mockery or superiority, is the one they singled out as most damaging.
What makes this useful rather than merely interesting is that these are behaviours rather than traits. They can be named, and they can change, which is not true of “we are incompatible”.
Frequent arguing does not predict much on its own. How you argue does. Plenty of couples who disagree constantly are fine, and plenty who never raise their voices are not.
The Gottman Institute describes the four patterns and their antidotes directly: criticism answered by a gentle start-up, contempt by building a culture of appreciation, defensiveness by taking some responsibility, and stonewalling by taking a real break and coming back. The antidotes are the practical part, and they are more specific than most relationship advice.
View sourceThe red flags
What the questions are actually asking about
Four areas, and they fail differently. A high score in one is a different problem from a score spread evenly.
Contempt and belittling
Mockery, eye-rolling, sarcasm with an edge, being talked down to — in private or, worse, in front of other people. This is the single most corrosive pattern and the one least worth tolerating.
Effort that only runs one way
You plan, you remember, you accommodate, you repair after arguments. Their effort appears when something is needed from you. Occasional imbalance is normal; a settled direction is not.
How conflict actually goes
Whether disagreements start harshly, whether everything becomes your fault, whether one of you shuts down entirely. The subject of the argument matters far less than the shape of it.
Defensiveness and never being wrong
Raising anything produces a counter-accusation, a rewriting of events, or an explanation of why you caused it. You end up apologising for having mentioned it.
Stonewalling and the silent treatment
Withdrawal as a tactic: shutting down, refusing to engage, punishing with silence. Needing a break during a heated argument is healthy; disappearing to make a point is not.
Values and lives that do not fit
Children, money, where to live, how much closeness each of you wants. No disrespect required — two reasonable people can simply want incompatible lives, and that counts.
Rough patch, bad fit, or red flags
Three situations that feel identical from inside.
| Pattern | What it looks like | What tends to help |
|---|---|---|
| A rough patch | Out of character, tied to something external and temporary. | Patience and plain conversation. It usually passes. |
| A bad fit | Both behaving decently, wanting different lives. | Honesty about the mismatch. Kindness does not fix it. |
| Red flags | A consistent pattern of disrespect or imbalance. | Name it directly. Therapy helps. So does leaving. |
| How do you tell a rough patch from a pattern? | By what happens when you raise it. A partner going through something tends to apologise and try, even clumsily. A pattern tends to relocate the problem onto you for having noticed. That response is more informative than anything on this list. | |
Reading your result
Three things more useful than the total
The number is where to start. The detail is where the information is.
- 01 Look at where the points came from
Four areas, four conversations
Respect, effort, conflict and compatibility need completely different responses. A total built almost entirely from one of them is far more actionable than the same total spread evenly and tells you what to say first.
- 02 Check for contempt specifically
The one that matters most
If mockery, sarcasm with an edge or being talked down to featured in your answers, weight that heavily regardless of your total. It is the pattern most associated with relationships failing.
- 03 Ask the uncomfortable half
You are in this too
It is worth asking how your partner would answer these about you. Most struggling relationships are a pattern rather than a villain, and knowing your own half of it changes what is realistic to expect from a conversation.
It cannot see history, context, or what either of you is carrying. It cannot tell whether this is a bad month or a bad match. And crucially it cannot see abuse: coercion, control, threats, isolation and fear are not points on a compatibility scale, and if any of that is present, this page is the wrong tool and the right move is to talk to someone rather than to score it.
Things people ask early
The questions that come up first
Three worth answering before the detail.
Does a high score mean I should break up?
No. It means the patterns you described are the kind that tend to do damage if nothing changes. What you do with that is a decision, and this page does not get to make it.
Can a relationship with red flags be fixed?
Often, if both people want to and the problems are behaviours rather than fundamental mismatches. Couples therapy works better earlier than later, which is the opposite of when most people try it.
What if my partner would score worse about me?
That is a genuinely useful thing to find out, and it changes the conversation from an accusation into a shared problem, which is a much more workable starting point.
What helps
What actually helps, in order of cost
You do not have to start at the end, and the first step is cheaper than people expect.
- 01 / START HERE
Change how you start a conversation
The way a difficult conversation opens does more to determine how it ends than almost anything else. One specific, recent, non-accusing example beats a summary of everything that has ever been wrong.
- 02 / IF IT KEEPS RECURRING
Name the pattern, not the incident
Saying “when I raise something, it usually ends with me apologising” is harder to deflect than arguing about who said what on Tuesday, and it is closer to the real problem.
- 03 / IF IT IS NOT SHIFTING
Couples therapy, earlier than feels necessary
It is most effective before resentment sets, and going is not an admission that the relationship has failed. If your partner refuses outright, that refusal is itself a piece of information.
Background: American Psychological Association, on relationships. This page is educational and is not medical advice.
What to do next
What should you do with your result?
Three things worth doing whatever the number said.
- 01
Write down the two statements that landed hardest
Those are the conversation. A general sense that something is wrong is much harder to raise than one specific thing that keeps happening.
- 02
Decide what you are actually hoping for
Change, distance, or an ending. Only the first one needs your partner to cooperate, and knowing which you want makes the next conversation far clearer.
- 03
Notice what it has already cost you
If this relationship has left you anxious, low, or less sure of your own judgement, that deserves attention separately. It does not resolve itself when the relationship does.
A quiz cannot see abuse, and it is not the right tool for it. If you are afraid of your partner, being controlled or monitored, cut off from people, threatened, or pressured into things you do not want, please talk to someone rather than trying to score it. In the US, the National Domestic Violence Hotline is free and confidential on 1-800-799-7233, or you can text START to 88788. If you are in immediate danger, call 911. The same goes if this has left you feeling hopeless or thinking about harming yourself: call or text 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, any time. Elsewhere, you can find a line in your own country at findahelpline.com. None of this requires you to have decided anything about the relationship first.
Good questions to ask
Am I dating a chud — FAQs
What people actually ask behind the slang.
It started as the acronym from a 1984 horror film and has since become internet slang for someone boorish, reactionary or self-absorbed. In dating contexts it is used loosely for a partner who is disrespectful, low-effort or simply wrong for you. It is not a clinical term and it does not describe anything in particular, which is why this page measures behaviour instead.
Contempt — mockery, sarcasm with an edge, eye-rolling, being talked down to. In Gottman and Levenson’s work on couples it stood out among the patterns associated with relationships ending, because it communicates superiority rather than disagreement. If it featured in your answers, weight it heavily whatever your total was.
Better than chance, from how couples interact during disagreement — that is the finding from following couples over years. Be sceptical of the very high accuracy percentages that circulate online, though. They come from small samples with the patterns identified after the fact, and they get repeated far beyond what the original work supports. We do not quote one on this page for that reason.
Only if you think it will start a conversation rather than an argument. Handing someone a score tends to feel like an ambush. Picking the one or two statements that mattered most and raising those in your own words usually goes better.
Then nobody is a chud and the problem is real anyway. Incompatibility about children, money, closeness or where to live is not a character failing on either side, and it is not fixed by one person being more accommodating. Our Toxic Relationship Quiz separates mismatch from mistreatment more carefully if that is the distinction you need.
Very. Relief usually means you already knew and had been looking for permission to take it seriously. It is not evidence that you were looking for an excuse.
Trust that. Fifteen statements cannot cover everything and a relationship can be failing in a way none of them asked about. The feeling is worth examining in its own right rather than being overruled by a number.
It is written for a romantic partner, and the interaction patterns it draws on were studied in couples. Most of them travel — contempt is corrosive anywhere — but for a friendship the questions are framed better on our friendship version.
Yes. The quiz is free, needs no account or sign-up, and your result appears only in your browser. Nothing is sent to us.
Editorial transparency
Sources and review information
These fifteen statements are a house scale, written for this page. They are our own wording rather than a published instrument, built around the interaction patterns the research describes. Content is written and reviewed by the PsyMed Editorial Team from the sources listed here. We are writers and researchers, not clinicians, and this page is educational rather than diagnostic. Read how we build our tests and who we are.
Research and editorial references
- Gottman, J.M., & Levenson, R.W. (2000). The timing of divorce: predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745 — the source for the claim that how couples interact during conflict carries predictive information about outcomes. doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x
- The Gottman Institute. The Four Horsemen: criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling. gottman.com — the description of the four patterns and their antidotes, which the red-flag areas on this page are organised around. gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen
- National Domestic Violence Hotline — 1-800-799-7233, or text START to 88788. Both the number and the text keyword were read directly from thehotline.org rather than quoted from memory, because a wrong detail on a domestic violence line is worse than giving none at all.
- American Psychological Association, topic page on relationships — for general background, linked above. We deliberately quote no accuracy percentage for divorce prediction, because the widely repeated figures come from small samples with patterns identified after the fact and are routinely overstated.
A pattern, not a verdict
The joke is fine. The question deserves a real answer.
Whatever the total said, the statements that landed hardest are the ones worth raising — in your own words, about one specific thing. And if you are afraid of your partner rather than frustrated with them, that is a different situation and it deserves proper help.
Take the quiz