Imagine this. Person A and Person B go out for awhile. Person A breaks up with Person B because B never did X. X can be anything - cleaned B's toenails, showed affection to A, exercised, came home before 3am, had sex more than once a month, whatever. A and B have fought over X for years.

Person B dates person C. Does B change?

If you're an essentialist, your answer is no. B is just someone who doesn't clean his toenails, shows affection to her lover, exercises, whatever. B can't change.

If you're an essentialist, but you're also a romantic, your answer might be longer: no, B can't change, but if C is actually B's true love, B won't need to change. C would be the sort of person who doesn't mind that B doesn't clean her toenails, shows affection to his lover, exercises, whatever. Both would be compatible, all would be well, they would live happily ever after. Your romantic conception of true love would be the lock and key type of true love - the "perfect fit."

But you may also believe B can change. If so, there could be many foundations for your belief, many types of change you believe will occur.

If you're a romantic, you might believe that B will change for C if C is B's true love. Your "true love" focus will be on the pairing itself, rather than on the fit produced by the pairing.

If you're a maturist, you might believe that B has learned from B's experiences, and has decided to change in this case. Sucks for A, but that's how it goes. Everything is timing.

If you're an essentialist, but with the view that what is essential to a person is the person's own evolutionary path, rather than the person's particular characteristics as the time, then you might believe that B will change, but for B's reasons, independent of C. And if it happens to work out for C, that's just great.

There may be more of these. I don't know what the answer is. I waver between all of them. I seem to have run into a lot of essentialists lately.