A Relationship Equation v+w+x+.....

Page 1 of 2 [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

JanJan
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 43
Location: Toronto, Ontario

31 May 2012, 6:12 pm

[quote="waitykatie"][quote="JanJan"]I think I'm getting closer to creating the equation - solve for theta!

[b]Theta = v + Z(n) * (ac/bd)[/b] (n is superscript)

where:
v= w+x+y
n=1/age (when age > 24)

a = timing
b = emotional baggage (fears, insecurities, guilt, past hurts)
c = circumstances
d = social/family influences/pressures

v= friendship
w= enjoy spending time together
x= respect/admiration
y= trust
z= sexual attraction

Therefore, as age approaches infinity Theta approaches the asymptote near v (friendship).[/quote]
LOL, I love it! However, in the interest of refining your model, may I suggest some revisions?

I'd also suggest (a*b*c*d), since dividing ac by bd strikes me as a bit arbitrary. All 4 may favor the development of a relationship, or they may all weigh against it. Each of a, b, c, d, should have each party's position factored in too.

For example, in my case, the timing (a) is ideal for me. However, my Aspie has some issues to work out. Timing (a) isn't good for him right now. My emotional baggage (b) is fairly minimal, but he still has some processing to do. Guilt over feeling like a bad parent, mainly. He'll get over it. Our circumstances (c) are both just right - we're both financially self-sufficient and live close by. We've had no deaths or illnesses in the family, job changes, or other major upheavals outside the usual demands of work. As for (d), neither of us give a damn about social pressures, like what our friends or ex-spouses think. Factor (d) may also be a positive: my mom likes him, and his mom likes me. They both wish we'd hurry up. So (a) and (b), on his side, are really the only factors holding things up.

This is fun! Hope this helps you refine the equation![/quote]

I used ac/bd because I thought theta would be proportional to timing ( ie good timing = good relationship)
directly proportional to circumstances ( ie good circumstances = good relationship)
Theta is inversly proportional to baggage (ie more baggage = poor relationship) and inversely proportional to social pressures (ie inlaws hate you = bad relationship)

However I would subscribe to a visual analog scale with ratings from 0 to 2 where 1 is neutral, 0 is worst, and 2 represents best, and we could use your factor of (a*b*c*d).
0----------1----------2
bad---- neutral----best



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

31 May 2012, 6:41 pm

No, you're not Aspie at all.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


AScomposer13413
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,157
Location: Canada

31 May 2012, 7:19 pm

I tried to come up with one in my high school years, but gave up due to the many variables. Even now, before I posted, I was inclined to dismiss it because I'm under the belief that romantic love is so complicated it doesn't really fit under a (completely) logical framework. But this one's saying otherwise....



waitykatie
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2012
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 297

31 May 2012, 7:20 pm

JanJan wrote:
However I would subscribe to a visual analog scale with ratings from 0 to 2 where 1 is neutral, 0 is worst, and 2 represents best, and we could use your factor of (a*b*c*d).
0----------1----------2
bad---- neutral----best

Something like this?

Theta = v + z * ((a1 +a2) + (b1 + b2) + (c1 + c2) + (d1 + d2))

v = 1-100, weighted by a factor of 0.0-1.0
z = 1-100, weighted by a factor of 0.0-1.0
a1 = timing for party 1, a2 = timing for party 2, etc.

min theta = 0
max theta = 1600

Using my example as of today, we'd have
theta = (0.4)60 + (0.6)100 * ((1 + 0) + (1 + 0) + (2 + 2) + (2 + 2))
theta = 84 * 10 = 840 :(

Projected improvement over the next several months, we'd have
theta = (0.4)60 + (0.6)100 * ((2 + 2) + (2 + 2) + (2 + 2) + (2 + 2))
theta = 84 * 16 = 1344 :D

Simple, but workable. What do you think? :nerdy:



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

31 May 2012, 8:19 pm

Why is sexual attraction (z) the component that's being scaled? I find that interesting.



JanJan
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 43
Location: Toronto, Ontario

31 May 2012, 8:43 pm

Because friendship is directly proportional to happiness in a relationship. I don't believe you can be happy without the subsets of v (w,x,and y). As a woman, anyway, I can't imagine having or wanting to get crazy in the sack with someone who I didn't want to spend time with.

Sexual attraction, however, seems to be very "airy fairy", difficult to define and dependent on many things. It is those things that we are trying to determine. 8O



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

31 May 2012, 8:50 pm

JanJan wrote:
Because friendship is directly proportional to happiness in a relationship. I don't believe you can be happy without the subsets of v (w,x,and y). As a woman, anyway, I can't imagine having or wanting to get crazy in the sack with someone who I didn't want to spend time with.

Sexual attraction, however, seems to be very "airy fairy", difficult to define and dependent on many things. It is those things that we are trying to determine. 8O


I think those things are very subjective to an individual person. Not really "modelable". At least not with these kind of scalars. Just my opinion.

If anything, to me, pure sexual attraction has nothing to do with any other trappings. It's the friendship that's contingent upon a whole host of variables, whereas sexual attraction is purely visceral. On/Off, not really variable.



JanJan
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 43
Location: Toronto, Ontario

31 May 2012, 8:51 pm

waitykatie wrote:
JanJan wrote:
However I would subscribe to a visual analog scale with ratings from 0 to 2 where 1 is neutral, 0 is worst, and 2 represents best, and we could use your factor of (a*b*c*d).
0----------1----------2
bad---- neutral----best

Something like this?

Theta = v + z * ((a1 +a2) + (b1 + b2) + (c1 + c2) + (d1 + d2))

v = 1-100, weighted by a factor of 0.0-1.0
z = 1-100, weighted by a factor of 0.0-1.0
a1 = timing for party 1, a2 = timing for party 2, etc.

min theta = 0
max theta = 1600

Using my example as of today, we'd have
theta = (0.4)60 + (0.6)100 * ((1 + 0) + (1 + 0) + (2 + 2) + (2 + 2))
theta = 84 * 10 = 840 :(

Projected improvement over the next several months, we'd have
theta = (0.4)60 + (0.6)100 * ((2 + 2) + (2 + 2) + (2 + 2) + (2 + 2))
theta = 84 * 16 = 1344 :D

Simple, but workable. What do you think? :nerdy:


Hey this is great. We can define a, b, c, etc as those qualities you need in a partner weighted more heavily for their degree of importance which would be different for each individual.

A friend once told me that their therapist said in order to have a good relationship you should make a list of qualities that you need. That individual should match 90% of those.



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

31 May 2012, 8:52 pm

JanJan wrote:
A friend once told me that their therapist said in order to have a good relationship you should make a list of qualities that you need. That individual should match 90% of those.


90% is a VERY tall order. No wonder I'm perpetually single! :wink:



waitykatie
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2012
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 297

31 May 2012, 9:00 pm

mv wrote:
Why is sexual attraction (z) the component that's being scaled? I find that interesting.

Well, this was JanJan's project, but the scaling/weighting was my idea. I applied that to both friendship (encompassing enjoying spending time together, respect/admiration, trust - all the non-sexual components of a relationship) and sexual attraction, I suppose because the balance with my AS guy has been so radically different from all my relationships with NT men.

It varies with NTs too. One guy I felt minimal sexual attraction to, and we didn't do it much, but everything else about him and the relationship was great. Geography ended that relationship, but if it hadn't, the lack of sexual chemistry probably would have. With my ex-husband, there was much greater sexual attraction and satisfaction, and we were also best friends. We had an excellent balance, and there was every reason our marriage should have lasted. Unfortunately, a series of external circumstances eventually pushed us each beyond our limits, and we didn't make it.

Round 1 with my AS guy was before those two, and the contrast was stark. I barely got to know him, and he barely got to know me. It was all romantic passion, and not much else. We rarely spent time talking, which is why it ended: I didn't think he was interested in anything serious. Turns out I was wrong about that - he just has no idea how to be friends with a woman, or that friendship is an important component of a lasting romantic relationship.

Recently, we've gotten to know each other better and are closer to what I would call "friends" now. We still don't talk much, but he says compared to all his other relationships, he and I have talked a lot. (! !!) I think we can achieve a balance that works for both of us, but it won't be anything like what I'm accustomed to. He'll never be my best friend. I used to think that was critical to a healthy, fulfilling, lasting relationship, but I'm opening my mind to the idea that maybe it isn't.

So that's why I weighted v and z - I think good relationships can widely vary in the "strength" of each component.



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

31 May 2012, 9:20 pm

waitykatie wrote:
mv wrote:
Why is sexual attraction (z) the component that's being scaled? I find that interesting.

Well, this was JanJan's project, but the scaling/weighting was my idea. I applied that to both friendship (encompassing enjoying spending time together, respect/admiration, trust - all the non-sexual components of a relationship) and sexual attraction, I suppose because the balance with my AS guy has been so radically different from all my relationships with NT men.

It varies with NTs too. One guy I felt minimal sexual attraction to, and we didn't do it much, but everything else about him and the relationship was great. Geography ended that relationship, but if it hadn't, the lack of sexual chemistry probably would have. With my ex-husband, there was much greater sexual attraction and satisfaction, and we were also best friends. We had an excellent balance, and there was every reason our marriage should have lasted. Unfortunately, a series of external circumstances eventually pushed us each beyond our limits, and we didn't make it.

Round 1 with my AS guy was before those two, and the contrast was stark. I barely got to know him, and he barely got to know me. It was all romantic passion, and not much else. We rarely spent time talking, which is why it ended: I didn't think he was interested in anything serious. Turns out I was wrong about that - he just has no idea how to be friends with a woman, or that friendship is an important component of a lasting romantic relationship.

Recently, we've gotten to know each other better and are closer to what I would call "friends" now. We still don't talk much, but he says compared to all his other relationships, he and I have talked a lot. (! !!) I think we can achieve a balance that works for both of us, but it won't be anything like what I'm accustomed to. He'll never be my best friend. I used to think that was critical to a healthy, fulfilling, lasting relationship, but I'm opening my mind to the idea that maybe it isn't.

So that's why I weighted v and z - I think good relationships can widely vary in the "strength" of each component.


See, I agree with you, when it comes to lasting relationships (both aspects need to be considered and scaled). But taken separately, sexual attraction can be a standalone variable with no scalar, it just wouldn't lead to a lasting relationship, 999 times out of 1000 (and it would just be luck, that 1000th time). That's the point I was trying to make. Real, lasting, fulfilling relationships require so much more. And for me, when the friendship suffers, suddenly the sexual attraction suffers, too (if both were a component all along).

I can still look at a magazine ad of a male body and be sexually attracted, in a yes/no way. But that kind of binary thought has little-to-nothing to do with a fulfilling relationship.



waitykatie
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2012
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 297

31 May 2012, 9:32 pm

mv wrote:
waitykatie wrote:
So that's why I weighted v and z - I think good relationships can widely vary in the "strength" of each component.


See, I agree with you, when it comes to lasting relationships (both aspects need to be considered and scaled). But taken separately, sexual attraction can be a standalone variable with no scalar, it just wouldn't lead to a lasting relationship, 999 times out of 1000 (and it would just be luck, that 1000th time). That's the point I was trying to make. Real, lasting, fulfilling relationships require so much more. And for me, when the friendship suffers, suddenly the sexual attraction suffers, too (if both were a component all along).

I can still look at a magazine ad of a male body and be sexually attracted, in a yes/no way. But that kind of binary thought has little-to-nothing to do with a fulfilling relationship.

Oh, definitely. But I left that out because JanJan's starting premise was: "I'm trying to create an equation for a good relationship."



NicoleG
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 667
Location: Texas

01 Jun 2012, 10:46 am

Want and Desire