Judging people (long)

[Riddil]

Ok, this is another relationship-inspired post, so for anyone that is tired of break-up-inspired postings should probably leave now. (warning: massive post ahead!!)

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about WHY people stay in relationships. And while I think that nothing in this post is really new info for anybody, I think it describes it in a way that makes it all a little easier to understand.

Say that the way you feel for somebody is on a scale of 0-100. 0 means you would kill them on sight, and a 100 is Romeo-and-Juliet. *Everyone* you meet in life gets put onto this scale. Your best friend in the whole world might be a 90, but your poker buddy may only rate around a 60. When you first meet anyone they get an initial rating... but it might change. You may meet someone in a bar that just seems soooo perfect, and you rate them a 95. But then you get to know them, and maybe they burn babies or beat little-old-ladies or something, so they fall to a 10. But you may also meet someone that at first you rate around a 50, but then as you get to know them more and more it moves up to like a 70 or 80.

As we go through life we start to get better at that "initial" placement. When you're young you might meet a "90", and they slide down to a "30", but when you're older you can sniff them out better. Basically the older we get there is a smaller shift in the scale. If you meet someone and initially they're a 70, you know they might slide to a 60... maybe an 80... but odds are they won't magically turn into a 20 or a 95 just based on past experience.

So anyhow, I think that this plays a major part in relationships. Say you're with someone and you rate them at a 75. That's a pretty decent number... you're happy together and there aren't any PROBLEMS with the relationship, no major ones at least. If you guys were dropped on a dessert island you'd live together happily forever.

The problem is you're constantly running into new people. So let's say you got together with that 75 when you were "looking for someone", and now you've stayed because it's comfortable. And at 75 you can really love them... maybe not on that Romeo-Juliet level, but you feel love. But as you meet new people they're automatically compared to your current mate. Normally it's not a big deal. Say you run into someone who rates a 65, or a 70... you don't even think about it, b/c your partner is better. Maybe you even meet a 75... or even an 80. The 80 can be interesting, but you still won't leave the relationship for them, even if they're ranked higher.

The reason is b/c they're not rated high enough. Sure, they may be an 80 now... but no one stays in one place. As you get to know them there's a very real risk that they'll fall to a 75, maybe a 70. And if you walked away from a 75 relationship for that, then you wasted all that time for something WORSE. Not smart.

That's what makes relationships tough. Is no matter how high you rate your partner, you will always meet someone who rates higher from time to time. If you rate at a 95 it's easy though... because that one time you meet someone who's a 98, it's easy to stick with your current partner. Sure, the other person SEEMS better, but you have history, commitments, etc with your current partner, and why risk a 95 for a 98? Is a difference of 3 really all that much? And besides, that 98 may really be an 88. (And when people initially rate that high, most of the time that number does fall).

But for a 75'er it's much, much harder. For the 75'er... every single time they meet an 80 or a 90 they have that temptation. Meeting a 98 is a difference of 23... that's a big shift. Even if they fall to an 88, it's still better than what you have now. Even if you stay with your current 75 relationship... can you really be happy? Think about it... every time you go home you think to yourself, "I could have something much better than this right now".... so even though you honestly care about that person you aren't happy b/c you feel like you're selling yourself short.

And it's those 75'ers that have the most problems in life... either they break-up with their BF/GF and go through that pain for a chance at something better, or they go on being frustrated knowing they could have better.

Ok ok, I know, nothing new and exciting here, all I did is take a commonly known idea and put it on a ratings scale. But! I'm going somewhere with this, I swear...

First up, we all have a "maximum limit" for how different people can feel for each other. For example, I don't care how nice she was, I don't care what she did for me, or any other thing imaginable... I will never, ever be able to rate Roseanne Barr at a 95. It just couldn't happen, we're incompatible people. And everyone has a certain level of compatibility that dictates what their "maximum rating limit" can be.

Everyone in your life moves around on the rating scale. Even if you've been best friends for 10 years, that person isn't *always* a 90. Sometimes they slip to 80, or whatever. But as you stick together and work through problems they'll work back up to a 90. But you may have another friend who's at a 70. No matter what they say or do they just won't ever be able to be like your best friend, and reach a 90 level. So while they slide around it never is able to break through that 70 max limit.

It's the same with relationships, they have a maximum limit too. And if that number is locked at 75, it doesn't matter how much you TRY to make it work, you simply will not ever feel a 95 for them. You can't do it. Sure, 75 ain't bad, and it can even be a good relationship, but it won't ever be fireworks and flower petals when you think of them.

And why is that a big deal? Because in a relationship there are two of you! Just because you may feel a 90 for the other person, they may only feel a 75 for you. That's a problem b/c they know that you need them more than they need you. Think about it... if you guys broke up, all you have to do is find a 75'er, and you're back in a relationship that's "just as good". But they have to find another 90'er... not so easy. It puts the higher ranked person in a control position. Which is BAD. How can you honestly love someone that you control? So it becomes a mutual dependency thing. If you're both at 75, both 85, or both 95 it has a better chance to go the distance.

Also, this is a big reason why I think marriages back in the 1950's stayed together so much better. They didn't have the communication or interaction that we have today. If the happy housewife was in a 75-rated marriage... that could be fine since she never has that constant onslaught of other people who may rate in the 80s or 90s. Which means that in the 1950's for a marriage to stand the test of time maybe it only needed to be a 75. But with our super-information-interaction world that we live in now, the relationship needs to be a 90 or 95 if it wants to make it.

And so now I hope you didn't mind my way-too-damn-long post. I wonder if anyone will actually make it all the way through.

(The sad part is that there's actually a lot more to this whole theory, I just chose to post the major points)

[Undertoad]

I read the whole thing. My first thought is that it's not possible to reduce complicated human relationships to a simple number. And doing so won't yield the same kind of wisdom as it will in other applications.

Other factors: the longer you're in a relationship, if it's a loving relationship, you build emotional and mental bonds that couple you like nothing else. Your needs adapt to each other, even as you change as people. You build a life together and the intertwining becomes stronger. Your shared experiences become benchmarks. The needs/desires are no longer a single point; they're strung all over the place. It's not just an equation, it's a set of different equations that change every single day.

History: I dunno. But I'd say, when looking at how people were different in the past, there are many factors at work. Some factors are linear through history, such as the introduction of the birth control pill in the 60s. Once that happened, argue some, everything was suddenly different in familial relationships.

But other factors are cyclical, such as the level at which a society values children. These factors are huge, but happen at such a slow pace that we can't even see the waves that take place.

[Riddil]

(edit: post updated with yet more boring equations, sorry!)

I completely agree my post is a simplification... but I disagree that it's an oversimplification.

Students still use "3.14" for Pi... even though it's a severe simplification. I guarantee you'll never find a NASA engineer that uses "3.14". But for a student, they are able to use 3.14 and while they won't have the 100% correct answer, it's still accurate enough to pull meaningful conclusions.

Same thing here.

I agree that long-term relationships have another level of bonding. Maybe that could be another rating scale which runs from 1-100. As you build those experiences-with-your partner it slowly raises the "relationship-strength" rating. So while you may be in a 75-rated relationship, after 30 years you've had enough experiences that the relationship-strength value is so high that no one could pull it apart, no matter what their personal rating is.

Maybe the "interest level in a person" could be defined in a function something like:

interest = personal_rating * (relationship_strength/100)

Meaning that a 75-rated relationship with a 100 rated relationship-strength yeilds a net of 75. If that person then met a total stranger with a personal rating of 100, the net would be 100 * .01, or a net of only 1. Not even close to being a strong enough motivator to leave the 75-rated partner.

And relationship-strength CAN change to the negative over time. If a husband waits on his wife hand-and-foot when she's hospitalized there are several deposits to that scale quickly. But if 10 years down the road he's more interested in football than talking to her and forgets their anniversary, then the scale takes some hefty withdrawals. So, unlike the personal-rating scale, the relationship-strength scale is more capable of fluctuating greatly (albeit slowly), and has no "max limit" comparable to the compatibility-index that dictates the max on the personal-rating-scale.

However, it's still not that easy. Say for example you've reached a relationship-strength of 30 in your 75-rated relationship after 5 years of being together, then you may assume that after 5 years with a 95-rated person you would also reach a rating of 30. So even though today that 95'er is cummulatively rated lower, when you look at the 5-year potential, they match up:

75 * (30/100) = 22.5
95 * (30/100) = 28.5

And as more time passes that 95-rated person continues to increase faster and faster. (Think interest on a bank balance). However, if a couple is together for 20 years and reaches a relationship-strength level of 80, it would take a long, long time for even a 95-rated person to reach a matching level. Basically this means that the longer a couple is together, it's not so much that the motivation to leave your 75-rated partner for that 95-rated prospect decreases... it's just that you understand you don't have enough time on Earth to see a net positive gain by the change, you'll be happier with the 75'er.

So what does that mean? It means that if at-this-very-second if both the 75-partner and the 95-prospect called to tell you they needed your help right now, you would go help the 75'er, since they currently rate higher. However, the next day you might leave the 75'er because your potential-gain is higher in the long run with the 95'er.

(I could go on, maybe even add a "calculated risk" number to the equation which effects the decision model for leaving your current partner... but I think you see my point)

Wow. I think I've now crossed the bridge into complete, and total engineer world. I can only think in numbers.

[Undertoad]

I recognize that syndrome, because I had it when trying to buy a house.

Every house comes with a dollar amount assigned to it; and certainly if you find a house worth $200,000 to you, but priced at $50,000, you should buy it immediately, I thought.

As soon as I got into the process, I found myself swimming with too much information. OK, that house is $120,000, but it has a crack down the wall that might be serious foundation problems. OK, that house is $160,000, but it's at the bottom of a hill and could take on water. That one has a cool basement. That one has really old appliances. That one has leaves in the gutter. That one backs up to woods.

The lesson learned: there is no equation. You can only gut it out. There is too much you don't know. Sometimes, you don't even know your desires, and the house in the suburbs you planned with one life in mind becomes a ball and chain in your mind after ten years.

Did I say sometimes you don't know your desires? MOST times you don't know your desires. Most times you think you know yourself, but if you truly test yourself, you find surprises.

[lumberjim]

when i started reading your initial post, riddil, you were a 75 to me. by the time i finished it, you were down to a 60 because the left side of my brain was trying to take over the right side's responsibilities. Undertoad scored an 83 with his reply, maknig his total post average an strong 92. after reading your second post, i decided that you are the original programmer of the "Sims" games, and your rating increased to 72. at present, the urge to pick my nose is scoring a 65, while the urge to scratch my ass is only a 33. all of the sudden the urge to end this post is at a 100. bye

[Undertoad]

I just re-read my post and I found it too full of wordy gobbledygook. What I am trying to do, sound like some professor? Trying to make people think I'm all smart or something? I mark it lower, I think you were too generous.

[Griff]

Do we really get any better at judging people? I got very lucky hooking up with Pete but aside from that single most important relationship, I'm still a regular Helen Keller when it comes to reading folks. I know we should get better but...

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by Griff
Do we really get any better at judging people? I got very lucky hooking up with Pete but aside from that single most important relationship, I'm still a regular Helen Keller when it comes to reading folks. I know we should get better but...

absolutely. the right side of our brain uses info that we don't even know we have and compares it to previous experience. I meet a lot of people in my line of work, and can usually suss someone within minutes if not faster. sometimes I'm wrong, but I'm seldom surprised by the way people will react to what I say. I used to have a lot of trouble telling whether or not someone was lying to me, but now i can sniff it out pretty easily. the subconscious should be listened to , griff. trust your instincts....if that fails, use the force!

[xoxoxoBruce]

The relationship is controled by the one that loves the least. That doesn't change. Everything else does,......constantly.
You make some assumptions if believe to be flawed, but that's OK. A lot of smart peole have dedicated their lives and careers to try a figure this out....unsuccessfully.

[Sun_Sparkz]

with most people i meet, within the VERY early stages of the relationship they get an extra few points (say10-15) on credit for the possibility of things to come.

And i also agree with the concept that the one who loves the least has the upper hand, i dont give my heart too easily.. and i find in most relationships i have been in control of the situation (or at least i thought i was)

[Riddil]

Ok... this is amazing.... honestly, I've had a total, and complete reversal of opinion.

For the past day or two I've been mulling in my head all the info that was in my first post. If you read just that first post the only thing I really quantify is "individual rating" as a basis for decision. I was seriously thinking that I'd "finally figured it out", and I was ready to run out and start judging women based on the stupid idea that "Woman A rates higher than woman B, therefore I will pursue woman A, and ignore B."

Is it even possible to be more shallow?

I'm glad UnderToad challenged my idea straight away... b/c while I knew that there is a deeper "relationship strength" that adds to a relationship, I hadn't bother to try to include that in my magical equation.

So I reworked the equation and what I realized....

If you take a 75'er but only have a weak relationship score of a measly 1, then your interest/commitment works out to a .75. Compare that to a 95-rated person... if you have a weak relationship (Again, say a 1), then they total a whopping .95. Still not very impressive.

It doesn't matter, you compare ANY person to any other person and all you ever do is fluctuate from .01 - .99. But as soon as you start BUILDING a relationship it doesn't take long at all for that interest/commitment rating to go up very, very fast.

And what that showed to me is that it doesn't matter if the person you're with is a 75 or if they're a 95.... where you find true happiness is in how strong the relationship is. A 75-rated person with a relationship-strength score in the 80's will totally shadow a 95-rated person with a relationship-score in the 20's.

Sure you might feel good because you can take your 95-rated partner out on the town and impress everyone.... but are you happy? Are they giving to the relationship to make sure that it continues to grow as every year passes? This is the problem with celebrity marriages... they work so hard to get a "highly rated" person b/c they want a nice prop to show off to the world, but since they never measure the person for the QUALITY of their relationship, it becomes anemic.

So... even though I still feel like relationships (and everything else) can be expressed mathematically... I now realize... for matters of the heart it doesn't matter. Why worry about splitting hairs trying to figure out if a prospective partner is *really* an 80? Maybe they're a 78? Or an 82? When you compare it to the relationship that you build over time, it completely eclipses those tiny differences.

To be honest, I came up with the original post as a weak justification to make myself feel better about breaking up with my girlfriend this past weekend. I told myself that sure, I care about her, she's a good person, but it's just not working out. I didn't have a REASON to break up with her... so I invented the ratings system.

But it's not true at all. If it was just a simple "rating" then why did we get together in the first place? How could we have stayed together for so long?

The reality is that she could have been a 70 and I could still be completely in love and committed. What drove me away is that our relationship had grown weak. I gave and gave to the relationship, and because of it she was happy, but she never gave anything back. So as time passed the strength of our relationship never grew stronger... and it actually grew weaker. And the whole mess concluded with me breaking up with a woman in tears because she was convinced that she wasn't far from hearing a marriage proposal.

When we're young we constantly hear the mantra: don't judge a book by it's cover. Love the person that's INSIDE, not the image on the outside.

I always took that to mean look past a person's skin to discover their true personality. You may find they're smart, funny, whatever. But even those things are immaterial. What that little saying means to me now is that the "relationship strength" (read: love) that you build together will so far out-weigh everything else that everything else becomes insignificant in comparison.

Choose your mate not by if you think they're attractive... or smart... or funny... or successful. Choose your partner by how far your love can grow.

*cue cheesy violins*

Hehe, I just think it's funny that to understand something so simple that everyone already knows I had to go through this silly, convoluted process. The good news is that it only took me 27 years to get here!! Just think where I'll be when I'm 54!!

Anyhow, thanks everyone for holding my hand on this one. :p It probably seems silly/stupid that I could swing such a wide belief-structure so fast... but hey... emotions roll pretty quickly when you're going through a break-up.

Anyhow, to update my equation... I want to redefine the "limits" for the relationship-strength scale. It's not a 1-100 scale. It runs from 1 to the end of imagination.

[Sun_Sparkz]

well until i read that last post i thought you were making total sense until i realised your scale was meant to be on a material level. i read your scale to be judged on not only your attraction to someone, but your compatability to them as well, the love that has a possibility to develop, etc. not just looks... that IS shallow.

[insoluble]

I would think that just about anyone could be happy on a "dessert" island. Yum!

[Riddil]

Well, just to defend the idea that I really don't believe in anymore...

Sun, that *is* what I meant. I'm not just talking about how attractive someone is. I know a lot of very beautiful women that I rate very low on a personal-rating level. A personal-rating really is defined by "perceived compatibility". Are they a good person? Good conversationalist? Good outlook? Active? Intelligent? Open-minded? etc etc. And yeah, attractiveness is included in there, but it by no means is the sole item.

My whole point with the last post is that while ALL of those things may be important when choosing a mate, that NONE of those things individually matter one little bit when you compare it to a strong relationship.

Sure, you can argue that to actually have a strong relationship you need to find a person with many/most of the traits that you see as important... but my point is that no one will ever be 100% on the list. And any prospective partner will have a some measure of those things. Does it really matter if they are a 75% match compared to an 85%?

Not when you stop and consider that over time the strength of the relationship outweighs that difference.

That's what I meant.

[vsp]

As far as scores go, I took the AIDS test and got a 74. Is that good?