Posit: Love is subject to qualitative analysis.

[triadruid]

We can identify defining characteristics of (romantic) love that distinguish it from other relationships:

• Attraction


• Common Interests


• Trust


• Compatible Dysfunctions (thanks to featherynscale for this term)


• Within a 'Standard Deviation' of each other (thanks go to azanthia for this one)

I should explain the 'Standard Deviation' concept a bit further; essentially, it means someone who is not so far above you, or so far beneath you, that the difference is going to cause a problem. This can be intellectual difference, social class difference, religion, whatever.. opposites may attract, but similarities build resonance.

If you have some subset of these characteristics, you can have a relationship, even a good one, just not the same one. For instance, Common Interests + Trust + Compatible Dysfunctions + Standard Deviation = Best Friend for Life(?). Common Interests + Trust = Favorite Coworker(?).

And so on. Feel free to poke holes, I just found it interesting and didn't want to forget the midnight philosophy.

Comments

Addendum

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

The fifth characteristic was added when the idea of failed relationships came up - you did love each other, but somehow it just didn't work. Per a previous conversation with azanthia (she and I are arguably a perfect example), if you're so caught up in worrying about 'keeping up' with that person, or 'dumbing down' what you say/do for that other person, chances are you're going to wear yourself, and your love, out.

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Common Interests + Trust + Compatible Dysfunctions + Standard Deviation = Best Friend for Life(?)

::poking hole with counter-example::
My best friend and I actually have very few common interests. In fact, we both actively despise the other's main interest (art history for her, classics & archaeology for me). She likes the city, I like te country, she likes the ocean, I like the mountains... for as dissimilar as we are, it's amazing how well we get on.

However, we found out something interesting when we both did an email survey that asked you to describe yourself without using adjectives, or only using verbs, or something like that. When you take out the interests and other pedestrian crap, she and I are almost exactly alike. We put down practically identical answers without even knowing that the other person was doing the quiz.

We also have trust, compatile dysfunctions, and standard deviation, but the "similar nature" seems more important than "similar interests" to me.

Okay, mind exploring this?

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Without common interests, what do you 'do' as friends together? Besides the support-structure stuff that best friends can do for each other...

Re: Okay, mind exploring this?

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Do? Well, we actually haven't been able to spend much time together since she transferred in the middle of sophomore year, so when we do manage to get together a lot of our time is used on just catching up. But really, one of the things I like best about being in her company is that there's no pressure to do anything, even talk. Sure, we like talking and can stay up til all hours of the night discussing completely random topics, but we're also just fine doing our own things in silence.

I don't know if that really answers your question, but I'm fine with exploring this concept so feel free to ask more.

Re: Okay, mind exploring this?

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Okay, that was the impression I got (that you were separated by geography) but I wanted to be sure. Those are definitely different than geographically convenient relationships (I've had plenty in the past, and still do, so I'm not knocking them)..

To take it a step further, what did you 'do' when you were at the same school? I'd even go so far as to say 'discussing random topics' could be a Common Interest, but that may be a copout.

I'm still leaning toward Common Interests rather than Common Natures, because I think Compatible Dysfunctions encompases your basic nature. For instance, you two can sit and do different things in the same space without either of you freaking out about it - that's compatible, if not strictly a dysfunction. Mainly I just liked the terminology at midnight, so if you have a more inclusive one, I'm all ears/eyes/fingers...

Re: Okay, mind exploring this?

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Let's see... there was still an inordinate amount of talking, which kind of falls under "support structure" since a lot of it was about the academic, religious, parental, etc. issues we were both dealing with at the time. I also seem to recall a lot of evenings which started out with me getting out of rehearsal, going to her room, and saying "Whatcha doin'?" "Studying." "What, again?" "No, still." "Well, put the book away and come do X." (X was usually something like going to Walmart or a campus activity, but generally just hanging out.) Just random college kid stuff, you know?

The thing is, Beth and I were best friends from nearly the moment we met, certainly before we knew much of anything about each other's interests or dysfunctions or anything else. It was one of those "click" moments. I will admit that we met due to common interests, however. Or rather lack thereof -- we were the only two people on our hall that didn't plan on going to Tacky Party, so Beth's roommate (whom I knew from theatre) suggested that we hang out. After a few games of You Don't Know Jack and a minorly traumatic experience involving walking in on my roommate & her boyfriend, that was that.

To throw another wrench in the works, there's my roommate and I. We have oodles of common interests, plus trust, standard deviation, and compatible dysfunctions (anyone who can live in the same room with me for two years without killing me is a saint, and the same goes for anyone who doesn't kill Megs.) We were nearly perfect roommates; in all the time we lived together we had exactly one fight, which started at lunch and was over by 10 pm. but while we are certainly friends, we are just as certainly not best friends.

I dunno. I'm just not sure how quantifiable this sort of thing is.

Further thoughts, re: Khristoff

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I think I figured out why it was Never Gonna Work (tm) with me and Khristoff - he's optimistic to the point of being naive, and I'm pessimistic to the point of being cynical. It's a failure to connect on basic outlook on life.

I would perpetually feel like I was bursting his bubbles, which I really care too much about him to do. (Ah, the famous "I don't want to date you because I would fuck up your life pretty badly, and you just don't do that to people you like" response...)

Does that come under Compatible Dysfunctions, Within a Standard Deviation, or is that outside the system?

Re: Further thoughts, re: Khristoff

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to classify it under Compatible Dysfunctions, if it's that severe of a disconnect. But then, I'm on the inside of the experiment, and need some outside perspective.

Re: Further thoughts, re: Khristoff

[kittenpants.livejournal.com]

In my analysis of the elements of compatibility, I classified this as "Life Attitude" under "Spiritual Compatibility":

"Life Attitude:
Some people cannot cope with day-to-day reality, and are eternally dissatisfied with the real world, and try to run away from it or deny it exists. Some people accept it as it is, but are never actually pleased with reality, and occasionally avoid it. Some people enjoy the world around them, but never deeply connect to it. And some people truly appreciate life and the universe, and enjoy the things that happen with gratitude and humility, and joy. To these people, even the bad or difficult things are viewed as learning experiences and challenges. I've only met a handful of the latter kind, and I can easily form lasting, loving relationships with them - but none of them have been romantic or sexual relationships. People on the opposite end of the spectrum I have a hard time relating to on that fundamental level, and I don't think I could spend my life with someone like that. Most gamers fall into that category (and traditional Buddhist dogma supports it. Many modern variations of Buddhism that integrate the Taoist love of life are not like that, though). So that is one of my criteria in looking for a mate, where you fall with your general attitude about life. I want to be with someone who enjoys each day as a gift, not as a burden. I want to be with someone who sees life as a grand adventure, who approaches life with the enthusiasm of a child and accepts the things that happen as being part of natural harmony and appreciates things for fulfilling their nature. I guess this boils down to a person's attitude about the way things "should" be. If a person holds anger and resentment that life is not a fairy tale, they have unreasonable expectations and can never be satisfied with anything. If a person holds faith that life and everything in it has a purpose, and that our duty is to learn from events and accept that they must happen to achieve that purpose, then they are one step closer to enjoying life. When they reach that acceptance, and have faith that the Purpose is good and we are given these experiences as gifts to help us grow, and this person finds joy in the things that happen, then they are someone I can truly respect, admire, and share my life with fully, knowing they will never take me for granted, and that when I bring an event to their attention, they will share my awe and joy in exploring the meaning of the event. Where do you fall on the spectrum of your view of life? Is life painful? Is it just boring? Is it ok? Is it enjoyable? Is it amazing? Is it a gift for which you are thankful?"

Re: Further thoughts, re: Khristoff

[kittenpants.livejournal.com]

::blinks::

What kind of crack was I on when I wrote that? I think I'd just broken up with a hardcore pessimist...

*blink*

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

*blink*blink*

[kittenpants.livejournal.com]

Wow. It's the Elements of Compatibility I wrote two years ago.

"Broadly, the needs for a healthy relationship can be broken into five categories, which in some ways correspond to the elemental pentacle – Intellectual, Spiritual, Emotional, Physical, and Mythical compatibility. A truly amazing relationship – a life partnership – can be achieved when all five elements of compatibility are in harmony between two people. Here’s the outline of the list of the elements and their aspects. Low compatibility in an aspect is not an insurmountable issue, but if too many aspects are incompatible, and especially if many aspects within one element are incompatible, much work would need to be done to sustain the relationship, and perhaps it might be best to continue the search. [snip]

Intellectual
-communication
-education
-intelligence
-common sense
-problem solving
-humor

Physical
-attraction/sex
-career/finance
-health
-responsibility
-risk-taking
-public/private

Emotional
-compassion
-expression/sharing
-integrity
-trust
-health
-addictions

Spiritual
-theology
-practice
-tolerance
-passions
-motivations
-life attitude

Mythic
-needs
-desires
-personal growth
-life path
-position in life
-future goals/aspirations"

Overacheiver

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

That's it. You're out of the standard deviation range with everybody now :)

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Okay, fine, point out the bloody obvious! :P

See, I knew someone had done this before; if you'd been awake, we could have all gone to bed much earlier. ;)

Alternate proposition...

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Posit: The psychologist and the sociologist should not stay up all night after drinking and try to figure out things that belong in the realm of the artist.

poke, poke, poke

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

This is the book I promised to make you write, dear. How's it coming?

[kcwitch.livejournal.com]

yeah i think that is pretty much part of it. a good part of my relationship with my best friend is communication and understanding that we may not agree with each other all the time but that's ok. i accept mac for all his faults. he accepts me for having none ::grin, only joking:: but you know what i mean.

[reeling.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree with all of this except for the "common interests" aspect of it. I think rather than common interests, common values are important. For example, I could never be with someone who was anti-choice or who didn't believe in sex before marriage. (But would that fall into the last category? I'm not sure.) I just know I couldn't do it. But if my partner had an interest that was really important to them and I had no interest in it, I could easily look past that so long as that wasn't the only thing in their life.

And my 'best friend for life' shares all of the traits listed above. I'm attracted to her, I think she's beautiful but I would never want to be in a sexual relationship with her...everything but.

Hmm. Who knows? Some functional relationships might only have one or two of these traits. It all depends. Interesting post. Thanks for directing me towards it. :)

Yeah

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

You all may be right about the Common Values thing.

Of course, because we were discussing this at midnight, it's a rough draft. kittenpants has a much more complete theory in a thread above.

Thanks for the input!

Re: Yeah

[reeling.livejournal.com]

Rough drafts are juuust fine.

I memory-ied this entry because I found it to be interesting.

[cheshire23.livejournal.com]

I think common interests are important if YOU believe that common interests are important.

Back about 10 or 11 years ago, when I took an Interpersonal Communication course, I was introduced to the concept of three different relationship styles: Traditional, Independent, and Separate.

Independents, despite the term used for them, have a very high need to share common interests with a romantic partner. Separates have little if any need for this, and Traditionals are somewhere in the middle. I wish I still had the chart, since there were other interesting bits too.