#1 Dating Site for Successful Singles and Admirers

Home > Millionaire Forums > Topics wwww12345 has created > Interpersonal relationship- Theories - discussion Previous topic Next topic
Interpersonal relationship- Theories - discussion
Author
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Sep 28, 2006 05:55

From Wikipedia - Theories:

* Social psychology has several approaches to the subject of interpersonal relationships, among them closure and also trust, as trust between parties can be mutual. This may lead to enduring relationships.

* Social exchange theory interprets relationships in terms of exchanged benefits. The way people feel about relationships will be influenced by the rewards of the relationship, as well as rewards they may potentially receive in alternate relationships.

* Systemic coaching analyzes relationships as expressions of our human need to love and be loved. Relationships can be confused by transferences, entanglements and substitution. Systemic coaching offers solutions for many relationship difficulties.

* Equity theory is based on criticism of social exchange theory. Proponents argue that people care more than just maximizing rewards, they also want fairness and equity in their relationships.

* Relational dialectics is based on the idea that a relationship is not a static entity. Instead, a relationship is a continuing process, always changing. There is constant tension as three main issues are negotiated: autonomy vs. connection, novelty vs. predictability, and openness vs. closedness.

* Attachment styles are a completely different way of analyzing relationships. Proponents of this view argue that attachment styles developed in childhood continue to be influential throughout adulthood, influencing the roles people take on in relationships.

* Socionics and some other theories of psychological compatibility consider interpersonal relationships as at least partly dependent on psychological types of partners.

For example: Equity

"People are happiest in relationships where the give and take are about equal. If one person is getting too little from the relationship, then not only are they going to be unhappy, the person getting the lion's share will also be feeling rather guilty about this imbalance."



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Tue, Apr 24, 2007 19:50

I read a book many years ago by Powell. The title was "Why I am afraid to tell you who I am".

There are many great thoughts in that book. I highly recommend reading it. Probably cost $2 on half

It helps explain what it is so difficult too open up to other people, plus discusses games people play, and many other subjects. It might be useful to you in your work.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Apr 23, 2007 04:54

I surely agree with you: realtionships between ?ersons have to be based both on rational and emotional basis. Or better I think that rationl side can be useful to avoid to be distructed from other people we love! LOL

The scheme you show it is considered the base of the communication system even if some years ago in Palo Alto some "brains" discovered a new one, but it is not important the newest.
Your is good enough to explain the mechanical communication process and I use it with my "students" and for myself.

It is good to see where misunderstanding can be, but the meanings and the reason of misunderstanding are colsed in our personality and this it is really difficult to explain.

I'll try to simplify this once saying that it is not important what we say. a little more important it is how we say it, but much more important it is why we say it and the deep reason of our speaking that are the same deep reason of our behaviour and our beliefs. They are strictly connected with consciousness: realtionships (and their quality) are the simple effects of our consciousness.
and consciuosness it is the most difficult things to talk about!

Ciao!



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Fri, Apr 20, 2007 07:45

elrond2000 If you are a expert in communications, then maybe you are familiar with the flow chart of communications that goes like this:

Input from the orginator > internal processing by the receiver > output the receiver hears or thinks they hear (and understand)> feedback (good or bad) to orginator

It's in the processing part that things can get screwed up, because the processing depends on the receivers life experiences, knowledge, intelligence, culture, etc.

This little schematic is important to understanding communications, and especially communications between people of different cultures. I once consulted to a cross cultural training company and we found it very useful to use this and other similar theories in the course.

So, I do believe that different theories have their place in trying to understand things as complicated as relationships (and communciations). Different theories about relationships work best for different people because of their internal processing and their culture. Sometimes theories are good to keep our thinking about a problem or even a relationship focused and allow some logic to be used, rather than all emotions. Relationships based upon emotions alone can be very fragile and thus short lived.

But then, I am a systems and theory type of thinker, and I have been known to be wrong at least a few hundred times this month. This may be one of them.
lol



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Apr 18, 2007 05:28

I think you're right. Trying to know who I am and who the other person is it is really important.
Perhaps it could be the first and last reason for we are here. (excuse my bad english. I'm trying to "refresh" it, but I'm still practicing!lol)
Working as a trianer in communication, relationships and conflict for the management and employees of enterprises and public company, I've realized that the best way to teach (or better, to let people understand by himself...)something about relationship it is to let people able to understand thmeselves, to increase their consciousness about their own behaviour and so on.

All the theories about realtionship, all the word we could say about the different approaches are good only for those who like to spend their time thinking about abstract things. lol

I believe that for me there is a simple way to build good relations and it is to be myself, to speak with honesty and so on. And I'm having really good results by using this simple method! lol

This is the better way. There are so many things about relationships that cannot be told, but have to be lived, experienced that it is impossible to try to do only rational thnkings about it.

Ciao!



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Apr 16, 2007 10:43

I think its important in any relationship to know who and what the other person is, and most of all to know who you are. Good relationships are not just about hormones.

BUT, having said that, I will admit that I do like hormones.

lol



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Tue, Mar 27, 2007 06:37

Owing to my little opionion relatioonships can nly be lived, not discussed... all we can say about relations it's only "empty words".
and so it is about experence or theory:
every one has his own....
It is the same reason because of I like much more to make love than to talk about it! lol

Good luck to all members of the site!

Roberto



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sun, Oct 15, 2006 22:09

I guess I have my own theory that incorporates most of the above ones, but adds the following

Value Systems, including major and minor problems and their frequency. I believe minor problems become major problems if the occur very often and major problems become absolute/hard requirements for marriage if they happen too often. Frequency is a great measure of severity when problems occur.


External Influences, such as religion, family, work, or any other external factor that help or hurt relationships.

The strength of, or lack of, love needs. It is a equity factor also, but deserves a greater discussion. Someone with high love needs is mismatched with someone who has low love needs. Never works.

Where you are in life, in general using Maslow's model. Look up Maslow on the net,plenty on there.

How good is the communication and feedback between you. Feedback is necessary to resolve differences.

How you disagree? Do you compromise, or go to war?

Where are your walls? Do they allow a lot of intimacy, or very little.

etc.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sun, Oct 08, 2006 05:51

I'm a giver too, katie. I was refering more to the extreme type like doubleu's described. I know a woman like that as well,doubleu's. Like you, I had to tell her to slow down....Giving a gift should bring pleasure but when in overdose, it can make others - unless they are complete takers - embarassed, obliged, and if you're not in a place to reciprocate, inadequate or that the person is scarey (is this a sign of latching on too fast or expecting too much in return?).

I'd like to know more about the "relational dialectics" theory. Sounds interesting and plausible. Don't relationships naturally change over time? What I have seen here is that if one changes and the other doesn't, conflict arises. This, from my experience is where the men who seem comletely surprised when their wife tells them she's leaving. On the other hand, if two people can work through the evolution and natural conflicts, does it not improve the relationship?



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Oct 05, 2006 23:03

RapturousRed write:
Sorry, B, I didn't see anything in Sharp's comment that would indicate she was speaking about emotional equity (or lack thereof). The source is very general as well.

If we're going to try to count inequities, then certainly there is a materialistic equity factor. One can give the other gifts (very broad) in drastic disproportion to the other. And I've seen it both ways. Men spurned often call women who behave this way "Golddiggers". But what is the name of men who behave this way? Why isn't there some ugly name - other than "Loser" (in my book!)? And while I completely agree that eventually this should lead to discord, does it always end the relationship? Do you think there are people who just need to give without regard to return? Probably some disorder there but I indeed believe it exists.

Re:




I had a friend like that. She worked just to give gifts. Had no savings and little money in the bank even though she make good money. She was a airline stewardess so she traveled all over the world - and bought gifts for everyone she knew. I finally talked her into slowing the gift giving down so she could buy a condo. It did embarrass some people who could not return the gift giving, but most just recognized that was just her and no return expected.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Oct 05, 2006 21:00

In my view of equity or inequity, you look at everything about a person, for instance.

The components of character: honesty, compassion, and the higher level characteristics of good human beings, or lack of.

Intelligence, or lack of, (but not counting spelling).
lol

Success, ambition, or lack of

Attractiveness

Emotional and love needs, or lack of.

Personality and possible personality disorders, or lack of

Knowledge, common sense, etc. or lack of.



etc. etc.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Oct 05, 2006 02:05

RapturousRed write:
Sorry, B, I didn't see anything in Sharp's comment that would indicate she was speaking about emotional equity (or lack thereof). The source is very general as well.

If we're going to try to count inequities, then certainly there is a materialistic equity factor. One can give the other gifts (very broad) in drastic disproportion to the other. And I've seen it both ways. Men spurned often call women who behave this way "Golddiggers". But what is the name of men who behave this way? Why isn't there some ugly name - other than "Loser" (in my book!)? And while I completely agree that eventually this should lead to discord, does it always end the relationship? Do you think there are people who just need to give without regard to return? Probably some disorder there but I indeed believe it exists.

Re:



I'm one who doesn't NEED to give but if I love someone I automatically think of them throughout the course of the day and if the opportunity comes up, I give without thought of return. Like when I lived with my mom years ago when my ex left me, I would be out and think, "I should buy milk for her tea and maybe get a new book for Heather to read." And I had a love interest who was in the navy and if I passed something that I thought might interest him or amuse him, I'd bring it home. I never thought of doing it so people would owe me. It was more just an idea that they might be needing it later and I could save them the trouble of getting it themselves, or that they may enjoy it or that it might cause some enjoyment. I'm a kind of spur of the momen, impulsive, live in the "now" kinda girl.

:)



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Oct 04, 2006 15:26

Sorry, B, I didn't see anything in Sharp's comment that would indicate she was speaking about emotional equity (or lack thereof). The source is very general as well.

If we're going to try to count inequities, then certainly there is a materialistic equity factor. One can give the other gifts (very broad) in drastic disproportion to the other. And I've seen it both ways. Men spurned often call women who behave this way "Golddiggers". But what is the name of men who behave this way? Why isn't there some ugly name - other than "Loser" (in my book!)? And while I completely agree that eventually this should lead to discord, does it always end the relationship? Do you think there are people who just need to give without regard to return? Probably some disorder there but I indeed believe it exists.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 02, 2006 22:38

I think you are talking about emotional equity, which certainly is important to most people. And yes, the person getting the short end of the stick is usually unhappy.

But, what other types of equity are there? I think I counted about 60 equity factors years ago - But cantremembershetnowdays, so list is gone forever unless you guys come up with it. It's worth thinking about.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Fri, Sep 29, 2006 09:16

Regarding Equity...I don't know about the person getting the lion's share feeling guilty...some people are totally oblivious to the fact of the inequity, that they are getting more than they are giving back. But I do believe that the person who is doing all the giving begins to feel unhappy. It comes back to meeting each others needs in all areas...when equal, both parties needs are being met. Inequity results in only one partners needs being met. The partner whose needs are not being met eventually becomes unhappy and that is when the relationship usually goes awry.



Previous topic     Next topic