LESSON 9

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMPATIBILITY FACTORS

IN THE VIABILITY OF TEEN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Presented by

THE NATURAL SYSTEMS INSTITUTE

FACTORS AFFECTING THE SATISFACTION AND VIABILITY

OF RELATIONSHIPS

LEVELS OF MATURITY AS THEY RELATE TO VIABLE INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

Bell Curve Of Personal And Interpersonal Maturity, Particularly As It Relates To Sustainable Intimate Relationships.The following are levels of maturity, their definitions and their estimated frequency in the general population.

MATURITY LEVEL DEFINITION

Begins to focus on the nature of humankind and arbitrariness of history. Assesses and creativelyreconstructs new forms of social organization and cultural norms, preparing for future generations.Relates to the human condition and systems and structures of the global human community and nature.Begins to focus on larger significance of life and society. Acceptance of realism. Cultivates mutual

facilitation and quality of relationships and personal growth. Develops concern for community andlarger social, political, and economic organizations. Sets goals to enhance social welfare.Begins to focus on self in a larger context and issues in the world that have a personal impact.

Sees relationships in terms of importance of sharing and fairness. Can see both sides of andargument or issue. Sees importance of cooperation and coordination, particularly on longer

range goals. Understands and is empathic with others feelings, rights, and condition.Has respect for honesty and trust. Negotiates interdependence equitably.

Subordinates immediate comfort and endures hardship for greater good. Has respectfor rules but sees need for flexibility for higher purposes when necessary.

Focused on conformity, appearances, rules, rights. Still applies rights to self andrules to other. Slants definition sharing in terms of own needs. Tends to be

honest. Has sympathy and consideration for others but can not relate oradjust to their condition, feelings or needs. Has difficulty with compromise

or negotiation when it involves larger consequences or a bigger pictureFocused on avoiding disapproval without sacrificing personal needs

and rules to others. Tries to conform but twists truth when discovered to be inand desires. Understands rights of others and rules but applies rights to self

the wrong. Can hear but not really understand other side in disputes, but cannot accept equitable solutions if they interfere with personal immediate needs,

desires, and goals. Can perform work for basic needs but can not relate to the need toexert effort as a team member, or couple.

rights of others. Primitive awareness of the feelings and reactions of others. Uses this knowledgeFocused

on immediate gratification, but aware of possible negative for themselves. Disregards

and primitive skills of complaining, pestering, demanding, deceiving, and manipulating to get ownway. Argues own position in disputes, but incapable of seeing other

side.

Very high maturity 97%

Superior maturity 85%

Above average 70%

Average maturity 50%

Below average 40%

Immature 20%

Very immature 10% Focused

resorting to raised voice or physical force. Incapable of functioning independently for personal appearance, comfort, health, welfare,

on immediate gratification, oblivious to others’ feelings, needs, reactions, rights, orconditions except as they interfere with immediate gratification or inflict pain. Settles disputes and deals with frustrations by

achievement, or even survival. Incapable of regard for consequences. Disregard for truth or honesty.

MATCHING MATURITY LEVELS IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

Independent of all other factors, as the level of maturity of the respective partners in an intimate relationship begins to diverge, the satisfaction and viability of the relationship decreases. Age differences and degrees of neurosis also function in the same manner, but to a much lesser degree. However, the lower the level of maturity of both parties, the less the satisfaction and viability of the relationship. Successful intimate relationships require a high level of maturity due to the complexity and demands of interdependent living. Maturity can be taught and learned. Doing so can improve a relationship’s chances for success.

Person A Person B

High level of maturity

Low level of maturity

External and Non-Personality Internal Factors Contributing to a Satisfying, Viable Intimate Relationship

Interpersonal Maturity

Social and/or Economic Status

Level of Intelligence

Cultural/Ethnic Background

Interests, Values, Preferences

Temperament

Sexual Idiosyncrasies

Relatives and Social Relations

Occupation

Decreasing in Im

pact on the Relationship

The greater the discrepancy between intimate partners on each of the factors below, the greater the difficulty in adjusting to the relationship. Factors at the top of the list present the greater difficulty. Individuals can change the way each of these factors affects them and their style of relating. However, when a partner tries to change these factors in the other or change the way these factors influence the other, the result is usually deep resentment. On the other hand if these factors begin to make a mate highly uncomfortable, particularly during the naturalization phase of a relationship, and these feelings are not discussed, the relationship can be strained to the breaking point.

Schedules, Energy, Emotional Availability

Attributions, Attitudes, Trust, Consensus

Bedroom Spontaneity,Warmth and Affection

Customs, Manners, Speech, Friends and Associates

Ease of Relating,Stability of Expectations

Choices: Purchases, Activities, Methods, Time

Discussing Issuesand Problem Solving

Relationsin Public

DailyInteraction Factors

Affected

Language and Personality Combine in Scenarios and Seek a Matching Scenario in a Relationship Like Two Matching Pieces of a Puzzle

You have to be XYZ

because I want you to

be XYZ.

I want to be what you want me to be.

You just say the word and that’s

what I’ll be.

I’m just here to please you.

So, what do you feel you would really

be happy with? It is up

to you.

Well, I feel like I would really like Z. So, that’s what its

going to be!

By the way, what’s your ticket for the

day?

You were acting like

you liked and felt X! Why

would you do that? Don’t

you have any regard for

what I feel or what I want?

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean for it to seem like I felt or liked that. Really.

It was quite different. I really feel and want

the same thing you do.

Please don’t be hurt, OK! Now I feel awful. I’ll make it up to you.

The language we use with each other matches and molds each other’s personalities. The two, language and personality, are inseparably bound and expressed in scenarios we play out with each other. In the beginning, the language parents use with children calls for, shapes, a matching, corresponding, response that becomes a pattern, a habit perpetuated and extended to other relationships. Language patterns between people that don’t fit, like the puzzles pieces below, eventually result in separation. We are drawn to people whose language patterns fit our patterns. People stay in relationships that destroy them because they do not know how to talk differently, therefore think differently, therefore see, feel, and be different. Clients want to be different without knowing it requires learning, really learning in practice, to talk differently.

WHEN CARING GOES AWRY: FROM CO-DEPENDENCY TO RAGE• We looked at the flip side of co-

dependency first. Here, now, is co-dependency, the other side, the seemingly good side, the caring, longsuffering, heroic side. With mutual self destruction, it often appears, but this is only an appearance, that men get more involved in dangerous, outlandish, displays of affection. It is a matter of style. Likewise, it appears that women are more prone to co-dependency. Again it is a matter of style. Both are equally prone to both tendencies but in their own fashion. Now we shall examine more closely the dynamics and consequences of co-dependency. In its own way, though seemingly the height of goodness, is just as destructive to both parties and to the relationship. Couples are often deeply puzzled by this paradoxical outcome. While the damage is just as severe, the dynamics of the drama are quite different. Deeply held belief systems make these tendencies hard to give up.

A PERVERSION OF TRUE LOVE: THE TEST IS MUTUAL SELF DESTRUCTION• For some people, this honeymoon period includes an anomaly, an off tune version of co-

dependency, which is negative reciprocity. For many this is the zenith of romance. Carried to the extreme, the lovers vow that they would die for each other. In a more mundane fashion, this test of true love expresses itself as: ‘If you love me, you won’t go to work or class, or you will forget about your studies, or will buy even though you can’t afford it, will do it even though it is a great risk with no gain other than proof of love. Not realizing that taking this path does in fact destroy them and their lover, that this pact does lead to mutual self destruction and ultimately, inevitably, puts a grizzly end to their idyllic romance they were seeking to immortalize.

CO-DEPENDENCY, DEPRESSION, RAGE, AND

DIVORCE

By

ED YOUNG, Ph.D.

Co-Dep

Co-Dep

Co-Dep

Co-Dep

Co-Dep