My social psychology textbook said that a feeling of equity (fairness)is the most important requirement for a successful relationship. Now I'm less assertive because what I want most is that things feel fair for them. I'm a giver anyway so it works out, but wonder if its really true. Some people say trust is the most important thing.

If two people do not Trust each other, all the fairness in the world will not keep the relationship together!

i agree... fairness counts for squat

For me once the trust is broken ,its really hard to repair.
Being fair is important too, but trust takes top billing.

You have to remember when studying college psychology theat everything is subjective and based on norms and studies......what one study might come up with one place as anorm might not be necessarilmy so someplace else.........I would say fairness would help....but trust is more important to me because if I can't trust you can I trust you to bev fair? Kinds like the chicken and the egg or nuture vs nature......

I choose not to reinforce any type of untrustworthy unfair behavior.

Really you can't be honest about being unfair.........

I dkn...I still think fairness and trust are two different issues...but hey thats just me.

wouldn't trust be born out of fairness ...if the one you trust is not fair...then why do you trust them

Because the best thing is not always fair but honesty is always necessary

Wha was the question again lol
I still rank trust higher than fairness.

is lashing out unfairly at someone and then regretting it a sign of being honest or a sign of a quick temper? ...

never said it was a sign of being honest, said you can be unfair and still be honest.Two different things.

they are two different things because you can't be both at the same instance

if you were honest then you wouldn't be unfair
and if you are unfair how can honesty then be claimed

neither good nor evil be but just

As humans some make unfair decisions.....but I doesn't mean they were dishonest humans are not infallible......and it takes great strength to admit that you are wrong in your decisions even when they are unfair.......so I do not see the direct connection btwn fairness and honesty which are two different entities all together

right..humans are not infallible which means in some shape form or fashion Everyone Lies and Everyone Cheats which is why no one can claim to be honest ....honesty like wisdom are traits observed by others not claimed by the individual

if one deem themself to be honest then it is displayed in fairness to others and not bragged about in haste ...honesty is displayed through actions not words

well science is science and therefore, shouldn't be trusted! it is based on trends, opinions, ideas and data (which can vary greatly depending on who's interpreting it)!

Everyone has their own set of values and must choose a mate that compliments that! For me trust & honesty (true funches that actions mean more than words) are always gonna rate high!

After the past 2 relationships I've been through, Family also rates highly now.

if it the study speak of a "feeling of equity", or fair, be important in a relationship, than no problem, but "fair" would have to be defined, or it would have to say "how to create this", if it was a study ABOUT SOLUTION, to it's own assertion that itself make?

if not, than it be but a hollow voice, of declaring self as wise, FOR SOME INSIGHT THAT A CHILD COULD KNOW, for all know that ALL WISH TO BE TREATED FAIRLY?

wow, and this is supposed to GUIDE THE HUMAN BRAIN AS "THE HIGHEST INTELLECT", deeming itself smart to 'GUIDE OTHER HUMAN LIVES'?

the goal to help that which be in a relationship?

that is supposed to be the 'INTENT', OR MOTIVE, OF THE STUDY?

to know if anything is achieving "fair", however the study provides no such insight?

the study itself does not define it's own words, so then it leaves itself as HIGHER IN INTELLECT, but not proving this to anything?

what be the basis of fair?

equal?

two peoples in life, each seeing the "other's" WANTS as equal...

what other foundation of "fair" could be asserted?

equal?

what self "wants", be equally as important to what another "wants"?

but this is not implied, nor conveyed in the study itself, by the creator's of the study, or it would be included, AS SUCH WOULD BE THE "REMEDY" FOR THE DIOGNOSIS ITSELF DECLARE?

does not the study simply ASSERT ITSELF, BY PUBLICATION OF ITSELF, AS WISE, SIMPLY BY MAKING AN "OBSERVATION", even worse, A DIOGNOSIS, but no remedy?

monkey jumps up and down, scratches head, and insists, i wish to be "feel" i am treated fairly, lol...

wow, that's a ****ing brilliant deduction say the "fellow wannabe intellect's" as self declared EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF STUDY OF "OTHER HUMAN'S", but indeed, it cannot be misssed, that the very words spoken, are so diluted on themself as supreme, for so long, that it cannot see a child could have told all the world, all wish to "feel" as if they are being treated fairly...

why is it not the definition of fair, or what create a "fair feeling", included?

because the the creator's themself DO NOT SEE OR KNOW WHAT "FAIR" IS THEMSELF, since they stare at themself with the belief they are EXPERTS, and only hear 'CRITQUE FROM WHAT AGREE WITH THEMSELF, OR FROM THE SAME PIER GROUP'...

even in a court of law, we assert we must HAVE "CRITIQUE", from a CROSS SECTION OF "INSIGHTS"...

but the entire pyschological studies LEFT SUCH OUT FOR THEMSELF, very conveniently...

just a "subjective" assertion that "people need to feel as if their being treated "fairly"?

well, no **** sherlock...

but what the **** creates that "feeling" IN PEOPLE, IF YOU WISH TO TOUT YOURSELF AS HAVING SOME GOOD INSIGHT, OR INSIGHT, INTO HOW TO "UNDO" A FEELING OF "NOT FAIR"?

it is nothing but a broad sweeping generalization, SO PROFOUNDLY INEPT, that it cannot see a monkey, an animal, ALL HUMANS ALIVE, WANT TO "FEEL" AS IF THEY ARE BEING TREATED FAIRLY!

no basis of "what create fair", is included, because there is no "true reality" of what be "equal", to the very writer's of the study?

if it be a "true reality" to something, will it not be able to "know it", or speak it, or write it?

please...

such self declared "expert" knowing, unscutinized by anything except what be as ITSELF, has allowed such ignorance to go unckecked as "grand expert knowing"...

if two are together, in a relationship, and BOTH reveer the wants of the other, just as important, or having the same VALUE, as their own, would they not achieve a "true friendship", or equal status, so then "fair feeling"?

both knowing the "other" will not entice, encourage, manipulate, pressure the "other involved" just to try to get what ITSELF WANTS, by believing itself MORE IMPORTANT, SMARTER, MORE INSIGHTFUL, IT'S WANTS MORE VALUABLE?

if the creator's of the study itself, HAD, OR DID, OR SEEN, any such things, in their OWN LIFE, then would the study leave such things unspecified?

hell no...

it's not there, because it's not there in the writer...

it is written from a "self as MOST AND MORE knowledgable" assumption of ITSELF.

just one ignorant cent

Not necessarily when you can be honest about what your doind but also be unfair about doing it....honesty can be displayed in unfair decisions as well.....its not black and white because your statement does not address grey areas.......