Years ago, someone introduced me to something called the 80/20 rule in relationships.

This rule proposes that` the best you can hope for is to find a person who meets 80% of your needs, and you do the same for them.

The implication of that rule is that both parties may go through periods in their relationship when they might start resenting their partner's shortcomings, and start yearning for someone they meet, who satisfies their 20% need. But that both parties can only weather that storm if they mutually decide that they are willing to sacrifice the often dazzling 20% for the more stable benefits of the 80%.

Do you think that a lot of people enter relationships subconsciously expecting their mate to fulfil 100% of their needs, and to make them happy all of the time?

Yes, I think most of us expect 100% when we are young.If you know any couples who married young and have stayed with it--they understood it long ago.

With age we better understand the reality of 80-20. Usually second marriages.

Then life happens and we migrate toward 20% needs met and 80% in the wind if we want to settle.

Lots of us hit 100% DIY, do without or don't really want or need that anymore. Sad but true.

My opinion.

In short, yes. Though, I don't think it's always subconscious. I believe a lot of people assume going into a relationship that their partner should make them happy 100% of the time.

Two problems with that:

1) Making you happy all the time may not actually good for you (heroin makes people happy). Sometimes you need someone to challenge you to be a better you, which is a good thing but not always easy.

2) Sometimes friction is not beneficial, but everyone has quirks. Compromise is part of being in a relationship. That doesn't mean you should change the core of who you are (that won't really happen anyway). You should, however take note of the things that you can't or won't change. That way, when you experience that missing 20% you can say either "I can deal with that" or "I just can't".

While it's hard to quantify how important certain factors are 80/20 is a good way to think about it.

Good point and nice post Peggy!

Hey Peggy!

Well I don't think you can quantatativley measure relationship value to a precentage. But I'll play along.

When you say you're vows and your a young guy, you are thinking this is the one. Women put more of an emotional value on marriage so they are aiming for the 100% fullfillment. Fast forward to the 7 year marker. Values have dropped. Expectations have been lowered, to accommodate the "Human Factor". He farts in bed, she flirts a little too much, yada yada yada. 80/20 sure, just how do we do that? No idea. I think if you marry someone you should look at it as entering the Titanic. You can survive toghether or alone. If both parties are committed to making their relation ship work, they won't take it for granted. Here in America, we are cursed for an over 50% divorce rate. Not a good way to start. If other countries are honest, they would admit the same. I've heard Germany has it down if you want percentages. You take out a marriage licence and sign the agreement, just like your buying a car. After 7 years you go to the courthouse again. You wanna renew you licence, yes or no? If yes, you pay the man, and run legal for another 7 years, ect, ect, ect. But if you both say, nah were done. Ok, your licence let's you split money and loans 50/50. There's that percentage. And your on your way to your new driving experience.

I think 80/20 is just some "rule" some duffus designed to make marriages go 3 years instead of 7. IMO!

Mmm... not sure.
But I don't think I'd even agree with expecting someone to please you/meet your needs/keep you happy for 80% all the time.
First of all you should make yourself happy to begin with. And you should continue to do so in a relationship. Certain core things will have to be met, otherwise you haven't even got a relationship to begin with.
But even those core things may not be met at some point. It then comes to love and dedication to not give up right away.
In a way this 80% thing makes me feel it's kind of confining. A relationship shouldn't be confining, it should allow both parties to grow and evolve. You should support each other.

And you speak of "an often dazzling 20%" ... if the part you don't get from your partner is dazzling, it is likely to be quite the compromise to not have it, and you may want to ask yourself if you're even in the right relationship? The bits you don't get, but would like to get, shouldn't be stuff that is 'dazzling'. You should be able to get the dazzling out of your relationship.

Not getting a dazzling 20% sounds too much like settling to me. And like Rob said: how do you know when you don't get your 80%? How will you measure or weigh that?
And if you do know, what are you going to do about it?

I believe things go up and down, so there will be times you will get less than 80%. That may last a day or a month, depends on what the cause is. And sometimes you may get 150%...

I wish I could disagree with the morbid picture you painted Matureladyfriend , but for many people, what you shared is their reality

Welcome to the forum by the way

A very realistic point of view jonsearching...


I think you gave us a good trajectory point by starting from a place of knowing what your fundamental needs are, knowing who you are at your core, and knowing what things you are or are not willing to sacrifice.

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the forum!

I have never heard of this.. but then, I have been out of circulation for many years..
but on that note.. I have found that I've gotten most of what I need from my partner; and the other percentages from outside influences of friends, events and of course, myself...
It is my experience that in a relationship,..there is a 60/40 ratio .. sometimes you give 60 and get 40, and sometimes you get 60 and give 40 and same for your partner... when one is strong, the other is weak.. each and the other need to give and take

That presumes at any given time you can accurately and absolutely list 100% of your needs, and they never change.

The Pareto principle is only really meaningful when you can accurately measure exactly what you're getting and from exactly who you are getting it from.

Not to mention the idea that when needs are consistently and easily met they simply get taken for granted, no longer seen or valued as needs, fall down the hierarchy scale, unless they stop being met, because it takes too much effort to focus on something easy, since there are so many other needs that need to be met requiring the mental effort.

Needs change, perceptions of needs change, lots of needs aren't known or even understood.


That presumes all needs are equal and valued the same and there can be an adequate or accurate comparison between each persons need hierarchies.

Not to mention it may presume that sacrificing only effects the person that is sacrificing something negatively while creating a net positive.

Other than that I think needs will always be fulfilled no matter what.
If a person identifies/perceives something as a need, they will work, consciously and/or subconsciously, to get it, no matter what.
That's what needs are...things you need.

Needs aren't entirely defined absolutely by the universe/nature/biology but by perception.

So

Not really.
I think people measure up others very quickly through subconscious math or ROI calculations and try to figure out what needs the other person could fulfill, then compare that to a subconscious needs hierarchy list, and that generates an emotional reaction which is responded to.

And then over time that is updated and reassessed and expanded upon.
I don't think what you consciously believe you need is anything more than the tip of an iceberg to how your subconscious identifies and understands needs. i.e. what you perceive you need, what you think you perceive you need, and what you actually subconsciously perceive you need are vastly different things.


I think some people are just looking to be happy all the time and they are constantly trying things they think will offer the most success.
Drugs, alcohol, endorphin and adrenaline junkies, sex and relationships.
People and relationships are just objects. Rock of crack, boy/girl friend, it's all the same. The social dance is just the cash to pay the dealer. "I'll suck yo off for a dollar so I can buy some crack!" is no different than "I will love you unconditionally as long as you love me, I give everything to the relationship I demand you give back!" or "I write emails but no one responds! Cowards and rude!"
All the same.

Yes, I do and it's an unhealthy way to view relationships and an impossible standard.

Hi Rob

I have no idea how the initiator of this rule came up with this ratio or how such percentages are quantified in a relationship

What I gathered though, was that the ratio was simply about recognising that no person can satisfy all of your needs in the long term. And maybe in understanding that , and by choosing to focus on creating more of our own happiness, instead of placing that dead wight on our partner's shoulder, we could minimise the disappointment/resentment we typically build up against our mates.

I also believe that not every couple that loves each other should assume that marriage is the inevitable journey for them. Many people in reality,usually discover 7 years into a relationship as you suggested, that they do not want to be with the same person for the rest of their lives.

Sometimes I even wonder if longterm relationships are more about committing to a process / principle with someone compatible and "workable" , more than it is about committing to some spectacular human being.

As to how you quantify this strange ratio, maybe its about taking a mental note about the fundamental parts of your values, personality, lifestyle, and goals that kept you well balanced as a single person, and weighing the extent to which these core elements have been compromised or even eroded because of the person and the relationship.

I think that I anyway go in to a relationship for 100%...

I don't see it as a matter of giving the relationship your all or not. I viewed the statement as one of expecting a person to meet 100% of your needs and that is an impossible demand on another person.

these two posts are about 80/20 aren't they

HI Crystal

You raised a lot of relevant pints and I will try to address all of them .

I agree you should make yourself happy as a single person and should continue doing so in a relationship. If anything, your partners role may be to enhance the joy you already created for yourself or at the very least, not take it away.

And I agree with you that even with the right fitting partner, that our core things may not always be met by them at some point and that it then comes down to love and dedication to not give up right away.

I dont think the ratio was ment to be taken literally like I told Rob. Its just about enforcing the point that it is unrealistic to expect a partner to meet all of our needs,

As for the 20 % dazzling part , which I suggested that we might have to sacrifice, I dont believe that we are always lucky enough to get all the dazzle elements that we need in a relationship.

For eg, I have a friend who has been a romantic at heart since I befriended her 25 years ago, but having a man who she could depend on to be a great dad was important to her, as she longed for many kids. She always knew he wasnt romantic by nature but it was easier for her to deal with when they both were high on love in the beginning.

Fast forward to 17 years later when her romantic core is crying out for roses and love notes and walking hand in hand at the park, and her husband feels no real interest in obliging her because it feels corny him although it is a core part of her personality.

She has the option of leaving her husband because he dosent meet that dazzling core need, but on the other hand ,she acknowledges that she married a man who is as devoted to their religion as she is, who has been attentive to her in every other area but romance for 17 years, who is an exceptional father to her 4 kids, and whom she has never had cause to question his fidelity.

With all of that in mind , she has chosen to not focus on the romantic void in her life even though it is a huge part of her core , which she admitted has actually increased with age .

But she understands that if she left her mate for someone who fulfils the romantic in her, that she may be sacrificing on the other virtues he possesses which are important to her too.

I would call that the dazzling 20% that she chose to sacrifice


As to how you quantify this strange ratio, I dont think it is to be taken literally. As I told Rob, maybe its about taking a mental note about the fundamental parts of your values, personality, lifestyle, and goals that kept you well balanced as a single person, and weighing the extent to which these core elements have been compromised or even eroded because of your mate and the relationship , and maybe the extent to which you have both added value to each others livesin areas that both parties deem meaningful. It might even be the simpler question of " Does your mate or relationship drain you more than rejuvenate you?"

And if so , is the relationship or your partner responsible, or is it that outside of the relationship you feel unhappy with yourself and your lack personal accomplishments or personal passions?

And I agree with you that things go up and down in a relationship, so there will be times you will get less than 80% Of your core needs met and vice versa , but anytime one partner complains about feeling drained , to me a discussion has to be had about how things can be evened out a bit between both of you.

I think the 80/20 rule is more of a principle , as opposed to a literal quantative balance.

No matter what.... I give your post a 90/10. Oh those silly percentages! Oh, what the heck,,, 100/100! Cause I like your face pretty Peggy!
And your post was really a nut cracker..... um.... well... you knoooow!

Hahahaha! You are crazy Rob!

Well, it is about time that one of you Humans offered us some pints.

Nutcracker?

Scary stuff there David