Scary stuff there David

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

Peggy, why should you be scared? The guys are the ones who have to worry.

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?
[/quote

I believe your statement is true we all have a fantasy lover who can provide us with what we need 100% of the time but in the real world this rarely happens, like most gifts once you take off the wrapping paper and start seeing your gift up close you see the little flaws,and likewise I am sure the mate is noticing yours to. To me the important thing is to acknowledge this and focus on communication, that should make up for the 20% shortcoming.

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.

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.

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

I know that as soon as you decide to measure, calculate, and quantifiably analyze your relationship, you might as well end it.

The act of doing this, inherently changes your "mate" to a "amusement delivery service."

The only relationships worthy of the name, are those which are based on the person who cares for another, dedicating themselves to LIVING whatever life happens to be, with them.

My own suspicion, is that people who put a lot of energy in to concepts LIKE this one, are actually examples of a common modern social phenomena, where the influence of commercial-pseudo-science, as a form of reassurance, results in people trying to "prove" to themselves that they are on the right track in life.

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?

I like your analogy about the gift wrapping jacktrades

I honestly dont think that communicating will compensate for the 20% lack though. A need will remain a need no matter how many times a couple tries to pacify each other in communication.

I think the void can be cushioned by focusing on all the other joy that your partner brings to you ,which are many hopefully, and maybe pursue some hobbies outside of your marriage.

For example, if a person adores dance, they will need an outlet to express that side if themselves or they wont feel whole. In my dance community, very few members have mates that are dancers because it is very hard to find, but they go out with a group of friends both male and female and enjoy the feeling of romance on the dance floor in a safe controlled environment with friends, knowing that they will never have that with their mate.

Dancing with friends will never compensate for that dance bond they crave from their partner , but it helps to cushion the void.

Thats just an example ofcourse ..not a general recommendation.

And as I said before, focusing on the other joys your partner brings to you instead of on that which they lack , reminds you why the journey with them is still worthwhile

do I think people enter a relationship expecting their mate to meet their needs 100 percent of the time? ooooooooooh yes I do


in fact, if ya read profiles you will see that listed out in detail

wanted a good woman that will always be true, be loyal, affectionate, loving and one who is up for fun and adventure with no drama


it's like they took all the qualities and little irritations that their wife or live in girlfriend had towards the end of the relationship


and then made the list of opposites


though I suspect she probably had some of those good qualities
somewhere along the line

Yeah I get you on that.
But what you told about your friend ... What she's missing out on, should really be part of the 80% so to speak. To her it's so important that -if she is honest- she really needs it in her life.
When she was younger she probably underestimated this side of her, because she was too focused on other things (reliable man who wanted many babies like herself).
That's the 'foolishness' of youth and being in love. The stuff we learn as we grow older. How many of us haven't been in similar scenarios, only to find out 10-20 yrs later that what they miss (because they themselves underestimated the value of it to them) becomes so important that they cannot live with their partner anymore.

I have been there, and it was mostly part of me breaking up with my ex, because what I was missing out on, was too important to me.
It's called: Settling.
Settling for less, because at that moment in time you need something else more (a partner, a father for your kids, whatever), and you think you can do without that one thing the other cannot give you.
It's heading for disaster and/or unhappiness in life.

Vitally important to know yourself and your core needs, and to not discard those needs too easily because 1 of them needs is higher at the time.
It's like Maslow's Hierarchy ...
When you're starving, all you want is food. You are willing to sacrifice love and friends, housing, anything, just for food. But as soon as you are properly fed each day, you will start to crave love and friends anyway. And there's nothing you can do to stop that.

Unfortunately most of us won't find out until we've reached the age of 40ish. WHen it's basically too late, and your stuck with the situation.
I hope things work out for your friend. I feel sorry for her. She won't ever be truly happy in this situation. She can suppress what she really needs in life, come up with 100s of excuses (he's a great dad, he's blablabla), but she will still have that emptiness inside of her. All because she underestimated her own core needs and settled for less 17 yrs ago.

You're assuming we both know what we want when we first enter marriage...
Over time, our wants and desires change....sometimes for the better... sometimes for the worse.

So true. Ms. H!

Any time we are unhappy for more than a month , we assume that the problem lies with the partner we chose.



absolutely

I believe the culture has fostered an everything I want right now mentality

we want the information NOW, we want solutions and results NOW, etc

the minute its not there we feel some terrible personal slight, and if that is how we conduct relationships,, with fallible human beings,, it makes us hard to ever feel the content or fulfilled state that the media shows us we should have in a 'happy' relationship

Just to be clear, I really dont take the numerical aspect of this ratio principle literally.I really think it is more of a philosophical guage, rather than a numerical one. But I would agree that it implies the concept of measuring, and here is how I feel about measuring...

For every venture on the planet , there is an expected deliverable , which ultimately becomes the barometer we will be measured against.

Whether people want to admit it to themselves or not, we all have barometers for measuring our relationships . Our standards are barometers. Our wedding vows are barometers . Our feeling responses to our mate's actions are barometers. The goals we set with our partners are barometers. Even the term "love" or " care" is a baromometer of sorts because there are deliverables we expect to accompany those words . Without those deliverables, love is an abstract and meaningless word.

Which human being goes into a relationship loving someone but expecting no deliverables of love in return or no added value to their lives?

Your mate is only reduced to an amusement delivery service if one or both persons are riding on the efforts that one person is investing, without putting in sufficuent effort themselves for the other person to ride on.

I will also add that although I do think that relationships involve measurement/ assessment, that they should also be anchored in personal principles and self accountability .

For eg, even if I feel like my partner isnt measuring up in terms if meeting some of my fundamemtal needs , my personal principles of commitment would keep me from abandoning the relationship . And my inclination towards self accountability will inspire me to question where I personally am going wrong in the relationship and focus my efforts on improving myself and my contribution to the relationship.

In other words , measurement or assessment in a relationship is natural , and only becomes burdensome and damaging when they are not accompanied with self- accountability, self work and values like commitment or honor