Trusted, Automoderated users
398
edits
Nice guy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→The "5:1" and "11:1"/"20:1" Theory of Social Conflicts
m (→The "5:1" and "11:1"/"20:1" Theory of Social Conflicts: Added findings from Sanhedrin in the Talmud) |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
The '''Magic Ratio'''<ref>https://thepowermoves.com/how-to-stay-together/</ref>, invented by Gottman<ref>https://www.johngottman.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Marital-processes-predictive-of-later-dissolution-behavior-physiology-and-health.pdf</ref> & Levenson, this the idea that any good relationship should be 5:1, or the balance of 5 positive interaction per negative interaction when in conflicts. Relationships that are at the verge to break down tend to be in 0.8:1 range ("Negative Sentiment Override"). Most interpret this as Niceness being a virtue, but as others have noted<ref>https://thrivetherapyflorida.com/2018/08/22/how-to-be-an-emotional-millionaire/</ref><ref>http://couplestraininginstitute.com/gottman-couples-and-marital-therapy/</ref>, a ratio of 20:1 or higher is often an indicator of "'''Positive Sentiment Override'''", which is when one is having a [[Oneitis]] leading to a breakdown in social relations. Peterson<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQk8W8EnbLs</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fesSvXKxYd0</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QVQZSSi_m0</ref> also claimed that 11:1 or higher is enough for someone to be considered a [[Nice Guy]]. | The '''Magic Ratio'''<ref>https://thepowermoves.com/how-to-stay-together/</ref>, invented by Gottman<ref>https://www.johngottman.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Marital-processes-predictive-of-later-dissolution-behavior-physiology-and-health.pdf</ref> & Levenson, this the idea that any good relationship should be 5:1, or the balance of 5 positive interaction per negative interaction when in conflicts. Relationships that are at the verge to break down tend to be in 0.8:1 range ("Negative Sentiment Override"). Most interpret this as Niceness being a virtue, but as others have noted<ref>https://thrivetherapyflorida.com/2018/08/22/how-to-be-an-emotional-millionaire/</ref><ref>http://couplestraininginstitute.com/gottman-couples-and-marital-therapy/</ref>, a ratio of 20:1 or higher is often an indicator of "'''Positive Sentiment Override'''", which is when one is having a [[Oneitis]] leading to a breakdown in social relations. Peterson<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQk8W8EnbLs</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fesSvXKxYd0</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QVQZSSi_m0</ref> also claimed that 11:1 or higher is enough for someone to be considered a [[Nice Guy]]. | ||
This ratio is also applicable to children's relationships and friendships, as noted by Gottman. It has been demonstrated that positivity has some correlation to productivity team cohesion<ref>http://www.bvsde.paho.org/texcom/cd047472/MLosada.pdf</ref><ref>https://teamcoachinginternational.com/breaking-the-code-on-high-performing-teams/</ref> (5.6:1 for high-performer against the 1.9:1 average). Coincidently, this ratio also coincides with the YouTube "Downvote" ratio<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdGbOT8NXnE</ref> or simple, "'''The Ratio'''" on quality and catering vs controversy (<50% is messed up, 50~79% is mistaken, 80~89% is controversial, 90~96% is normal, 97+% is catering). An observation to be made here is that the "niceness" scales exponentially. These ratios are also tied to the [[Pareto principle]], and that the utility of ratings follows a distribution similar to the Log-Normal. An approximation towards an index of deviation from the norm is <code>LOG(100/(6.7*(100-appoval_ratings)))/LOG(1.9)</code>, and if the deviation exceeds 1 and approaching 2, it is more likely to end badly. Further, the maximum the deviation approximates 3 on the negative end (0% approval rating), which when mirrored towards the positive sentiment override, would approximate the ratio of 46:1 (or 97.8% approval), mirroring the Talmudic '''Sanhedrin'''<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Assembly</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin</ref> | This ratio is also applicable to children's relationships and friendships, as noted by Gottman. It has been demonstrated that positivity has some correlation to productivity team cohesion<ref>http://www.bvsde.paho.org/texcom/cd047472/MLosada.pdf</ref><ref>https://teamcoachinginternational.com/breaking-the-code-on-high-performing-teams/</ref> (5.6:1 for high-performer against the 1.9:1 average). Coincidently, this ratio also coincides with the YouTube "Downvote" ratio<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdGbOT8NXnE</ref> or simple, "'''The Ratio'''" on quality and catering vs controversy (<50% is messed up, 50~79% is mistaken, 80~89% is controversial, 90~96% is normal, 97+% is catering). An observation to be made here is that the "niceness" scales exponentially. These ratios are also tied to the [[Pareto principle]], and that the utility of ratings follows a distribution similar to the Log-Normal. An approximation towards an index of deviation from the norm is <code>LOG(100/(6.7*(100-appoval_ratings)))/LOG(1.9)</code>, and if the deviation exceeds 1 and approaching 2, it is more likely to end badly. Further, the maximum the deviation approximates 3 on the negative end (0% approval rating), which when mirrored towards the positive sentiment override, would approximate the ratio of 46:1 (or 97.8% approval), mirroring the Talmudic '''Sanhedrin'''<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Assembly</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin</ref> rule of forbidding unanimous verdicts within a size 23, 71, 30, or 80 person "jury" (averaging 44.5), and that the lower "jury" of 23 or 30 appoximates Gottman's "Positive Sentiment Override" rule of 20:1. | ||
=== Critique of Gottman's "Solutions" === | === Critique of Gottman's "Solutions" === | ||
The major critiques against Gottman is that even though the satisfaction correlation can be replicated<ref><nowiki>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828692</nowiki></ref><ref>https://doi.org/10.2307%2F353725</ref><ref><nowiki>https://silo.tips/download/the-empirical-basis-for-gottman-couples-therapy</nowiki></ref><ref>https:/doi.org/10.1177/0265407501184005</ref>, replications of his "programs" did not yield significant change in distressed low-SES families in independent studies<ref>https://www.wikiwand.com/en/John_Gottman#/Independent_studies_testing_Gottman_marriage_courses</ref>. The same can be applied to the productivity studies, where there is a lack of distinction between [[platitudes]] and genuine compliments. This disproves the basic [[Bluepill]] of "just talk out your feelings". | The major critiques against Gottman is that even though the satisfaction correlation can be replicated<ref><nowiki>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828692</nowiki></ref><ref>https://doi.org/10.2307%2F353725</ref><ref><nowiki>https://silo.tips/download/the-empirical-basis-for-gottman-couples-therapy</nowiki></ref><ref>https:/doi.org/10.1177/0265407501184005</ref>, replications of his "programs" did not yield significant change in distressed low-SES families in independent studies<ref>https://www.wikiwand.com/en/John_Gottman#/Independent_studies_testing_Gottman_marriage_courses</ref>. The same can be applied to the productivity studies, where there is a lack of distinction between [[platitudes]] and genuine compliments. This disproves the basic [[Bluepill]] of "just talk out your feelings". | ||