[Vision2020] Ques. For you: What is Most Important in a Relationship?

[Kenneth Marcy]

On 7/19/2012 6:32 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Very good insights Ken and Wayne. Thank you!
> As I was saying to Scott, I don't know about the "same as you in a 
> partner" theory. I know scientists state this, but I just like variety 
> I guess. If someone is like me, they are boring to me. I enjoy 
> a mystery wrapped in an enigma. There are differences I think that can 
> even compliment, I think, and improve or help the both of you.

The complementarity in couples idea appears in some personality 
theories. Carl G. Jung's Personality Types, and the Myers-Briggs Type 
Indicator, a personality inventory instrument described by its author 
Isabel Briggs Myers in her book Gifts Differing, and second-generation 
follow-on books such as Type Talk, Type Talk at Work, and Type Talk in 
Love, by Kroeger and Thueson, can give you overviews and working 
knowledge of the system. These are just the top of the pile; many more 
MBTI resources are available, with the search for, and the discovery of, 
the better ones being part of the research process that is to be enjoyed.

> "The different strokes for different strokes" I think is very true. 
> What one person likes another might be repulsed by. The reason I asked 
> about looks versus personality is that I also perceived it as an 
> either or situation. You either get someone that looks exactly like 
> you want a partner to and are highly attracted to them, or they have 
> the personality and behavior you enjoy in a partner. Someone you love 
> talking to, or someone you love looking at. For me, I don't think it 
> is possible to have both. I love the interesting older, mature mind 
> that only comes with an older man, but I like the body that comes with 
> a younger man. I figure, it is best to shoot for the middle somewhere. 
> Someone that you greatly enjoy talking to, but is still attractive 
> enough to keep it physical too. Am I odd in thinking that way?

Odd may not be the optimal diction, but to the extent that you appear to 
believe the "dumb blonde" development theory, i.e., one may be beautiful 
and dumb or ugly and brilliant, but not beautiful and brilliant, with 
ugly and dumb being ignored all around, you may uncharitably caricature 
yourself as juvenile, trite, and tiresome.

Certainly there are bodacious brains aplenty in the world, as reviewing 
most university graduation ceremonies will reveal; suggesting they don't 
exist fails to compliment your observations and their accomplishments. 
That you prefer individuals with more specific and particular 
characteristics only adds search requirements to your to do list, but 
that should not cause you to assume brilliant beauty does not exist 
because such does not appear in your search results.

If you find your range of conversational choices limited, perhaps you 
need to make efforts to expand your lingual range. Do you only speak one 
language? How about adding another one or two or three? The latinate 
romance languages that spread their vulgar varieties beyond the Rome 
that spawned them may hold keys to the conversational cultures that you 
seek. If you have not yet started learning Spanish, then French, then 
Italian, perhaps now is the time to create some more motivation to add 
multilingual to your personal description.


Ken
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120719/ca18bc29/attachment.html>