| Title: | What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'? |
| Notice: | Archived V1 - Current conference is QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS |
| Moderator: | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI |
| Created: | Fri May 09 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Wed Jun 26 1996 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1327 |
| Total number of notes: | 28298 |
Hello HR's I feel that there would fewer divorce if the premise of marriage is based on Compromise rather than High Expectation. The reasoning for the above premise is based on very fundamental fact that since I am Not Perfect, I cannot Expect other Person to be Perfect. This is universal truth as Nobody is Perfect. Hence, as in any demand and supply curve for expectation one can find a point where both of this curves meet(Of course, I am assuming the case where both of them meet). Keeping in the factor of safety set up the expectations. Also, update this dynamic curves as the time goes on. Now the important question comes who compromises and how much? Both persons should compromise for the common good as they are no longer 1/2 and 1/2 but whole 1. One suggestion could be that to evaluate the value of compromise with reference to net gain or loss due to compromise. This could become very complicated but could be tackled by human brain (We only use 18 to 19% of the capability). Another aspect is to consider the longevity of the relationship and all the benefits associated with it for all the party involved(includes children also). Maybe one can say I am living in the old times and not set for the space age of today. But the truth is always very simple. I think I am just trying to scratch the surface of the issues involved, but any comments or criticism are welcome. Regards, Jagdish (alias JS).
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 217.1 | Compromise is a nasty word | BIZET::COCHRANE | Send lawyers, guns and money. | Fri Feb 20 1987 12:14 | 33 |
Are you married?!!
As a married woman who went through a year and a half of
marriage, six months of separation, reconciliation, and
counseling with my spouse, I have come to the conclusion
that "compromise" is a word who definition is substantially
different from person to person. When you ("you" is collective
here) ask someone to compromise, you most times already have
an idea of what an ideal compromise would be. So does your
spouse. That's problem 1. You can sit and argue about whose
compromise is more valid for hours. We did until we got tired
of it and hired a marriage counselor. In my opinion, for a
marriage to work each person needs to realize that the amount
you give has to vary. It's not always 50-50 because, due to
outside influences on either party, one isn't always capable
of giving even 50 percent. So sometimes it's 70-30 or 80-20
or even occasionally 100-0. You get what you give. When you're
in trouble, your partner will give more. *That's* what makes
a good marriage - flexibility. It's hard to develop in a marriage.
Sometimes we tend to tolerate characteristics in our close friends
that we won't tolerate in our spouses. We forget that a spouse
is a friend. We forget to bring out best behavior home with us,
instead of leaving it at the office. A spouse can easily become
a sounding board for our frustrations, headaches and heartaches
and not someone we share the joy with as well. Compromise is
a subjective thing, not an objective one. I don't believe that
a party can suggest an unbiased compromise. Anyway, if each
party treats the other with love and respect it isn't compromise
in the first place, it becomes deference, generosity, patience
and fortitude among other things, which are certainly higher
goals to strive for.
Mary-Michael
| |||||
| 217.2 | Worth some thought. | SQM::AITEL | Helllllllp Mr. Wizard! | Fri Feb 20 1987 12:19 | 3 |
re .1 - thanks for your note.
--L
| |||||