I`m new here and fascinated by this site.

I ran a few reports with celebrities I kinda like, and found those two reports particularly interesting.

Relationships Analyst Report by Top Synergy

Relationships Analyst Report by Top Synergy

I guess those are not so bad.
Especially the one with Antonio Banderas made me look like this


Hmm, but running a few reports I almost always found high scores in the passion-area, even with people I am only moderately interested in. Must be because if I run a report with myself I get a passion-score of 180!


However, after looking at other reports, too, I found, that there`s not always such a high passion score, even if the relationships work fairly well.
I think I understand that a score of 100 or greater is very good (am I wrong here?), but what would be the minimum score for a working relationship (of course free will is always something to include, too).

I have often found in relationships of friends and of my parents a love relationship quotient of 55 - 65. It doesn`t look as great as a score of 100, but would a score of 60 still be considered to be positive for a relationship?


Oh one more thing, since the top synergy reports have the areas commitment, intimacy and passion I wondered, if they might be based on STernberg`s triangular theory of love?

Darkdreamer

Welcome aboard, darkdreamer, and thank you for a most interesting post.

As result of your question, I did a little research about Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love. You can imagine how surprised I was to find that Sternberg has determined three out our four qualities in a relationship as the building blocks for a wholesome love relationship. So, to answer your question - I must have been subconsciously influenced by his theory during the planning process of Top Synergy's model. WOW, and WOW again!!! It is comforting to see that our model is being backed up by reputable scientists and ample research. Thanks again for bringing up this issue.

Now, to your other question, the one about what's good and what's excellent: I suggest to put aside RQ scores and go back to the basics, I.E. how natural and strong is the presence of commitment, intimacy, and passion in a personal relationship.

The more wholesome a person feels about himself and the more fulfilled he is in his life, the more all-around quality he'll seek in his relationships. However, if we are in a primal state in our life where security, safety, and confidence are not trivial, we may be completely satisfied with a partner that is strongly committed to the relationship. With time, we might feel that a committed relationship doesn't satisfy us for this single accord, and we'll feel the absence of intimacy and/or passion. See my point? Another example may show a young and insecure fellow that derives his strength and confidence from infatuation with the opposite sex. Only later-on in his life he regrets his decisions and the shortage of other qualities in his relationship.

The bottom line is that our needs grow and change as we grow and change. Whatever had fulfilled us in the past may not be sufficient now that our basic needs have been met and the emotional and spiritual journeys have started, and the reverse might be true as well when we reach old age.

Did I answer your question at all?

__________________
Cheers,
Shlomo Tommer
Top Synergy Admin
Facebook me!

Hello,

thank you for your quick reply and the welcome.


"You can imagine how surprised I was to find that Sternberg has determined three out our four qualities in a relationship as the building blocks for a wholesome love relationship."
Yes, I can. I experienced this surprise some years ago, when I was trying to develop my own "astrological theory on love". I had labelled the blocks as "emotional" (which is basically the same as intimacy), "physical" or "passionate", "intellectual / mental" and "social / commitment". The names weren`t identical, but I could see the similiarities. I don`t even know why I stopped developing this theory further. But I can imagine your surprise.



"go back to the basics, I.E. how natural and strong is the presence of commitment, intimacy, and passion in a personal relationship."
You mean going back to look at what exactly contributes each person to the relationship? I mean, it`s definitely a difference, if only one person contributes to the intimacy score or if it`s balanced.

It`s probably also interesting to compare different relationships of the same person, as there are usually some patterns apparent.



"The bottom line is that our needs grow and change as we grow and change. Whatever had fulfilled us in the past may not be sufficient now that our basic needs have been met and the emotional and spiritual journeys have started, and the reverse might be true as well when we reach old age."
Yes, I definitely agree. We do change over the years, and our wishes and needs do so, too.
Also, people are different, and therefor they may seek different things in their relationships.
For example: my best friend has a very strong need to feel secure in a relationship, and so she looks for commitment rather than for sexual compatibility (it doesn`t hurt if it`s there, too, but it`s not her priority).
Furthermore, she doesn`t expect a relationship to be "fulfilling", she doesn`t look for a soulmate, the other half of her soul; since she is a very realistic and pragmatic individual, she looks for contentment, harmony and peace rather than for passion and excitement.
And it shows in her scores. The report with her husband wouldn`t be considered all that good I think with love:57, friendship: 50; sex:70; partners:50.
But they commit to each other in a balanced way, which is what she apparently really needs in a relationship. I was a bit stunned about her high passion-score towards him, though; this doesn`t seem to reflect the reality as she perceives it.
Actually the top synergy report with her husband is worse than the ones with her ex-boyfriends.


However, even though I agree, that different people need different things in a relationship, and that even the needs of one person change over time, I also think, that astrology should reflect that (at least to a certain degree). If it can`t do that, then it`s not a really useful tool to analyse relationships, imo.
Of course I know there are limits to this "analysis tool", but still, the basic needs should be reflected.
Probably we would have to first analyze the individual chart thoroughly to see what exactly a person needs (in the case of my friend DSC is in Capricorn and the ruler Saturn in the 3rd house - and that depicts clearly what she needs: Commitment and communication).
For the change of needs in a person, I think it would be useful to look at the progressed chart. Just an idea.


DD

I would love to have your wise suggestions posted here. It can help us a great deal during the design process of the new and improved report. We won't be able to provide all of your "wet dreams" but even a little will do a lot of good for the entire community.

__________________
Cheers,
Shlomo Tommer
Top Synergy Admin
Facebook me!