"Supportive", Supportive

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Let's do maths an psychology in combination.

Let's say there's a statement or set of statements which would count as "supportive". So as if you said them to your spouce, or a significant other, you would have supported him or her.

Now to practicalities. The "supportive" statements would be of the collection "I hear you", "I understand", "you are valuable", "I appreciate you" etc.

The statements which do not support the other person would be of the set "You didn't understand", "You might be dumb", "You need to focus more", "are you a dumbnut?".

Now extend those categories. With extension, there are statements where one likes the other person's favorite thing, or they do not like them. Surely there are infinite variations.

Now there's the question. Is someone "supportive" of the other person if they've stated supportive statements in an acceptable fashion with no deviation? What if their number of unsupportive statements count for 5 seconds per 2 months? What if those 5 seconds include statements like "you have an ugly butt"? What if they include a statement like "you might not have the best grasp on reality"? What if there is something like that "you don't speak that much"?

So what if someone says shit for 5 seconds a month? How ruined are they? Is this dependent on the gender? What if a man recites unsupportive parts of speechs 5 seconds a month? Is he then a jerk?

What if a woman speaks unsupportive things .. such which do not validate the other person .. for 5 seconds in a month? Does it mean she's not supporting the mutual well-being in the marriage?

Does your answer depend on who said what?

How much of perfectionism is reasonable? Does 5 seconds of "your butt is fat" ruin the month? Does "you didn't keep your promise" ruin the month?

 

[Lark]

Are you looking for the algorithm for supportive behaviour?

I'm not sure that its entirely possible to quantify it in that fashion, or if it is that it should be, human relationships are art and not science in that way.

This sort of Skinner Box statement numeration of words (or even if you extend it to deeds) runs the risk of a kind of behaviouristic mechanics or engineering focus.