Assess Fit: CG4

By mobilizing views-G1 plausibly you energize 7 clarifiers of interest…

…which establish the foundation of future compatibility within a created relationship.

In proffering assertions-G2 coherently, you energize 6 types of disclosure…

…which apply views in social settings so as to provide a basis for relating.

In revealing intentions-G3 respectfully, you energize 5 methods of engagement…

…which establish a working relationship with the potential for compatibility.

…now read on:

Make it Real

Before making any commitment, it is necessary to work out if there is a fit in the relationship. Such assessments involve imaginative part-formulated judgements that typically emerge spontaneously. Over time they lead to a recognition of how the relationship is working for you, which may not necessarily be welcome. Dialogue with a trusted friend or therapist may lead to insights into your experiences of both effective meshing and jarring interactions.

The essential criteria for a relationship of any variety is whether it is meaningful, whether there is an affinity, whether it is safe, and whether it will continue. These generate progressively demanding tests whose failure can rule out compatibility.

Tetrad Function: To judge whether there is sufficient compatibility to make furthering the relationship worthwhile.

Assessing fit is not a singular event but a continuing requirement. All four tetrads contain a CL4-narrative component. As time passes and events cumulate, narrative-based views are liable to change and that potentially alters assessment.

Mechanism: Assessment of fit calls for confrontation of the present reality. You must be willing to see things as they are. This does not mean confronting the other party, but discussions with family or friends about whether the relationship fits you, can only be constructive if you are open and candid.

Personal Strength: Confrontation requires dispassion. Neither your wishes nor pressures from others have any relevance to whether or not a fit exists. You need to summon the willingness to look impartially and disinterestedly at both facts and feelings in order to come to a judgement about the quality of your fit.

Qualifier

Given that assessing fit is a requirement for clarifying compatibility, it is necessary to determine a qualifier: see an explanation here. This g4-qualifier will need to characterise the fourth level in every group in this and all subsequent groupings.

Qualifiers get their character from the correspondingly numbered monad, which for g4 is a CG14 narrative-based view. Narratives always present themselves as reality-based, even if those behind them are fully aware they are not. So the qualifier is provisionally proposed as «realistic». Anything realistic is reached on sufficient grounds for treating the conclusion as sound and believable.

ClosedMore on Being Realistic

Psychosocial Pressures

The expected 1° pressure is certainty. This fits here given that this is the crucial mediating grouping: if the assessment is positive then you commence entry to the relationship, if negative, then you withdraw. A drive for certainty accords with the importance of assessing correctly.

The expected 2° pressure is acceptability. This also fits because there is no absolute diagnosis of a relationship, no proper common ground, no universal definition of tolerability in regard to inequality, no guarantee of prospects. Whatever your assessment throws up has to be acceptable or the fit is simply not there.

Degrees of Testing

Revealing intentions-CG3 leads to a depth of engagement which permits assessing the fit-CG4 within the relationship. This is enabled by combining four adjacent levels of CG1-views to form tetrads which reveal 4 degrees of testing.

The degrees of testing are named as follows:

CG41: Situational Diagnosis

CG42: Common Ground

CG43: Tolerable Inequality

CG44: Likely Prospect

Note that all the tetrads possess a narrative-base: initially realistic within a diagnosis, then respectful to form a common ground, then coherent in regard to inequality, and finally plausible when predicting the future.

In each tetradic test:

  • the g4-level is realistic, which has to be critical when assessing fit;
  • the g3-level is respectful to ensure assessment is deep while avoiding offence;
  • the g2-level is coherent to ensure the account of fit makes sense;

  • the g1-level is plausible to provide assessments with a credible foundation.

How It Goes Wrong

Everyone assesses fit within their relationships, especially in the early stages. When it comes to fit, it is what it is—so fit must be determined in a balanced and dispassionate way, letting the chips fall as they may.

When there are difficulties, and in relationships there are always difficult issues, confronting reality is not easy.

If assessments of fit are dominated by your hope or neediness, you will want the relationship to work. So your diagnosis may be too favourable, the common ground may be exaggerated, inequality will be ignored rather than addressed, and the likely prospect will be a fantasied wish-fulfilment because anything else seems unbearable.

If assessments of fit are dominated by fear, self-sufficiency or cynicism, then the diagnosis will be too harsh and a genuine bond will be distrusted, the common ground will be dismissed or devalued, inequalities will be over-emphasized, and the likely prospect will be one of doom or futility.

Originally posted: 6-Oct-2026.