Is there such a thing as a 'Friendship Scale' ?? If not, could we make one up?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

You know, the way things can be measured, like the Beaufort Scale or the Richter Scale or something? Is there any scientifically thought-out linear scale of friendships, from casual work acquaintance through to best bosom-buddy-you-couldn't-live-without?

If not, could we make one up between us?

(Someone told me recently that they weren't sure where on the friendship scale they were, and I hadn't until then ever thought of placing friends in any sort of order of importance but maybe it'd be good to do. Maybe.)

― C J (C J), Friday, 23 September 2005 09:40 (twenty years ago)

This is how the nazis got started.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Friday, 23 September 2005 09:42 (twenty years ago)

I know. I don't plan on eliminating any of my mates though.

― C J (C J), Friday, 23 September 2005 09:48 (twenty years ago)

Patrick Swayze to thread

― Ste (Fuzzy), Friday, 23 September 2005 09:50 (twenty years ago)

You're my best mate, logarithmically.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Friday, 23 September 2005 09:51 (twenty years ago)

Well, I did this for crushes, so why not friends?

Category:
1 - Say hi to but don't really know
2 - See socially, will go down the pub with
3 - Quite Close, have email or phone number of
4 - Bosom buddy, will share (mutual) intimacies and secrets
5 - Long term bosom buddy/Best Friend, as number 4 but has weathered enough arguments to become permanent

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:03 (twenty years ago)

Hmmm.

1. Half of ILx.
2. Other half of ILx.
3-5. Not telling.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:06 (twenty years ago)

n.b. I don't actually attach numerical categories to my friends, but I am aware of how much I can trust them, which is related to those broad categories.

(I have tended in the past to be too trusting and/or loyal of everybody I've known and have been horribly burned. So I try to consult some kind of "how well do I know this person?" criteria before I give into my natural instincts to be overly trusting.)

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:08 (twenty years ago)

Your category 2 is my category 5, Kate.

― Don King of the Mountain (noodle vague), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:08 (twenty years ago)

Same as Kate pretty much.

― Archel (Archel), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:08 (twenty years ago)

I like your categorisations, Kate.

― C J (C J), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:09 (twenty years ago)

It's not really "order of importance" per se (though that said, I will "drop" or stand up a Category 1 or 2 person if a Category 4 or 5 person has a major crisis) but more a degree of trust, loyalty and things I'll put up with.

Once you've got into my Category 5, you pretty much have to murder my dog before I will permanently fall out with you. (Though that said, someone in Category 5 has enough trust established that we both know we'd never do such a thing to one another.) While someone who is only in Category 2 or 3, I will tend to be much more judgemental about the actions of. If that makes any kind of sense.

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:13 (twenty years ago)

anyone under 250lb is fair game

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:15 (twenty years ago)

My list:

1. People I actively try to avoid if I see them coming down the street
2. People I say hello to in the street
3. People on visiting terms who are A Bit Boring Really
4. Total strangers who happen to be in The Piper when I'm pissed
5. My drinking buddies

― Don King of the Mountain (noodle vague), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:16 (twenty years ago)

all my friends are pretty much equal. there is a seperate group called acquaintances though. those are different and are not really friends.

i don't have many friends

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:17 (twenty years ago)

So category 4 and 5 in Kate's list = tolerant of / forgiving of / understanding about the person's idiosyncracies or character flaws. Able to have (and resolve) arguments without damaging the friendship too much.

This might not apply to categories 1-3. Does that seem about right?

― C J (C J), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:17 (twenty years ago)

See, your category 1 is not in a friendship list - I have a whole different "enemies" categorisation system. (People I will say hi to if they say hi to me first, people I avoid or just ignore, people I wouldn't cross the street to spit on, people I would cross the road to punch in the face if they ever strayed into my path, etc. etc. etc.)

x-post, will come back to.

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:18 (twenty years ago)

i think kate's 1 2 or even most of 3 goes into my pile of acquaintances. and thusly aren't really important enough for me to set a scale for them!

the rest are friends and i don't need to rate them.

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:19 (twenty years ago)

i don't have enemies

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:20 (twenty years ago)

and if i do they DEFINITELY don't need to be rated.

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:20 (twenty years ago)

My frenz don't add up to one hand

― Don King of the Mountain (noodle vague), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:21 (twenty years ago)

well yeah you don't have sex with your freiends

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:22 (twenty years ago)

See, that's where I've been going wrong.

― Don King of the Mountain (noodle vague), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:23 (twenty years ago)

It's more about the latter half - being able to have a conflict and resolve it.

Character flaws, if they're compatible/surmountable, the acceptance starts at stage 2 or 3. If they're not compatible or surmountable the person won't progress past that stage - and if the person does *active* things to compromise trust (the usual things - backstabbing, taletelling, boyfriendstealing, other breaches of trust) they'll fall out of the tree before they get to stage 4 or 5.

The difference between 4 and 5 is more one of length of friendship, and also how long you can go without seeing each other and still be able to pick up the thread again. (I probably only have about 2 or 3 people in this category - or maybe they need a category 6 of their own?)

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:24 (twenty years ago)

Yes, yes. I think a category 6 friend is the sort you can go for ages, years even, and not see because they've moved away or whatever, but when you do meet up again it's like you were never apart.

― C J (C J), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:30 (twenty years ago)

I try to consult some kind of "how well do I know this person?" criteria before I give into my natural instincts to be overly trusting.

i wish i knew how to do this

― foxy boxer (stevie), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:32 (twenty years ago)

Where do we put "childhood/longterm friends you don't see very often but still send Christmas cards to"? Category 1(a)?

― C J (C J), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:33 (twenty years ago)

i spend way more time with 'friends' i don't give a shit about than friends who i do.

― N_RQ, Friday, 23 September 2005 10:35 (twenty years ago)

By choice?

― C J (C J), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:37 (twenty years ago)

1) people i meet at gigs
2) people i actually arrange to meet at gigs
3) people i love but who won't go to gigs with me
4) my housemates, my close friends
5) my sisters from another mother, sophie and kara; gullick; the cat

― foxy boxer (stevie), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:42 (twenty years ago)

By choice?
-- C J (CJ_The_Unrul...), September 23rd, 2005.

not really, no: note to g/f: get one non-lame friends.

― N_RQ, Friday, 23 September 2005 10:44 (twenty years ago)

charming.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:49 (twenty years ago)

Ha ha the trick to getting rid of lame aquaintances/childhood friends you're not sure why you're still friends with is to just move around a lot! It's amazing how distance will prune away the 1 to 3's. And get rid of most of the 4's except the ones that turn into 5.

Actually, thinking about that, it's really sad. It's amazing how I lived in New York for 15 years, but there's perhaps only 3 or 4 people/couples I look up when I go back. :-(

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:02 (twenty years ago)

"Ha ha the trick to getting rid of lame aquaintances/childhood friends you're not sure why you're still friends with is to just move around a lot!"

well yeah (not that cambridge is all that far from london, but hey). reason i liked 'garden state' was it kinda nailed this.

― N_RQ, Friday, 23 September 2005 11:05 (twenty years ago)

Yes, yes. I think a category 6 friend is the sort you can go for ages, years even, and not see because they've moved away or whatever, but when you do meet up again it's like you were never apart.

this would be family, on my scale. i don't think i could still be friends with non-family members years after not having anything to do with each other.

― Ste (Fuzzy), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:11 (twenty years ago)

I've got a couple of friends like that - people from a particular time-and-place (college, for instance that I can go maybe a whole 12 months and not see, but when we do get back together again we just pick up seamlessly from where we left off.

― C J (C J), Monday, 26 September 2005 10:38 (twenty years ago)

It's pretty cool, actually.

― C J (C J), Monday, 26 September 2005 10:40 (twenty years ago)

Have a baby, that seems to put an end to friendships!! Haha!

― Panther Pink (Pinkpanther), Monday, 26 September 2005 10:49 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.