# Rhe 40% rule for accurately stating and understanding relationship longevity?

The 40% rule (named for the ratio of hours used in the formula that just so happen to sit at 40% for an entire week, 64/168=38%) is a simple formula that helps accurately depict a standard relationships' real maturity and duration values.

It is simply (8D)/M or the number of dedicated days times eight hours divided by the number of months So for instance if you spent two days a week with your lover and your relationship was 10 months then it would (8*2)/10 or 16/10 which is 1.6 real months of meaningful time.

The reason I use eight is because it accounts for couples that live together better. Couples that do not or have special circumstances can use other numbers but eight is also solid since when averaged considering multimedia platforms like phones and messengers the variations tend to end up with the average of around 60 hours a week ( and this runs on a 64 hr. avg ) so it's not terribly inaccurate.

The value of this is that it allows for smarter assessments of real value for relationships. For instance in the above example the people had been together for approximately 1.6m in real proximity even if they endured 10 months worth of events. In turn the trust value of that relationship could waiver far more easily than a relationship with double the days and a real 3.2m value from spending 4/7 days a week with one another.

It also answers for the baffled "It's been 20 months, why is this happening?"; the reality is that under the 40% rule it's far less and probably closer to 8 months real time. Elongated periods weaken relationships so 8 mos. stretched out over 20 is less effectual.

This is esp. important when people talk about trust and investment specifically because weighing real investment is also very important. Generally speaking people put far, far less time and energy into relationships than they think measuring by dry duration (20 months) instead of actual value (8 months) and thus it misleads everyone.

0|0
20

• I don't believe something as individualistic as a relationship between two people can be measured by a simple formula applicable to all situations

0|0
0|0
• Why not? I mean we actually came up with algorithms that do accurately predict the likelihood of relationship success based on traits and mentalities shared as well as background, health, status, and various other propositions!

I mean I do agree with you but am also on the fence. Some of the results of these tests are deathly accurate and do predict down to the wire what went wrong in the relationships.

Exciting!

• Show All
• Well signs are fun and most people seem to know that. This is so formulaic and has more of a "right or wrong" mentality to it. Ick!

• Well that was the goal of starsigns. To be a formulaic "This is who you are", but Crapiporns are not the epitome of compassion and Tauritards are not the bastions of strength. It was silly and mostly inaccurate and required it's vague tenets to work. This is simply astrology from a more defined look with a lot less mysticism. I guess the fact that it's no longer a "game" sort of sucks.