The Theory of Interacting Cricles

Almost two years ago, on a rainy weekend, me and my other two roommates, were having a random conversation. The topics of conversation went as random as it could get – from cricket, sports management, to business management, to HR policies and so on. But, the switch had been immensely swift that we didn’t have anything important to conclude with. Not until we came up with this question:

Human relations are established day-in and day out. But, is there a theoretical way that could represent these interactions?”

Then the conversation gained structure and over the next two hours as we skipped the dinner, we thought of some theory that we would want it to be called as “The Theory of Interacting Circles”

stock-photo-silhouette-of-a-powerful-man-spreading-arms-and-legs-in-a-circle-like-vinci-drawing-64338346

I want to remind you straight away that we were not referring to any books or research material. The thoughts were not structured but by the end of it, we agreed that this made sense.

So, here is how the theory goes:

Every individual, either man or woman, will have their own circle. Imagine a circle encompassing your body- well technically it would be a sphere in three-dimensions.

So, every human, in a socially fit frame of mind, would have this circle/sphere that would define his or her social acceptability.

The way this sphere is shaped depends on the historical knowledge that he/she would gain from their experiences. It could be more horizontal- the extroverts and more vertical- the introverts. Now, this is very fluid shape- as for the social acceptance of an individual would change with every single book he might read, every single interaction he might have, every single news he might hear or every single accident he might encounter. Whatever might be the reason, the fluidic nature of this circle would define the “Stability” of his nature.

Kindly note, the instability is not a negative term in this context.

So, every human will have this ever changing fluidic imaginary circle around them.

Now, how do his/her interactions go?

Interaction might not necessarily mean the conversation that they have. It could be any form of knowledge that a person could gain on the other. This information would add “imaginary grains” into individual’s circles.

Here is where the catch is – the volume of “grains” that an individual fill in is not a function of his partner’s circle. It is purely dependent on the individual’s existing circle.

So, the way I populate the “grains” related to you has very little to do with your circle.

This is the reason why the same person might have completely different “grain” structures.

As for the relationship comes, here is where the two circles of individuals interact. It could be visualized the Venn-diagram with two areas. The space of interaction would define the strength of the relation. But, the proportion it forms in other individual’s life is completely in control of his pre-existing “grains”.

So, in spite of the fact that you and your friend would be willing to die for one another, there is a lot of grain content that you are not aware. This uncontacted grain zone would technically lead to the mishaps happening between the people in a relationship.

More often than not, individuals being aware that they entered other’s circle, would want to expand the “zone of interaction” – which would force them to push for more and more gains into others circles. But, the grains which you are populating might or might not be in alignment with those that he/she already have for you. The higher the mismatch, the higher the resistance to accepting. And therefore, this forced unwanted grain that you populate might eat into the existing grain.

This would reduce the existing “zone of interaction” and therefore the break-ups or splits in relationships.

This concludes “The Theory of Interaction Circles”

A word of caution is that this theory was evolved as a part of the conversation. So, no reference to any research was done. If there is something out there, which talks about the exactly same thing, then it’s a mere coincidence or we did not find anything new.

Image Courtesy: ShutterStock

If you agree or disagree with this thought, kindly let me know in the “Comments” section below.  If you like the conversation, please feel free to click “Like” or “Share” within your circle.

Advertisements

3 Comments Add yours

  1. Natalie says:

    Interesting article! I like the idea — and I’d be curious to see how your ideas change if you referenced research. Do you have any plans to consult sociologists or research papers?

    Like

    1. dsharath says:

      Thank You. Currently don’t have any plans as such but would be interesting what readers think of it. A

      Like

  2. sarahbruso says:

    Interesting theory. I’m a student of international relations, but I find human relations fascinating all the same. Actually, countries act very much like people (as expressed on my blog), so int. relations and human relations complement each other excellently. For example, North Korea might have a verticle shaped “sphere” because it’s so closed off from the world and drawn into its own issues, whereas the United States, a much more globally involved country, would have a horizontal shaped sphere. But during the pre-WW1/2 period, America’s fluid sphere would actually be more verticle to reflect isolationism. Essentially, I think what you discovered is a great way to visualize relations of any and all kinds.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s