Fara gwajin

Dacewar nau’o’in hali, da gaskiya

Ku zaɓi kowane nau’i biyu daga cikin 16 don ganin abin da suke tarayya a kai, inda suke saɓawa da abin da yake taimakawa a soyayya, abota da aiki.

Dalilin da ya sa wannan tebur ba shi da maki. Yawancin teburorin dacewa suna yi wa haɗe-haɗe launin kore ko ja, ko suna magana kan “abokan rai” da “haɗi mai guba”. Bincike bai goyi bayan haka ba: kamanceceniyar mutane biyu ba ta ƙara kusan komai ba bayan sifofin kowannensu.[1] Natsuwar zuciya, sauƙin kai da ƙwazo na kowane mutum sun fi muhimmanci nesa ba kusa ba.[2] Shafin kowane haɗi yana bayyana abin da hakan yake nufi ga waɗannan nau’o’i biyu.

Dukkan haɗe-haɗe 136

Ku nemo nau’inku a layin hagu, sannan ku zaɓi ɗayan nau’in. Haɗe-haɗen nau’i ɗaya suna kan layin tsaka-tsaki.

Me ya sa ba ma ba da dacewa da kashi?

Duk wanda ya nemi dacewar nau’o’in hali zai ci karo da shafuka da yawa masu kashi ko jerin “mafi kyawun haɗi”. Amma waɗannan lambobi ba su da tushen kimiyya: babu wani bincike da ya kwatanta gamsuwar masoya bisa haɗin nau’o’insu kuma ya sami bambance-bambancen da za a iya amfani da su wajen jera haɗe-haɗe bisa matsayi.

Manyan bincike sun nuna wani abu mai ban mamaki: kamanceceniya ba ta da wata ƙima sosai. A bayanan ƙasa daga Australia, Birtaniya da Jamus, kamanceceniyar halin masoya ba ta bayyana kusan komai game da gamsuwarsu a dangantaka ba.[1]

Ingancin dangantaka ya fi dogara da sifofin kowane mutum fiye da haɗin: musamman kasancewa cikin natsuwa (natsuwar zuciya), kula da ɗan’uwa (sauƙin kai) da cika alkawari (ƙwazo). Kuma waɗannan sifofi suna sauyawa da shekaru da ƙoƙari. Don haka maimakon maki, za ku karanta inda nau’o’i biyu yawanci suke jituwa, inda suke yawan saɓawa da abin da za a iya yi game da hakan.[2][4]

Nau’o’i 16

Ku kwatanta makinku na gaske

Nau’i matsakaici ne. Ku yi gwajin kyauta, sannan ku kwatanta ainihin sakamakonku na sifofi shida da na wani.

Majiyoyi

  1. Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690–702.
  2. Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124–127.
  3. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17–40.
  4. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25.