We are all aware that in truth we judge books by their cover; we judge people stereotypically. This is how our brain was designed – to categorize information in order to make it easier to interact with. How many of us have tried to turn our friend into our lover? It is a big jump to go from one relationship category to the other. We have relationship categories that we fit others into in order to understand the protocols of that relationship, thus making it easy to interact with behaviorally. We can pretty much get away with not calling our friend for a week and then simply greeting them with “hey what’s up”. But if that friend had made the transition to lover, a week without a phone call could provoke rather unpleasant consequences. That is because the relationship category has changed and the protocol violated, and consequences appropriate to what that protocol dictates will usually occur (ouch). Have you ever had a good friend that was also your boss? Can you remember when the protocols for those categories conflicted?

Some of these interactions are intuitive and/or instinctive, but most are learned. The actor needs to be aware of these things. Granted, the director may call for a different interpretation, but knowing what to expect in regards to what happens provides an insight to the character that the actor can use to produce the vision of the director. In a typical interaction, according to my model, all human action occurs as a result of the innate desire for gratification. Outcomes are a result of the interaction of what we want, what we expect, and what actually happens. We are often taught what to expect, and also what to want. There are times in our lives where our judgement of self gratification is a synchronicity of wants and expectations, and sometimes not. For example, you may call an x lover hoping for and wanting reconciliation, but expecting the opposite, and then what happens could be even more different. And other times they will all synchronize. We react to all circumstances emotionally, and later, through a different paradigm (that is also emotionally based), we seek validation for our logical interpretation of our feelings about the events. You may confide in a friend, “Is it my fault, or should I really be pissed?”. Then your friend validates – “You should be pissed, I would be. No one has a right to treat you that way (social protocol)”.

Social protocols and stereotypes are inextricably linked. When you become habitually connected to a person in one category, it is difficult in many instances to switch to another category with different protocols. And we connect in many relationships to a point where that person becomes the stereotypical standard for that category on which we base the conduct and value of others. Taking it further, that person will become the symbol representing the value system of that category, at which point often becoming a model, mentor, or even a metaphor for that category.

Everybody has what I refer to in my model as the “mindset paradigm”. It is the workings and actions one takes to attain gratification in relation to their value system. Everybody has a value system of some form, and constantly wrestles with the synergies and conflicts of attempting to gratify oneself according to the value system they have established for themselves. When you gratify yourself inline with your values, you feel proud. When you gratify yourself with something against your values, you feel guilty.

We develop desires for things we think are important for whatever reason, and this becomes a value in our system that we try to live up to. From that evolves the beginnings of how we identify and define ourselves in the social structure, thus determining our behavior, which shows the role we have imposed on ourselves to play in whatever relationship category we are participating in.