The Discovery Machine

🔍 Discovery Machine — All Questionnaires

Knowledge · Questionnaires · Interactive Tools

On this section's premise: Humans have assessed each other since before language. Primatologists call it social intelligence. Poker players call it reading tells. Therapists call it attunement. The grandmother who said "I don't trust that man" was running an algorithm — she just didn't have the vocabulary for it. This section gives you the vocabulary.

Part I: Validated Relationship Instruments

1. Relationship Satisfaction Scale

Based on: Hendrick (1988) Relationship Assessment Scale. Public domain adaptation.

What it measures: Overall relationship satisfaction and perceived equity.

Rate each item 1–5 (1=Low/Never, 5=High/Always):

How well does your partner meet your needs?
In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?
How good is your relationship compared to most?
How often do you wish you hadn't gotten into this relationship? (reverse: 5→1)
To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?
How much do you love your partner?
How many problems are there in your relationship? (reverse)

Sum all items (after reversals). Scores range 7–35. - 28–35: High satisfaction - 21–27: Moderate — specific areas worth examining - 7–20: Low satisfaction — professional couples counseling may help

2. Attachment Style Questionnaire

Based on: Hazan & Shaver (1987); Bartholomew & Horowitz (1991). The "big 4" attachment styles.

History: Mary Ainsworth first identified secure, anxious, and avoidant attachment in infants. Hazan and Shaver extended this to adult romantic attachment. Kim Bartholomew later split avoidant into two types.

The Four Styles — Read and Identify

Secure Attachment: "I find it relatively easy to get close to others. I feel comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me."

Characteristics: Comfortable with intimacy and independence. Can communicate needs. Recovers well from conflict. Trusts without excessive monitoring.

Anxious-Preoccupied: "I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them."

Characteristics: Fear of abandonment. Hypervigilant to rejection signals. May cling or seek excessive reassurance. Tends to idealize then devalue partners. High emotional intensity.

Dismissive-Avoidant: "I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me."

Characteristics: Values autonomy to the point of emotional disconnection. Minimizes the importance of relationships. Dismisses vulnerability. May appear confident but struggles with intimacy.

Fearful-Avoidant (Disorganized): "I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others."

Characteristics: Simultaneous desire for and fear of closeness. Often rooted in trauma. May show unpredictable behavior — pursuing then withdrawing. Highest correlation with trauma history.

Self-Identification

Read all four descriptions. Which resonates most? Which resonates secondarily?

Most people have one primary and one secondary style. Attachment isn't fixed — secure relationships (including therapeutic ones) can shift your attachment orientation over time.

Professional help is warranted if: Fearful-avoidant patterns with high severity, or if attachment style is significantly disrupting relationships or causing distress. Attachment-based therapy is effective.

3. Gottman's Four Horsemen Checklist

Developed by: Dr. John and Dr. Julie Gottman. The Four Horsemen are predictors of relationship dissolution identified in 40 years of research. Freely described in published work.

For each pattern, assess your frequency: Never / Occasionally / Regularly / Almost Always

Horseman 1: Criticism Attacking a partner's character or personality rather than addressing a specific behavior. - Do you say "You always..." or "You never..."? - Do you use statements like "What's wrong with you?" - Do you generalize from specific incidents to global character flaws? - Distinction: Complaint = "I feel frustrated when dishes aren't done." Criticism = "You're so lazy and inconsiderate."

Horseman 2: Contempt Treating a partner as inferior. The most corrosive of the four and the strongest predictor of divorce. - Do you use eye-rolling, sneering, or mocking tones? - Do you use sarcasm that demeans rather than plays? - Do you feel superior to your partner in fundamental ways? - Do you call your partner names or use mockery during arguments?

Horseman 3: Defensiveness Self-protection that prevents taking any responsibility. - Do you respond to complaints with counter-complaints? - Do you make excuses rather than acknowledging valid points? - Do you say "Yes, but..." to almost everything? - Do you act victimized when your partner raises concerns?

Horseman 4: Stonewalling Withdrawing from interaction; emotional shutdown. - Do you go silent during arguments rather than engaging? - Do you leave the room or physically remove yourself when conflict arises? - Do you respond with monosyllabic grunts or non-responses? - Do you give prolonged silent treatment?

Antidotes (also from Gottman research): - Criticism → Gentle startup (use "I" statements, describe your feelings, make specific requests) - Contempt → Build culture of appreciation (actively look for what partner does right) - Defensiveness → Take responsibility (find the grain of truth in any complaint) - Stonewalling → Physiological self-soothing (call a 20-minute break, then return to discuss)

4. Love Languages Assessment (Simplified)

Based on: Dr. Gary Chapman's "The Five Love Languages" (1992). The framework is widely reproduced.

The Five Languages:

Words of Affirmation: Verbal expressions of love, appreciation, encouragement. Compliments mean everything. Insults cut deeply.

Quality Time: Undivided attention and shared activities. Being together (truly present) is the primary vehicle. Distractions feel like rejection.

Receiving Gifts: Tangible symbols of love. Not about monetary value — about thoughtfulness and "I saw this and thought of you."

Acts of Service: Doing helpful things. Dishes done, errands run, problems solved. "Actions speak louder than words" is this person's native tongue.

Physical Touch: Non-sexual touch (hugs, holding hands, sitting close) conveys love. Its absence feels like rejection; its presence feels like connection.

Identification Exercise

Rank these 5 languages 1–5 (1=Most important to you receiving love, 5=Least):

___ Words of Affirmation ___ Quality Time ___ Receiving Gifts ___ Acts of Service ___ Physical Touch

Second step: Ask how you most naturally express love to others. Often mirrors how you want to receive it — but not always.

Application: Mismatched love languages cause relationship friction that partners often interpret as indifference or cruelty when it's actually a translation problem. Knowing your language (and your partner's) lets you give what they actually need.

5. Caregiver Burden Scale (Zarit Short Form)

Based on: Zarit Burden Interview, Short Form (Bedard et al., 2001). Widely used and freely cited.

For current or recent caregivers of a family member with illness, disability, or aging needs.

How often do you feel: Score: 0=Never | 1=Rarely | 2=Sometimes | 3=Quite often | 4=Nearly always

Insufficient time for yourself because of time spent providing care?
Stressed trying to balance caregiving with other responsibilities?
Strained in your relationship with your care recipient?
Embarrassed by your care recipient's behavior?
Angry when around your care recipient?
That caregiving negatively affects your health?
That you have no privacy because of caregiving?
Socially isolated because of caregiving?
Financially strained by caregiving?
That you've lost control of your life since you began caregiving?
Uncertain about what to do for your care recipient?
You should be doing more for your care recipient?

Score	Burden Level
0–10	Little or no burden
11–20	Mild to moderate burden
21–30	Moderate to severe
31–48	Severe burden

Caregiver burnout is real and has serious health consequences. Scores of 21+ warrant respite care, support groups, and professional consultation.

6. Family APGAR

Developed by: Dr. Gabriel Smilkstein (1978). University of Washington. Widely reproduced in primary care.

APGAR = Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, Resolve

Rate each: 0=Hardly ever | 1=Some of the time | 2=Almost always

Adaptation: I am satisfied that I can turn to my family for help when something is troubling me.
Partnership: I am satisfied with the way my family talks over problems and shares concerns with me.
Growth: I am satisfied that my family accepts and supports my wishes to take on new activities or directions.
Affection: I am satisfied with the way my family expresses affection and responds to my feelings.
Resolve: I am satisfied with the way my family and I share time together.

Score	Family Function
7–10	Highly functional family
4–6	Moderate dysfunction
0–3	Severely dysfunctional

7. Co-dependency Checklist

Based on: Beattie (1986), Mellody (1989), public domain literature. Self-assessment only.

Check all that apply to your current relationship patterns:

External Focus: - [ ] My emotional state largely depends on the state of someone else - [ ] I prioritize others' needs so consistently that mine go unmet - [ ] I feel responsible for other people's feelings or problems - [ ] I work harder on other people's lives than they work on them

Difficulty with Boundaries: - [ ] I find it hard to say no, especially when asked repeatedly - [ ] I often say yes when I mean no - [ ] I take on other people's problems as if they were my own - [ ] I feel guilty when I prioritize myself

Control & Fear: - [ ] I try to fix or control the behavior of people I care about - [ ] Conflict fills me with disproportionate dread - [ ] I tolerate behavior from others that I know is not okay - [ ] I often walk on eggshells around specific people

Self-Worth Issues: - [ ] My self-worth depends heavily on others' approval - [ ] I have difficulty identifying my own feelings separately from others' - [ ] I've lost track of my own interests and identity in relationships

Count of checkmarks: - 0–3: Within normal range - 4–7: Co-dependent patterns present; awareness and boundary work helpful - 8+: Significant co-dependency likely; therapy (especially attachment-focused) strongly recommended

The unwritten assessments. The ones humans use every day but rarely name.

Reading 1: "Is This Person Flirting With Me?"

The framework: Signals exist on a spectrum of reliability. Organize by confidence level.

DEFINITE signals (multiple in combination)

Sustained eye contact beyond social norms (2–4+ seconds for cultures where brief eye contact is standard), followed by looking away and looking back
Mirroring your posture, gestures, or speech patterns — unconsciously copying you
Touch initiation: light touch on arm, shoulder, or back without functional purpose, then watching your reaction
Creating private moments in public — leaning in, lowering voice, sharing jokes not meant for the group
Finding reasons to extend time with you (delays leaving, invents reasons to return)

PROBABLE signals

Increased personal space violation — standing or sitting closer than the situation requires
Self-grooming in your presence (hair touching, clothing adjustment)
Open body orientation toward you even in group settings
Finding everything you say funnier than it is
Asking personal questions not required by context
Remembering details you mentioned in passing and bringing them up later
Teasing with plausible deniability

POSSIBLE signals (could be friendship, warmth, or personality)

Frequent smiling specifically at you
High energy/performance when you're present
Finding excuses to contact you digitally after an in-person encounter
Compliments that go slightly beyond polite

Cultural note: The intensity and expression of flirting varies significantly. In some cultures, sustained eye contact IS the signal; in others, eye contact is avoided as a flirting signal. Touch thresholds vary dramatically. Northern European norms and Latin American norms for proximity are nearly opposite. Read the cultural context before reading the signal.

The most reliable test: Reciprocate one small signal (a slightly longer look, leaning in slightly) and observe the response. Interest will be met with increased engagement; disinterest will be met with neutral or withdrawing behavior.

Reading 2: "Is This Person Lying?"

Critical preface: Research on deception detection is sobering. Baseline detection accuracy hovers around 54% — barely better than chance. Most "common wisdom" about lying detection is wrong. Here's what the evidence actually shows.

What DOESN'T work (the myths)

Eye direction (looking up-right vs. up-left): NLP theory, thoroughly debunked in multiple studies
Gaze aversion: Many honest people avoid eye contact; many liars maintain it deliberately
Fidgeting and body movement: Unreliable; stress from being suspected causes "guilty" signals in innocent people
Crossing arms: Body language is not a deception signal

What DOES have research support

Story consistency: Truthful accounts remain consistent across retellings. Fabricated accounts tend to shift in details, sequence, or timeline when the story is told again or approached from a different angle. Ask follow-up questions that require retelling from a different starting point.

Detail richness: Truthful accounts contain more irrelevant, peripheral details and sensory information ("the coffee had gone cold," "there was a pop song playing"). Fabricated accounts tend to be narratively cleaner and more focused on the "important" elements.

Cognitive load signals: When lying requires active mental effort, people may: pause more before answering, increase speech errors (ums, ahs), speak more slowly and carefully, reduce hand gestures (gestures happen naturally with speech; suppressing them requires effort).

Emotional timing: Genuine emotions appear slightly before or simultaneously with speech. Performed emotions (faking surprise, sadness) often appear a beat after the statement. This is subtle and requires baseline knowledge.

Baseline first: None of these signals mean anything without knowing the person's normal. Establish baseline nervous behavior before interpreting any deviation as deception.

Practical principle: "Behavioral Analysis Interview" techniques used by law enforcement (noting baseline then spotting deviations) work better than cold reading. The longer you observe someone across different contexts, the more meaningful any signal becomes.

Reading 3: "Is This Person Safe?" — Gift of Fear Framework

Based on: Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear (1997). Public safety framework. de Becker identifies specific behavioral patterns associated with predatory intent, distinguished from normal social interaction.

The 7 Signals of Predatory Behavior

1. Forced Teaming Using "we" language to create false alliance with a stranger. "We should figure out what to do about this." No, you just met. The predatory use creates artificial intimacy and a sense of obligation.

What's normal: Collaborative language with established acquaintances. Red flag: Instant "we" with a stranger, especially in isolated or vulnerable contexts.

2. Charm Offensive Charm used purposefully and consciously, especially when it seems situationally inappropriate. de Becker: "Niceness is a decision, not a character trait."

What's normal: Warmth and pleasantness. Red flag: Charm that feels "on" — performed rather than natural, especially when charm continues even when met with resistance.

3. Too Many Details Volunteering excessive detail to explain themselves without being asked. People who are being truthful don't feel compelled to over-explain. Fabrications require supporting structures.

Red flag: "I was at the store because my wife needed milk, and I took the longer route because of construction on Main Street, and the parking took longer than expected..." (when all you asked is "why are you here?")

4. Typecasting A mild insult designed to get you to prove them wrong. "You seem too sophisticated to live around here." "I guess you're the type who never takes risks."

The hook: Most people reflexively try to prove a negative characterization wrong. Defense: Notice when you're suddenly performing for a stranger's approval.

5. Loan Sharking Providing unsolicited help, then using the resulting sense of obligation. "Let me carry that for you." Before you've agreed, the help is happening.

Key insight: Genuine helpers don't create debt. When someone does you a favor and you feel you owe them something you didn't agree to give, the favor wasn't free.

6. Unsolicited Promises "I promise I won't hurt you." Why is this needed? In ordinary social interaction, people don't spontaneously promise not to harm you. The presence of this promise signals the threat is already in the air.

7. Discounting "No" Treating your "no" or resistance as the opening bid in a negotiation. Pressing after you've declined, reframing your no, or acting as though you didn't mean it.

de Becker's principle: "No" is a complete sentence. Anyone who treats it as a negotiating position has already communicated something important.

Critical note: These signals are about behavioral patterns, not about demographics. The "danger profile" is behavioral, not appearance-based.

Reading 4: "Is This Friendship Healthy?"

Reciprocity Assessment (The 5 Dimensions):

Rate the friendship on each dimension (1=Never true, 5=Always true):

Initiation balance: Both people initiate contact, not just me pursuing
Energy return: I feel energized (or at least neutral) after time with this person, not depleted
Interest mutuality: They show genuine interest in my life, not just talk about theirs
Support availability: They show up when I have real problems, not just in good times
Boundary respect: When I decline or pull back, they accept it without punishment

Score	Assessment
20–25	Healthy, reciprocal friendship
13–19	Mostly healthy — specific dimensions worth addressing
5–12	Imbalanced — worth examining whether to invest or divest

The energy audit: After spending time with specific people, notice your energy level. Does it rise, stay neutral, or fall? Chronic energy depletion is data.

Reading 5: "Am I Being Manipulated?"

DARVO Recognition

DARVO (Jennifer Freyd, 1997): Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

When someone is held accountable for harmful behavior, DARVO is the pattern of: 1. Denying the behavior or minimizing it 2. Attacking the person who raised the concern (their motives, credibility, or character) 3. Reversing the roles — claiming to be the real victim

Example: "I never said that [deny]. You're just oversensitive and trying to control me [attack]. You're the one hurting me by making these accusations [reverse]."

Spotting it breaks its power.

Gaslighting Checklist

Check all patterns you've experienced from a specific person:

[ ] Repeatedly denying events you clearly remember
[ ] Insisting your memory is faulty or that you imagined things
[ ] Using your emotional reaction as evidence you're irrational
[ ] Moving goalposts — the rules change when you follow them
[ ] Telling others you're unstable or not to be trusted
[ ] Minimizing your concerns then accusing you of not caring about them
[ ] Making you feel crazy for noticing patterns
[ ] Alternating between warmth and hostility to keep you off-balance

3+ checks: The pattern deserves serious attention. Gaslighting erodes self-trust. A therapist or trusted outside perspective can help you reality-test.

Common Emotional Manipulation Patterns

Love bombing: Intense early affection, attention, and investment designed to create dependency before boundaries are established.

Intermittent reinforcement: Alternating reward and punishment on an unpredictable schedule. Creates strongest psychological bonding (same principle as slot machines). In relationships: warmth and coldness cycling without apparent logic.

Guilt-tripping as control: Using your guilt as a lever. Distinct from legitimate accountability — guilt-tripping ignores your explanation and focuses on the manipulator's injury.

Triangulation: Introducing a third party to create jealousy, insecurity, or competition. "Everyone else agrees with me." "Even [person who likes you] said you were wrong."

Reading 6: "Is This Group or Organization a Cult?"

Based on: Steven Hassan's BITE Model (Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotional control). Widely reproduced in cult awareness literature.

BITE Model Checklist

Mark behaviors present in the organization:

Behavior Control: - [ ] Regulates where you live, who you live with - [ ] Requires permission to leave the group or location - [ ] Controls financial decisions and access - [ ] Controls diet, sleep, or dress - [ ] Controls romantic/sexual relationships - [ ] Heavy demand on time (meetings, activities, study) - [ ] Requires reporting on others' behavior

Information Control: - [ ] Discourages or prohibits questioning leadership - [ ] Labels outside information as dangerous or impure - [ ] Discourages contact with critical sources (media, ex-members) - [ ] Requires reporting "negative thoughts" to leadership - [ ] Outsiders are characterized as dangerous, evil, or pitiful

Thought Control: - [ ] Uses loaded language (insider vocabulary outsiders don't understand) - [ ] Black-and-white thinking enforced (us vs. them) - [ ] Claims special knowledge unavailable elsewhere - [ ] Members cannot imagine leaving as a valid option - [ ] Confession or disclosure required, then used for control

Emotional Control: - [ ] Instills fear of leaving (shunning, punishment, spiritual consequences) - [ ] Uses guilt and shame as primary motivators - [ ] Promotes "us vs. the world" mentality - [ ] Discourages or punishes negative feelings about the group - [ ] Love-bombing of new members; shunning of departing ones

Assessment: Any 3+ behaviors across 2+ categories = significant concern. Any behavior in multiple categories = serious evaluation warranted.

Note: Cults are not always religious. High-control groups form in multilevel marketing, political movements, self-help communities, intimate relationships, and workplaces.

Reading 7: Reading a Room

The social assessment that takes seconds when you're good at it:

Power Structure Assessment

When entering any group: 1. Who are people orienting toward? Bodies turn toward power naturally. 2. Who finishes others' sentences? Power often claims this right. 3. Who waits to see what the high-status person thinks before forming an opinion? These are the followers. 4. Who speaks freely regardless of topic? High status. 5. Whose jokes land even when they're not funny? Power in the room.

Tension Indicators

Conversations that stop when you approach
Members exchanging glances when certain topics arise
Unusual formality between people who "know each other well"
Over-explained laughter (too much signaling that something is fine)
Microexpression flashes of contempt, fear, or disgust quickly suppressed

Alliance Mapping

Who always agrees with whom?
Who sits adjacent to whom?
Who privately communicates across the table (eye contact, slight nods) during group conversation?
Who defers to whom on which topics? (Power is often domain-specific)

The most valuable moments for social reading are entrances and exits — people's guard is lowest when they're managing the logistics of a hello or goodbye. Watch for: - Who greets whom first (initiators often have higher or equal status) - Warmth vs. performance in greetings (who lights up genuinely vs. performs pleasantness) - Who gets sought out vs. seeks out when leaving

The core skill: Suspend your own narrative long enough to observe the room's narrative. What's the social story happening here? You can't read a room if you're busy writing your own story inside it.

These social reading frameworks draw on research from behavioral science, clinical psychology, and criminology. They are pattern recognition tools — useful but imperfect. Every signal has exceptions. The goal is pattern recognition over time, not snap judgments. Used thoughtfully, this is one of the most powerful skill sets a human can develop.

💞 Interactive: Attachment Style Identifier

Loading...