Shared intentions still leave room for separate choices
Read CTL-I 2018 items 24–31 about dedication, values, connection and compromise, with an exact example and clear limits on relationship conclusions.
Eight source items retain the selected 1–4 values. Their separate sum is 8–32 and mean is 1–4; neither verifies a shared agreement or partner match.
The source term and its concrete statements
The source calls this eight-item domain common ego ideal. Its statements concern dedication, working on the relationship, respect for a partner’s personality and essential values, watching gestures and reactions, commitment to a joint life, compromise, expressing love and feeling deeply connected. The name is a theoretical organising term, not proof that two people share identical ideals. Even statements phrased as “we” remain one person’s self-report here. The form does not ask the partner or verify a joint agreement.
An eight-item sum with transparent rounding
For choices 4, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4 and 3, all eight values remain unchanged because there are no reverse items in this domain. The sum is 25 and the mean is 25/8 = 3.125, displayed as 3.13. This is a formatting decision rather than a change threshold. Another response pattern can produce the same sum while differing about compromise or connection. The mean is not added to the other five means or converted to a relationship compatibility percentage.
Check a shared intention without assuming it
For an ordinary future plan, you might ask: “I would like us to leave time for this project. Is that something you also want, and what would each of us be agreeing to?” This distinguishes a wish from an agreement. A counterexample is treating your dedication mean as proof that your partner has made the same commitment. A partner may want a different plan or decline the discussion. The result does not authorise monitoring their reactions or requiring declarations of love.
Shared does not mean identical or compulsory
A larger mean describes more endorsement of these statements in the selected relationship; a smaller one describes less. Neither determines whose values are correct, how much effort is enough or whether a person ought to stay. Respect can coexist with disagreement, and compromise need not apply to safety, consent or a personal boundary. The source’s positive key does not turn every shared plan into a good plan. Distinct preferences do not by themselves show a failure to love or an unhealthy relationship.
Plans and opportunities can differ
Distance, finances, work, caregiving, culture and the stage of a relationship can affect opportunities for a joint life or explicit statements of love. The questionnaire does not calibrate these contexts or establish that everyone should use the same form of expression. This domain overlaps conceptually with commitment and closeness discussed in other frameworks. It is not a score conversion to the separate triangle reflection, the relationship-commitment form or work-arrangement preferences. Similar words do not make the underlying item sets interchangeable.
No guessed agreement or replacement answer
All forty-one valid responses are required before personal scoring. There is no source NA and the web does not average a partially completed domain. If a statement is irrelevant or you prefer not to answer, you can stop and read every complete public guide. You need not ask a partner to create an answer or choose a low value because you have no joint-life experience. An unfinished attempt says nothing about your commitment, courage or ability to make a relationship work.
Preserved items, new working presentation
English follows Table 1 of Kapusta et al. (2018), Measuring the Capacity to Love: Development of the CTL-Inventory, reused with attribution under CC BY 4.0. Chinese is a new FermatMind working translation, and the website’s readings and response presentation are adaptations. The German and Polish study does not establish validity of this English display, Chinese translation or online use. No local norms, cross-language equivalence, domain ranking or relationship-outcome prediction is claimed. The page supplies no overall love-capacity grade.
Separate your wish from a joint decision
If useful, privately write one current wish, one existing agreement and one question that remains open. You may leave the uncertainty unresolved. A conversation is optional and a joint decision requires each person’s voluntary participation. No result obliges compromise, disclosure, intimacy, reconciliation or continuation. Safety and refusal do not need a supporting score. You may finish here or read another domain as a separate topic, without treating a difference in means as a difference in personal worth.