Separate intention from the impact to check
Separate intention, concrete actions and reported impact. Read six self-report statements, count-aware arithmetic and one optional fact check.
At least four of six numeric responses are required. Sum the values and divide by their count; skips are excluded, and a 3 is uncertain or depends. Read this part separately, without a risk grade.
What this part observes
- This part gathers your reports of how you responded when someone described an impact of your behavior. It concerns checking facts, discussing intention and naming your own actions rather than judging your moral worth.
- It does not settle who was right in a conflict. Your report is one limited perspective; another person’s account cannot be inferred from your selected numbers.
The six statements and their limits
- The six statements cover denying an impact, using harmless intentions to deny consequences, first blaming the other reaction, adding "but you also" to an apology, demanding proof of feelings and describing only your own difficulties.
- The statements do not replace fact-finding about a specific event. Checking what happened and acknowledging an impact are distinguishable from accepting every explanation or abandoning a legitimate disagreement.
Read the arithmetic with the response count
- Four or more numeric answers make the descriptive mean available. For 2, 2, 3, 4, 4 and a skip, the sum is 15 and the mean is 3.0000 across five answers.
- The value does not count apologies, establish honesty or grade accountability. Three means uncertainty or dependence on context. A skip is excluded, and four-decimal rounding is arithmetic rather than measurement precision.
An ordinary situation to examine
- Imagine a colleague says a last-minute change caused extra work. You might explain that you were trying to help; separately, check which change you made and what extra work actually followed.
- Intention and consequence answer different questions. Listening to a reported impact does not require guessing every feeling, and explaining an intention does not erase an already established consequence.
A response does not settle another person’s experience
- Someone does not have to prove that a feeling is sufficient before it can be heard. Where facts are disputed, stay with specific actions and evidence instead of using a questionnaire to decide whose experience counts.
- An initially defensive response neither establishes nor rules out actual responsibility. This score cannot absolve conduct, diagnose manipulation or assign blame to the other person.
Similar numbers can describe different situations
- A common mean can hide different answers: one person may emphasize intention while another repeatedly asks for proof of feelings. Revisit the statements rather than naming one fixed responsibility style.
- Do not compare this sum with another group’s sum or infer progress from a later lower mean. Changes in recollection, context or willingness to answer can also change a result.
One optional, observable next step
- If useful and safe, privately write one concrete action you took and one consequence that can be checked. Leave uncertain details uncertain; you do not need to put them into this website.
- A possible next step is to acknowledge that specific action without immediately adding a counter-accusation. This does not require unsafe contact, accepting unsupported claims or asking anyone to forgive you.
Limits, privacy and safety
- The original preview has no validated norms, clinical interpretation or prediction model. It is not evidence for disciplinary, legal, hiring or relationship decisions and does not rate another person’s account.
- Responses remain only in page memory and are cleared on reload, language change or departure. If actual harm or urgent safety concerns exist, seek appropriate real-world support without waiting for a result or a discussion of it.