Emotional Sharing Preferences: Timing, Words and Support

What This Part Actually Covers

The six statements concern sharing subtle feelings when you both have capacity, sorting through concerns before speaking, wanting emotional understanding, discussing vulnerability, checking feelings in words and naming support needs. They mix wishes, conditions and ways of communicating; they do not establish one single ability.
Wanting to be understood and wanting to speak now can differ. Something may matter deeply while you prefer to write first, sleep on it or simply say you need quiet. Read these choices in their actual setting rather than treating immediate disclosure as the standard.

Add six numeric responses from 1 to 5 for a raw sum of 6–30, then divide by six and display up to four decimal places. Responses 4, 3, 5, 2, 4, 3 total 21 and average 3.5; a total of 29 averages 4.8333. This summarizes agreement, not frequency or population standing.
The web edition permits an unscored response. One such answer withholds this group’s numbers rather than becoming a 3 or a low score. Other complete groups remain available, and all four guides stay readable. The original Mini requires all 24 numeric responses before personal interpretation; the two completeness policies are stated separately.

You want to describe something disappointing from the day, and your partner has just finished a demanding task. You could ask, “I would like to talk about how I felt. Do you have room to listen now?” If they need rest, you can discuss another time or choose not to talk today.
If you mainly want listening, you can say that advice is not what you need yet. If you are still sorting things out, “Something upset me, but I do not want to explain it yet” can be enough information. Understanding is checked through the actual exchange, not inferred from your mean.

Responses 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1 and six responses of 3 both total 18 and average 3. The first varies sharply across statements; the second uses “uncertain or depends” throughout. A mean alone cannot reveal a particular answer, experience or uniform sharing style.
Less verbal sharing may reflect another way of expressing yourself, limited capacity or concerns about the setting. You can consider only the conditions you want to examine. There is no need to disclose vulnerable experiences for a score or infer coldness or distrust from fewer words.

Emotional sharing concerns words and the conditions for using them. Physical closeness and boundaries concerns distance and present confirmation. Time together and personal space concerns how both can coexist. Visibility and privacy concerns who hears what, when and how. One part does not determine another.
You might want an extended conversation without physical closeness, or enjoy quiet company without discussing the relationship online. Equal numbers across these groups are only equal arithmetic results. They do not require a ranking or a combined intimacy type.

If you already want to talk, try an opening that does not disclose details: “I have something I want to sort through. Could you listen for a few minutes—is now a workable time?” You can shorten it, use text or drop it. The other person can also say the time does not work.
Afterwards, check the particular exchange: “What did you hear as the main point?” or “That response helped; could we begin that way another time?” You do not need to show the test, use it to demand listening or turn one conversation into an evaluation of the relationship.

This part does not measure maturity, honesty, empathy, attachment or depth of love, or explain why somebody does not want to talk. Agreement with statements does not require sharing every time. Willingness to listen to one matter is not agreement to another kind of interaction.
What you discuss, with whom and when to stop can follow your present comfort and circumstances. You can keep the result private, contact nobody or leave the exercise. The mean changes none of those choices.

This edition preserves the six original Chinese statements and forward scoring from FermatMind’s original Intimacy Preferences Mini. English is a new working translation without established cross-language equivalence. These web examples add explanation; they do not establish psychometric validation.
Web answers stay only in the current page’s memory and clear on reload, language change or leaving. The website does not inherit the original Mini’s device draft or result cache. When retaking, use the conditions you can confirm then; different responses need not establish a changed preference.