Who's on top?

Whether it is the competitive symmetry or submissive symmetry, I think they are equally the most difficult to change. We naturally resist change, and since the symmetrical roles would require the most change for anything to get done, they would cause the most friction. That friction would be easily noticeable and in most cases, to spare feelings one might pull back on making a change or the other member may attempt to change as well, switching the type of symmetry, but leaving the relationship with same conflicts.

 

In the same manner, the most damaging one to a relationship would be submissive symmetry. Since both parties are depending on the other for the relationship to move forward, the relationship will eventually stagnate. While some may consider this the least damaging outcome, in my experience it is the most likely to cause irreparable damage. In the other two scenarios, there is hope that dissatisfaction with the relationship will be voiced prior to the inevitable boiling of frustration that comes with nothing being done.

 

I think competitive symmetry could be the most damaging of the rigid role relations in terms of self-esteem. If the members of the relationship are truly incompatible, yet fighting for dominance, there is the highest chance that a conflict will occur that gets out of hand. One the gloves come off, there is no end to the potential of damage to both parties egos. Even the winner of such a conflict could find themselves regretting something they said or did. In the end, as the text suggests, I think it is best if the partners share one-up and one-down positions. It leads to the most satisfactory outcomes all the way around.