Additionally, sharing of emotions, thoughts, and goals typified my dyad. Each member shared the other’s attention with anyone else, and a sense of constraint did not exist. Simmel argued that a dyadic relationship tends to differ from the other groups in that only one other as opposed to collectivity confronts the two participants (Abrahamson 177). Parties in a dyadic interaction do not perceive themselves as having superstructure that extends beyond them. As described by Simmel, the dyad group was vulnerable to mood fluctuations.
The triad that formed after another party joined us exhibited the qualities that Simmel has put forth. In a triadic relationship, each element operates as an intermediary between the other two, and presents the twofold function of uniting and separating the group (178). Simmel asserted that a third member tends to change the way the two participants relate. The inclusion of the third party to the dyadic relationship disrupted the closeness as pointed out by Simmel. Simmel acknowledges that a third participant can be a unifying or separating factor (178). In our case, the third party lessened the level of intimacy in the relationship. I regarded the third party as an intruder since she shared certain moods that irritated the relationship. It is difficult for three people to attain a uniform feeling. The disturbance and distraction affected the immediate and pure reciprocity that characterized the dyad. In fact, the third party was the cause of the tertius gaudens . A notable case was when my former participant in dyad conflicted with the third party over some funds we had saved to visit a Museum. I supported my friend, and I benefitted after the third party withdrew her intentions to accompany has in the Museum. I had purposely spurred the conflict between the two after third party proved to be a separating force in our relationship.
A stranger is a potential wanderer who has yet to overcome the freedom