Theory reeditted.

I hate the fact that people misunderstand me so much because of the tone of voice I use. The fact that they try to dig for things that aren't there.

Here's the reeditted version of the previous theory, without the undercurrents of whinniness that wasn't there to begin with.

Thanks to someone reminding me about people concentrating only the lists etc, I will have to stop the stream of consciousness writing.
======================================
Emosoc is a quantification of emotional and social bonds that one feels by spending time with another person. Maybe something along the lines of something like Watts, J/s. But more like emotional and social bonds/day or something like that.

Suppose a human has a certain emosoc level achieve in order to feel not lonely. Now, emosocs can be achieved by spending time with people that have emotional or social bonds with the person. The deeper the relationship, the more emosoc that one generates. Now, there are modifiers to the number of emosocs that would make the person worth more in terms of emosocs. Friends, family and lovers/significant others all generate some form of emosoc.

Now, there are modifiers, such as past history, that would make a person be worth more on the emosoc scale. The exact quantification won't be available until a full survey and weighting schemes has been processed. I do believe emosoc levels would tend to be exponential in nature though.

Baring exceptional cases such as major trauma, a person's emosoc level stays the same. As well, the theory also states that additional emosoc levels pass the person's own personal emosoc level gain no additional benefits.
======================================
Now, just on a system level, can we use this to explain certain events?

Ie. People, when getting close to a new group of friends, usually become distant to an older group of friends. As they become closer to a new group of friends, their emosoc quota has been met, and because additional emosoc do not net additional benefits, they become more distant with an older group of friends. Furthermore, there will be a certain period of time between that whereby the person would try to stay in contact with both group of friends. However, their emosoc levels will follow a bathtub curve. At the midpoint, will lean either towards the newer group or older group because they suffer a small emosoc penalty because they are with neither group.

Ie. People (displaced people from university or work) will more likely to attend social events such as gettogethers than certain people with families or older groups of friends. Even when both of them are free (no events) and are equidistant from the point of the gettogether (work involved).

Ie. People when involved in a relationship with a significant other, become more distant to friends because their emosoc levels have been met. Additional levels of emosoc net no additional return.

Ie. People when displaced, will be in a void of emosocs. In order to fulfill their emosoc threshold, they will need lots of new friends or deep relationships. Now, more often than not because of constraints on time, a herd of new friends will not be possible and will seek a single point of a deeper relationship (or several, just to have that possibility). Most people would, after being displaced, seek out a group of friends and a deeper relationship. *

Ie. People when travelling or displaced tend to put on a better face in order to not frighten new emosocs away. Emosocs are harder to come by when travelling. Therefore, it usually ends with a) meeting new friends or b) deepening relationship with travelling companions in order to fulfill that emosoc deprivation.

*With the Internet, the number of new friends might not be real at all but virtual representations such as players in a MMORPG. Chat rooms and the like allow for a slew of less emosoc worth relationships. However, the number generated might be high enough for certain people.
============================================
There probably is a theory like this somewhere in the psychology. If anyone does know of one, can they tell me the name so I can read up on it.

Comments about this theory would be appreciated, and not about my whinniness or desperateness or whatever. This was what I was trying to get across before. Ish, I know I have a problem with my tone of voice (metaphorically speaking, as this is print), but I didn't know people would misunderstand me this much.