Dynamic Pairs - Some are direct opposites, but others...?

theory
#1

I’ve noticed that a lot of the dynamic pairs in the Dramatica Model (at all levels) are direct opposites of each other… Attraction/Repulsion, Support/Oppose, Past/Present, etc…

But other dynamic pairs don’t seem to follow this pattern. A few of the pairs/quads at the Variation level that cause me some confusion are those that fall under Becoming (Rationalization vs. Obligation, and Commitment vs. Responsibility) and Learning (Prerequisites vs Preconditions, and Strategy vs. Analysis). I have trouble seeing how they’re either direct opposites or simply opposite ends of a particular spectrum.

Can someone perhaps shed some light on what’s really going on in those quads, and others like them?

#2

As an example, the Becoming Variations…

Commitment vs. Responsibility.

Dram defines Commitment as seeing something through regardless of the consequences.
It defines Responsibility as assuming exclusive control over something.

I can’t see how these two are related. I understand what they mean, and I love the interplay between them as an issue (the story I’m writing has these as the RS Issue)… but despite loving this particular pairing, I don’t fully get what’s going on between them that places them in dynamic opposition to one another.

Rationalization vs. Obligation.

Rationalization is masking the truth with alternative explanations, sort of like diversion/distraction/dishonesty.
Obligation is taking on some burden in exchange for someone’s favor(s).

Here, again, I’m confused about how these Variations relate to each other… what is the specific “dynamic” that is going on between them?

#3

Rationalization is an attempt to justify with logic, even if it’s not appropriate (why so many people rationalize themselves into self-deception.) Obligation is often morally driven or seen as duty/commitment. A person who doesn’t want to do something might rationalize to themselves why they shouldn’t, all the while continuing to allow the underlying issue to exist where is if they saw something as their duty and felt obligated to do so, it would resolve the issue. Of course one could flip these and make an obligation the issue where rationalization is the answer (think Brooks holding the knife to Heywood’s throat, threatening to cut it in Shawshank Redemption. He feels obligated to do so as the only way they’ll let him stay in prison upon learning of his release - but Andy rationalizes with him, telling him he’s a reasonable man.

#4

Great reply @JBarker!

I would just add the a lot of these quads can be difficult to understand exactly how they work off of one another. I totally remember not getting how Commitment could be a Dynamic Pair to Responsibility, but over the years have developed an understanding of how they work together. I think its natural that some quads don’t make any sense and may continue to do so as they’re personal blind spots for you.

Basically you just have been exposed to more instances of Self-Interest vs Morality than Responsibility vs Commitment. The more exposure you have the more you will understand it.

#5

Could it be responsibility is a should but maybe and commitment is a will do no matter what?