Chargement…
Join our exchange group
A caring, application-based space for exchange on WhatsApp — not therapy.
Hello Emma,
Your overall profile describes a relationship that is neither fragile nor fully thriving—it exists in a space where genuine good moments coexist with unaddressed tensions, a pattern particularly common during the busy mid-adult years. As a 36-year-old woman, you likely navigate multiple roles, and this partnership may sometimes feel like it runs on autopilot. The scores highlight a certain unevenness: you have a foundation of satisfaction and resilience, yet the ways you manage conflict and express commitment show cracks that could widen if left unattended. What stands out is the low readiness for change; it suggests that while you are aware of areas that feel off, the drive to actively reshape them is muted, perhaps because the relationship is 'good enough' or because change feels daunting. This combination—moderate strengths paired with low mobilization—can lead to a slow drift rather than a sharp crisis. It is not a red flag, but an invitation to pay gentle attention. You are not broken; your couple is not broken. You are simply at a point where small, deliberate adjustments could shift the dynamic toward more consistent fulfillment, if and when you feel ready.
It may be that your anxious-preoccupied attachment style, coupled with an early schema of abandonment, leads you to automatically mind-read and catastrophize during disagreements, which can make conflicts feel especially corrosive and threaten your sense of security. This anxious vigilance and a tendency toward subjugation—perhaps silencing your own needs to keep peace—could help explain why readiness for change feels low, even though you still share moments of genuine connection that fuel variable satisfaction. By gently noticing when these patterns arise, you might begin to challenge the catastrophic stories and advocate for your needs, building on the present resilience to create a more stable, mutually assured bond.
Overall result
Mixed strengths and fragilitiesYour responses describe a couple with real strengths and fragilities to work on. What matters is knowing where the energy is well invested — and where it is lacking.
And if you have actual messages to decode, ScanMyLove analyses your conversations with your partner from a simple export and reveals their real dynamics.
I go deeper into this mechanism in my book « Saving Your Relationship ».
This tendency is present in you — here is what it sheds light on.
Your responses describe conflict management that works well in some contexts, but slips into less constructive patterns in others. Targeted adjustments can noticeably improve the quality of your exchanges.
Your responses paint a picture of conflict management that, while functional at times, can tip into exchanges that leave a residue. At 36, in a long-term partnership, it is common for communication habits to become ingrained. One possible reading—and only you can confirm if it fits—is that when a disagreement touches on a core vulnerability, the discussion shifts from 'what we need to solve' to 'who is at fault.' This is not a sign of a doomed relationship but of patterns that have not yet been softened.
The moderate satisfaction and resilience you report suggest that your couple does have a foundation of goodwill, which is the most important ingredient for reshaping how you argue. Because your readiness for change is currently low, it might be that these corrosive moments are not painful enough yet to force a shift; but even small adjustments can make a noticeable difference.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
This tendency is present in you — here is what it sheds light on.
Your responses describe a real but uneven capacity for resilience depending on the situation. Some hardships bring you closer, others push you apart.
Your score here suggests a couple that is not fragile, but that also does not automatically rebound from every challenge. In your mid-thirties, life pressures—career changes, family demands, financial stress—can sometimes bring you closer and sometimes create distance. It is as if your relational immune system works well against some viruses but not others. An angle to consider, if it resonates with your experience, is that resilience flourishes when you both feel equally seen and supported.
Given that mutual commitment was rated with some fragilities, it may be that in certain difficult moments, one of you wonders, 'Are we truly in this together?' That unspoken question can make a hardship feel heavier. When you do bounce back well, what is usually present? Often, it is a moment of explicit reassurance or a deliberate act of care. This is a muscle you can strengthen deliberately.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
This tendency is present in you — here is what it sheds light on.
Your responses describe commitment that is broadly present but with areas of uncertainty or perceived asymmetry. Commitment is nourished by explicit words and gestures.
Your responses suggest a commitment that is genuine but not entirely unambiguous—there may be moments when one of you, or both, quietly questions the other's dedication. At 36, you have likely invested significant time and identity in this partnership, so noticing areas of uncertainty can feel unsettling. It is worth remembering that commitment is not just a feeling but also a practice; it is renewed through small, everyday choices.
A hypothesis to explore, if it fits your reality, is that a perceived asymmetry—one person seeming more invested than the other—can create a low-level anxiety that dampens spontaneity and fuels doubt. This can be linked to the conflict dynamics: if disagreements leave a sting, that sting can erode the sense of 'us against the world.' The fact that your relationship satisfaction has good moments suggests that the underlying bond is worth clarifying and strengthening.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
This tendency is present in you — here is what it sheds light on.
Your responses describe satisfaction that is present but uneven — real good moments, but also areas of emptiness or weariness. The emotional balance is worth exploring.
Your score sits in a moderate range, indicating that your relationship provides real nourishment but also has pockets of emptiness that you feel keenly. At your age, with the demands of career and perhaps family, it is easy for satisfaction to become something assessed in the margins—you notice it when it is absent more than when it is present. One way to interpret this pattern is that the relationship works well as a practical partnership but sometimes falls short as an emotional refuge.
The variable resilience you reported likely plays a role: when you weather a hardship together, satisfaction spikes; when you feel distant, it dips. Interestingly, your low readiness for change might mean that you have learned to live with these dips, perhaps thinking 'this is just how it is.' But the good moments show you what is possible. The task is not to fix everything at once but to intentionally increase the ratio of moments that fill you up, not drain you.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
This tendency is discreet in you — here is what it tells about you.
This is common: awareness often comes before the desire to act. The report identifies what may be slowing progress in this area.
Your responses indicate that, at this moment, the energy to actively change things in your relationship is low. This is a common and human place to be—especially at 36, when life can feel full enough that tackling a complex relational dynamic feels like one more chore. It does not mean you do not care; it may mean that the pain points have not yet crossed a threshold that makes change feel urgent, or that you are unsure which lever to pull first.
An idea to consider, if it rings true, is that low readiness often coexists with a quiet belief that efforts might not yield enough results to justify the discomfort. Given that your satisfaction and resilience scores are at 50%, the relationship is not in crisis, which paradoxically can lower the motivation to intervene. This is a valuable insight: the goal now is not to force change but to allow curiosity to build organically, so that if and when you decide to act, it comes from genuine desire, not obligation.
Recommendations and concrete exercises
The most telling interplay in your results is between the low readiness for change and the three moderate scores in conflict, commitment, and satisfaction. Low motivation often acts as a brake on improvement: even when the other dimensions show room for growth, the engine of change remains idling, making it unlikely that friction points will resolve on their own. For instance, the sometimes-corrosive conflicts (25%) might persist because the energy needed to learn new communication habits is dampened by a sense of 'why bother?' Similarly, fragilities in mutual commitment (25%) can erode satisfaction (50%) over time if not explicitly addressed, creating a cycle where unmet needs further diminish the drive to act.
There is a positive loop, too: the moments of high satisfaction and resilience likely coincide when you two are aligned and connected, and those moments could be used as a springboard. As one possible reading, the pattern suggests that the relationship is, in its current state, stable but stuck—not deteriorating rapidly, but also not evolving. Recognizing these connections does not demand immediate action; it simply offers a map of what is supporting what, so that you can choose, when you are ready, where to place your attention first.
Right now
In the coming weeks
In the long run
For more on a nearby topic, see also « Breaking Free from Toxic Relationships ».
These are hypotheses, not conclusions. You are the one who knows whether they resonate with your experience.
It may be that conflicts in your relationship sometimes slip into patterns that feel corrosive, where even small disagreements escalate and leave lingering resentment. For some people, this happens when discussions turn into criticism or withdrawal rather than mutual understanding, making it hard to feel truly safe with each other afterwards.
Check for yourself: Over the next week, after any disagreement, take a moment to note what each of you did next: did you criticize, defend, shut down, or try to listen? Notice if the same pattern repeats. Then, pick one low-stakes topic you've been avoiding, and intentionally approach it with a question like 'Can you help me understand your view?' and observe if the conversation feels different—less corrosive, more connective.
One possible explanation for the low readiness for change is that you or your partner may feel ambivalent about the relationship's direction, which can make committing to change feel risky. When the foundation feels a bit fragile, it's common to avoid rocking the boat, even if staying still leaves both feeling stuck.
Check for yourself: Set aside a quiet moment alone to write down what deep commitment would mean to you personally, and what fears arise when you think about asking for change in the relationship. Then suggest a tiny, no-pressure experiment with your partner—like a weekly 10-minute check-in about something you appreciate—and see if either of you hesitates or follows through. This can reveal where the apprehension lies.
It's possible that your satisfaction varies because you do share moments of genuine connection, but these may get undercut by unresolved conflicts or uncertainty about the future. The resilience you do have suggests you can recover from tough moments, but not always reliably, which might leave you feeling that the relationship is inconsistent.
Check for yourself: For two weeks, keep a brief daily note: rate your satisfaction (1–10) and write one sentence about what made it high or low that day. Look back for a pattern: does satisfaction consistently drop after a conflict and take a while to return? Identify one concrete thing that helps you bounce back, and share that with your partner as something you'd like to cultivate together.
10 clinical reading frameworks are applied to your profile below.
Recognised clinical frameworks applied to your profile, as additional perspectives to weigh.
Attachment style — anxious-preoccupied
Your results suggest that relationship security may feel fragile for you, possibly reflecting an anxious-preoccupied attachment style. This pattern often heightens sensitivity to conflict and fuels worries about commitment, making disagreements feel more threatening. Exploring this together can open pathways to greater emotional safety and trust.
Cognitive pattern — mind reading
During conflicts, you might find yourself assuming what your partner is thinking or feeling — for instance, that they are criticizing you or planning to leave. This tendency can fuel misunderstandings and prevent you from checking out those assumptions together. Learning to ask directly and listen can transform these moments into opportunities for clarity.
Cognitive pattern — catastrophizing
Small disagreements could escalate quickly if your mind jumps to worst-case scenarios, like the relationship being doomed. This lens can drain resilience and make it harder to see the strengths that are present. Recognizing these automatic thoughts is a first, empowering step toward breaking that spiral.
Early schema — abandonment/instability
The fragility you perceive in mutual commitment may echo an underlying abandonment schema, where you expect important people to leave or be unreliable. This can lead to vigilance for signs of withdrawal, sometimes amplifying conflict. Understanding this pattern can help you separate past wounds from present reality.
Early schema — subjugation
The challenge with conflict management might relate to a pattern of subjugating your own needs to keep the peace, which paradoxically breeds resentment and reduces relationship satisfaction. Experimenting with gentle assertiveness could shift this dynamic and increase mutual fulfillment.
Attachment — Sources: Bowlby (1969) ; Ainsworth et al. (1978) ; Hazan & Shaver (1987)
Cognitive distortions — Sources: Beck (1976) ; Burns (1980)
Young schemas — Sources: Young, Klosko & Weishaar (2003) ; Young (1990)
Recognised models for this domain, applied to your profile as hypotheses to weigh — not a diagnosis.
Cross-cutting frameworks
Cognitive distortions
In moments of conflict, you might be drawn to thought patterns like mind-reading (‘I know what he/she is thinking’) or all-or-nothing evaluations (‘if we argue, it means we’re incompatible’). These cognitive shortcuts can amplify distress and make disputes feel more corrosive. It could be helpful to notice whether such automatic interpretations are at work for you, because they are recognizable and open to gentle rescripting.
Sources: Beck (1976) ; Burns (1980)
Young’s Early Maladaptive Schemas
The fragility in mutual commitment and the corrosive conflicts could echo early schemas such as abandonment or mistrust, where you may brace for rejection or struggle to believe your partner will stay present. This kind of filter is often forged in past experiences, but it does not have to dictate your future. Does any of that resonate with your internal landscape?
Sources: Young, Klosko & Weishaar (2003) ; Young (1990)
Emotion regulation
Your approach to emotional modulation during disagreements—perhaps leaning toward suppression rather than open reappraisal—might contribute to the ‘sometimes corrosive’ quality you reported. When feelings are held back until they boil over, conflicts can escalate. Exploring ways to express and reframe emotions in the moment could gradually shift this dynamic.
Sources: Gross (1998) ; Gross (2015)
Ellis’s ABC Model
The ABC model suggests that emotional consequences of a disagreement stem not from the event itself, but from the beliefs you bring to it—for instance, ‘If we fight, this relationship is broken.’ When you notice a sharp emotional drop during conflict, it may be worth asking: What silent belief is fueling this? The beliefs are often open to re-examination, creating space for different reactions.
Sources: Ellis (1962) ; Ellis & Harper (1975)
Self-efficacy
Low readiness for change can sometimes be linked to a dimmed sense of efficacy—the belief that your efforts won’t make a tangible difference. This might leave you feeling stuck in the face of relationship challenges. If that strikes a chord, know that small, intentional moves can rebuild that confidence over time.
Sources: Bandura (1997) ; Bandura (1977)
These frameworks do not constitute a medical diagnosis.
It’s as if your relationship has settled into a quiet room where the windows are slightly fogged: you can still see the view, the light comes in, but a thin layer of habit blurs the sharp edges. The most telling detail of your profile isn’t any single score but the relationship between them. The low readiness for change acts like a gentle anchor, holding the whole system in place, while the moderate satisfaction and resilience provide just enough warmth to keep you from walking out. Conflict management and commitment, both at 25%, are the spots where that anchored stillness starts to chafe. This configuration suggests a partnership that has learned to survive by not pushing too hard—a protective cocoon that has become a little too snug. The organizing logic is one of conservation: energy is saved by avoiding the messy, unpredictable work of transformation, even though that very avoidance slowly drains energy from the parts that matter most.
Living inside this pattern likely feels intimate and oddly lonely at once. The easy part is obvious: you can coast, you know the rhythms, and the relationship doesn’t demand the constant emotional heavy lifting that some couples face. In a life packed with responsibilities at 36—career, perhaps children, a household, friendships—a steady, undemanding partnership can feel like a life raft. But the cost is a slow internal erosion. Conflicts that don’t get resolved don’t vanish; they resurface in sarcastic remarks, in withdrawal, in a vague sense that you’re not fully seen. And when commitment feels shaky, you might find yourself holding back, not daring to lean in fully, lest the whole structure wobble. The tension is between the comfort of predictability and the growing ache of disconnection—like a novel you keep reading but no longer find surprising.
How did you arrive here? Often, such an equilibrium forms in response to a history where change was risky or where maintaining harmony was a survival skill. Maybe you grew up in a family where conflict was explosive and left scars, so you learned to walk on eggshells. Or maybe your adult life has been a marathon of meeting others’ needs, and the relationship became the one place where you could just exist without having to actively improve anything. During the exhausting mid-parenting or mid-career years, putting the relationship on autopilot might have been a wise, even necessary, adaptation—a way to save your sanity while keeping the family engine running. The low readiness for change, then, is not laziness or a character flaw; it’s a perfectly logical response to a long season of overwhelm. But now, that season might be shifting, and your taking this test hints that a part of you is ready to crack the door open.
In this profile, I want you to see an underappreciated treasure: your relationship is not dead, not hateful, not shattered. A 50% satisfaction and resilience means that even in its drowsy state, there is light—you do have good moments, you do bounce back from some difficulties. That’s not trivial. Many couples don’t have that foundation. It’s like a garden that’s gone a bit weedy but still has rich soil. The very fact that you are curious enough to explore these results is another resource; it means the readiness for change is not completely absent—it’s just slumbering. That small curiosity is the crack in the fog. You might underestimate how powerful it is to simply turn your attention toward the relationship without an urgent agenda, to wonder instead of to fix. That wondering is a form of love, and it’s already here, even at 25%.
If something were to start shifting, it probably wouldn’t begin with a grand resolution or a dramatic conversation. It would be more like a faint awareness that appears in the middle of an ordinary moment: you notice a familiar argument brewing and, instead of joining it on autopilot, you pause and think, “Here’s that pattern again.” Or you choose, on a random Tuesday, to do one tiny, generous thing—like genuinely thanking your partner for something mundane. That small break in the script is the first green shoot. From there, readiness builds not by forcing yourself to change but by letting the cost of not changing become more visible. You might start to see that the comfort you cling to is actually a bit uncomfortable after all. That realization is like a muscle waking up, and you are the only one who can decide when you’re ready to exercise it. Your relationship’s future is not set in stone—it’s a plot you haven’t finished writing yet.
A score is not lived as a number but as a scene. See if you recognise yours — or set it aside.
Conflict management
It may be a Friday evening after a long work week. You and your partner are trying to decide on dinner. He suggests ordering pizza, but you might feel a surge of frustration, thinking, 'I'm so tired of the same thing.' You hear yourself say, with an edge, 'We always do what you want.' He might reply, voice rising, 'Oh, so it's my fault?' You feel a tightening in your jaw; you catch yourself rolling your eyes. He then goes quiet, pulling out his phone, his face closed off. The silence in the kitchen suddenly feels heavy and sharp. You might think, 'Here we go again,' as you turn away to the fridge, not really looking. The unresolved tension lingers as you both eat separately, and you go to bed with a cold space between you.
To try: Next time a small disagreement starts to spiral, you could try silently counting to five and then saying, 'I'm feeling a bit flooded right now. Can we circle back in ten minutes?' Use that time to write down what you really need—not a complaint, but a simple wish for the moment. Reconnect with a gentle touch on the arm before you speak again.
Relationship resilience
Imagine a chaotic morning. The car won't start, and you both have important meetings. You might notice a bubble of shared, wry laughter as you both push the car to the curb—'Typical our luck,' he says, and for a moment you feel like a team in a movie. You call a ride-share together, problem-solving quickly. Inside the car, the mood is light; you might even feel a flicker of pride in how you handle a crisis. But then, as you step out, he makes a sharp comment about you not having the car looked at last week. It might feel like a slap, erasing the teamwork. You feel your shoulders drop, thinking, 'Why can't that closeness last?' The day's stress is now tinged with a quiet, shared grumpiness that neither of you addresses.
To try: After navigating a mini-crisis together, try creating a brief 'post-crisis pause.' Before the tension can resurface, say, 'That was tough, but we did it. I saw us as a real team back there.' Then, suggest a small, silly celebration—like a high-five or a shared 'we rock.' It can act as a seam to keep the resilience from unraveling.
Mutual commitment
You might be sitting on the porch on a Sunday, watching neighbors walk by. A thought drifts in: 'Will we still be here in ten years?' You notice a knot in your stomach as you try to picture it. Your partner is scrolling on his phone, and you ask, tentatively, 'Do you ever wonder where we'll be down the road?' He might shrug and say, 'We're fine, why worry?' without really looking up. You feel a slight chill, like a door that isn't fully closed. You might then say nothing more, staring at a crack in the pavement. Inside, you're thinking, 'I guess we're okay,' but the question lingers, unattended. The afternoon passes, and you decide it's easier not to push, settling back into the comfortable routine that feels a bit like a holding pattern.
To try: In the next few days, try expressing one specific, concrete thing you appreciate about the life you're building together right now, like, 'I love how we've made this home feel so cozy.' Avoid future projections. Then invite him to share one thing he values about your present routine. It can subtly reinforce the commitment that already exists without making it a heavy discussion.
Relationship satisfaction
It's an ordinary Wednesday night. You're both on the sofa, a documentary playing you're not really watching. You glance at him and he smiles distractedly, and for a second, your heart warms—you remember why you chose him. Then you notice he's left his trail of used tissues on the side table again, and irritation prickles. You open your mouth to mention it, but you're just too tired, so you swallow it down. A little later, you might catch your reflection in the dark window and feel a pang of loneliness, even with him right there. Yet when he reaches for your hand absentmindedly, you still feel a gentle anchor. It's a quiet evening that feels both safe and a little empty, like a comfortable chair with a worn spring you've learned to sit around.
To try: Once this week, try setting a timer for ten minutes of 'no-screen' time together. Sit facing each other and each name one tiny, sensory pleasant moment from your day—like 'I loved the smell of coffee this morning.' No big talks, no problems. End with a hug. It can water the seeds of satisfaction that are already there, even when they feel buried.
Readiness for change
Picture yourself folding laundry on a Sunday evening. The thought surfaces again: 'We should really find a better way to divide the chores—it's always me.' You might feel a flutter of resolve, imagining a calm conversation. But then you think of his likely defensiveness, the energy it would take. You fold a sock, and your resolve wanes; you hear yourself thinking, 'It's not that bad, it could be worse.' You stack the laundry and go to the kitchen, where he's scrolling through recipes. You almost say something, but instead you ask, 'What's for dinner?' The familiar routine reasserts itself, like a soft, heavy blanket. The impulse to tweak things fades into a quiet resignation, because the current state, while imperfect, is at least predictable.
To try: Pick one microscopic, low-stakes habit you'd like to shift—like putting shoes on the rack instead of scattering them. Next time you both walk in the door, try a playful approach: 'Bet I can get my shoes on the rack before you do.' Make it a silly experiment, not a critique. Notice if a lighter touch opens a crack in the resistance to change.
The same result allows several readings. Here are the ones that compete with ours.
This questionnaire captures a snapshot of your subjective perceptions, not an objective measurement of your relationship. It cannot tell us how your partner would answer the same questions, nor does it reveal the deeper needs or wounds that shape your interactions. Scores can be influenced by a recent argument, a stressful day at work, or even your mood while filling it out.
The tool is designed to highlight areas of concern, which may lead to an overemphasis on problems and an underemphasis on the everyday acts of care that sustain you. Moreover, it cannot establish causality: a low readiness for change, for example, might result from exhaustion rather than a permanent trait. Finally, the test reduces a complex, evolving bond into percentages, which risks making the dynamic seem more static and dire than it truly feels in real life.
Conflicts as a Symptom of Engagement, Not Decay
Your 25% on conflict management could reflect a communication style that is direct or passionate, which the test interprets as corrosive, but many vital relationships thrive on spirited debate. You may also be holding yourself to an unrealistic ideal of perfect calm, rating a normal spat as a failure. If your conflicts tend to center on relatively small issues (chores, logistics) while deeper values remain shared, then the intensity might simply be a release valve for everyday stress. In this light, the score doesn't scream dysfunction; it might reveal that both of you are still invested enough to care loudly, rather than retreating into apathy.
Low Readiness as a Sign of Earned Stability or Exhaustion
A low desire to change can look like complacency, but it could equally signal a quiet confidence that the relationship is sturdy enough to coast on for a while. At your stage of life, you may be pouring all your proactive energy into young children, career demands, or extended family care, leaving minimal reserves for couple work—a realistic prioritization, not a deficit. Furthermore, you might unconsciously trust that some tensions resolve themselves with time, a wisdom that resists the cultural push to constantly optimize. This readiness score may reflect a season of conservation, not a permanent condition.
Commitment Fragility as a Reflection of Unspoken Expectations
That 25% on mutual commitment may stem from a mismatch between what the test measures (verbalized, emotional expression of commitment) and how you actually live commitment—through steadfast presence, practical support, or enduring loyalty. If you’ve never seriously contemplated leaving, the fragility might be more about a periodic, healthy doubt that keeps you honest. It could also be that a past experience of betrayal or loss has made you cautious about labeling any bond as ‘fully committed’, a self-protective realism rather than a real risk. Underneath the low score, there may be a quiet, stubborn fidelity that doesn’t translate into these questions.
Satisfaction’s Variability as Emotional Agility
A 50% satisfaction score captures a dynamic range, not a failing grade. Long-term love is rarely a constant high; your ability to report ‘variable’ satisfaction suggests you are in touch with the natural ebb and flow of a shared life. This emotional honesty is a strength—you don’t pretend everything is perfect, nor do you catastrophize the lows. In a season of mid-life busyness, satisfaction might simply hinge on how exhausted you are. Seen this way, the variability is a sign that you are realistically navigating a complex, ever-changing reality, not that something is fundamentally broken.
To write about on your own, or to bring to a professional.
To help you situate this report, here are the references specific to this test.
7-day observation journal
Each day, spot one situation where “Conflict management” showed up. Note the automatic thought, the emotion (0–100) and what you did. Then write one more balanced, alternative reading. After 7 days, re-read your notes: the recurring patterns become visible — the first step to change them.
1. When we disagree, I try to express how I feel without attacking my partner as a person.
Answer : Somewhat disagree
You answered "Somewhat disagree". Can you tell me more about when this comes up for you?
It mainly shows up in situations that matter to me, when I feel under pressure or emotionally involved.
2. I feel respected in the way we handle conflict.
Answer : Somewhat disagree
And how long have you noticed this?
It has been more present over the past few months, though I recognise it from before too.
3. Even in tense moments, I generally manage to stay open to what my partner is saying.
Answer : Somewhat disagree
4. I sometimes sense contempt or condescension in our exchanges — from my side or theirs.
Answer : Somewhat agree
5. When I disagree, I manage to express my needs without becoming defensive.
Answer : Somewhat disagree
6. We generally come back closer after a conflict, not more distant.
Answer : Somewhat disagree