The Friendship Index: A Practical Framework for Measuring Relationships

I didn’t grow up surrounded by a strong family network. For most of my life, the only meaningful communication framework I had was friendship. Over decades, I’ve studied what makes a “good” friend versus a “bad” one. I’ve listened to countless opinions, and eventually, I built my own definition - something clear, generic enough to fit any case, and simple enough to measure.

The conclusion I reached is straightforward:
The depth of a friendship is defined by how far each person is willing to step out of their comfort zone for the other.

It’s not about how long you’ve known each other, how often you talk, or how many laughs you’ve shared. It’s about willingness to take on discomfort for someone else’s sake.

Quantifying Friendship - Mental Exercise

I put this on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 = Minimal discomfort, (e.g., replying to a message when it’s slightly inconvenient) and 10 = Extreme, irreversible sacrifice, e.g., serving years in prison to protect them.

The same action doesn’t mean the same number for everyone. If a billionaire gives a friend $100,000 but it costs them nothing in comfort, it’s not high on the scale. If someone struggling financially gives $50 they can’t spare, that might be a 7.

Measuring the Relationship

Friendship is two-directional. I might be willing to go to a “6” for someone. They might only be willing to go to a “4” for me.

That asymmetry also matters. We measure it as following:
Friendship Index = (My score for them + Their score for me) ÷ 2

In the example above, the index is 5. It shows overall depth and whether the relationship is balanced or draining. If someone never goes beyond a 3 or 4, while I regularly reach 6 or 7, the decision is straightforward - I let that relationship go.

Readiness Over Action

Friendship isn’t about constantly testing or asking for sacrifices. It’s about the readiness to do so if needed. That readiness can change over time. Someone might’ve been willing to go to a 6 or 7 for me a decade ago, but now, as the connection faded, they’d barely stretch to a 3 or 4. So the goal isn’t to challenge your friends - it’s to understand how far each of you would go if the situation called for it.

In my case, most friendships never require going above a 5, simply because I rarely ask for help. But I still care about the baseline:
Are they ready, if it ever matters?

Why This Works

Universal: Comfort-zone sacrifice applies in any culture.
Measurable: You can assign a number without drowning in sentiment.
Illusion-proof: Years together don’t guarantee depth.

It explains:

Why some “old friends” won’t help in a crisis.
Why someone you met months ago can be more dependable than someone you’ve known for decades.
Why certain friendships feel balanced and others feel draining.

The Scale in Practice (reference only)

Score	Example	Comfort Sacrifice Level
1	Reply to a text when busy	Minimal effort
2	Meet despite minor inconvenience	Small schedule change
3	Lend small sum with no guarantee back	Low risk
4	Take a day off to help them	Significant time
5	Travel far to support them	Time + expense
6	Publicly defend them despite backlash	Reputation risk
7	Host them for months in crisis	Lifestyle disruption
8	Pause career plans to help	Long-term impact
9	Risk physical safety	Physical danger
10	Accept life-altering consequences for them	Extreme sacrifice

The numbers aren’t about the act - they’re about your discomfort in doing it. That’s why they work across situations and income levels. In some cases, risking your reputation might be a far greater sacrifice than someone else facing physical danger. Context and individual circumstances decide the weight, so always map the scale to your own reality.

Framework Limitations

The main limitation: you often don’t know someone’s true willingness until it’s tested. And this is related to yourself as well. You might place your own readiness at a 6, but anything higher often exists only in theory. Until reality hits, it’s just an assumption. That’s part of why deep relationships often form in youth - you do a bunch of silly mistakes, and fck ups together, stakes are low, but lessons are big. Shared difficulties reveal thresholds.

One of my close friends once picked me up unconscious from the side of the road while I was cycling to Iraq, arranged a car, and helped me keep the pace over the next several days. Months later, he injured his foot during another trip, and I carried his 20 kg backpack (plus mine) for 10 km while also dragging him on me through a wet grove near Chernobyl. We never discussed those moments. These days, we rarely go above a 4. But we both know - if needed, the real number is far beyond 8.

Another limitation is that someone might step out of their comfort zone for a friend expecting a return or favor later. In my ideal world, the only “return” would be that your friend is willing to go to the same level for you as you did for them. In reality, I often don’t expect this at all - and I’m still fine doing what I do for a friend. That’s because I see some friends as simply less self-aware in certain areas, whether in friendship itself or in broader aspects of life. None of us operates at the exact same level of awareness, and that’s normal. You can’t blame or resent someone for not matching your expectations when their life experience and perspective are fundamentally different from yours.

That’s why I leave this part out. The only thing I’d add is this - if you do things for friends while always holding a very specific expectation of “returns,” you’re probably being a bit too transactional. I’m not blaming anyone for having that mindset, but it’s not a trait my more conservative self appreciates.

People matter most - in companies, in life, in everything. Invest in them wisely, and build your circle with the same care.

Good luck,
Wolf Alexanyan