Sam Spade Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 I'm not such a big fan of pop-psychology, but I liked this article. Perhaps because it alignes with my view:laugh:, but anyway, it's a good read; http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200411/the-truth-about-compatibility Some quotes: Compatibility is overrated. The similarities or personality traits that attract people to each other may not hold up over time. You might be attracted to someone because you both love to ski, but then one of you blows out a knee. When people are divorcing, they'll say, "We have nothing in common." But they have kids, a house and 30 years of shared experience. Values about money and children run very deep and are important. The surface ones—antiques, sports, travel and gourmet coffee—don't matter. —William J. Doherty, professor and marriage and family therapy program director, University of Minnesota Sensitivity to the issue of compatibility may be in and of itself a sign of trouble. My research shows that there is no difference in the objective level of compatibility between those couples who are unhappy and those who are happy. But the unhappy ones think compatibility is important to a good marriage—but don't think they have it. When people say, "We're incompatible," that usually means, "We don't get along very well." People overemphasize the effect of personality or values. And they underemphasize the extent to which easy, congenial temperaments aid marriages. —Ted Huston, psychology professor, University of Texas, who runs the PAIR project, a longitudinal study of married couples ... etc. Not very sophisticated, but opened my eyes to the fact that every time I catch myself contemplating "what if"/get excited about another woman, it is usually about completely superficial characteristics: travel, interest in my language, etc. Some would argue that these signify major areas of compatibility, but I beg to differ. For example, I love to travel. Even if i get with somebody who does not, so what? I can always negotiate a couple of weeks/a month per year where I go wherever I want, and she's welcome to come (and maybe even develop interest in traveling in the proces), or accept my boundary (that I want to travel), just like I accept hers (that she does not have to just to make me happy). So, mutual acceptance is more important than somebody with different values who travels with me, in which case we'll probably argue while traveling . Interest in my language/culture: well, obviously that would provide instant topics for conversation, which is great, but also instant gratification with no work. Of course it is nice to get this, but it's not essential for long term bond - which would depend in mutual willingness to learn about each other (rather than recieve if upfront, and therefore possibly take it for granted). Etc.
Els Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 How is having similar interests equal to compatibility? It goes far deeper than that. I agree that it's not necessary to have similar interests, although it would be a benefit IMO. Compatibility still is necessary for me, though.
Katherineos123 Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Thanks for the quotes Sam. They are very interesting. I absolutely agree that the "surface" compatibilities dont matter in the long run, they may be what attracted two people to one another in the begining, but these kinds of mutual interests/hobbies may not hold up over time.... I know my interests have changed so far in my brief stint of adulthood... I cant even imagine the changes after spending 50+ years with someone! However, wouldnt you agree that certain aspects of compatability DO matter? For example, if one person is especially needy, or demanding, and the other partner is not, then there will be certain times when these people wont see eye to eye. The needy partner will feel hurt and unappreciated, whereas the moreso independent partner wont ever see any problems in their aloof behavior. Sometimes I feel this way with my BF. But then I have to remind myself that we are VERY different people. I wouldnt call it incompatible.... But sometimes he can be very absent minded, leaving me to feel unappreciated or forgotten.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 Thanks for the quotes Sam. They are very interesting. I absolutely agree that the "surface" compatibilities dont matter in the long run, they may be what attracted two people to one another in the begining, but these kinds of mutual interests/hobbies may not hold up over time.... I know my interests have changed so far in my brief stint of adulthood... I cant even imagine the changes after spending 50+ years with someone! However, wouldnt you agree that certain aspects of compatability DO matter? For example, if one person is especially needy, or demanding, and the other partner is not, then there will be certain times when these people wont see eye to eye. The needy partner will feel hurt and unappreciated, whereas the moreso independent partner wont ever see any problems in their aloof behavior. Sometimes I feel this way with my BF. But then I have to remind myself that we are VERY different people. I wouldnt call it incompatible.... But sometimes he can be very absent minded, leaving me to feel unappreciated or forgotten. Yes, exactly. I am particularly interested in the issue of compatibility because seemingly i and my gf have very different backgrounds, interests, IQs - pretty much everything. But at the same time, we have temperaments that seem to align pretty well. While the scenario with my ex was the opposite - we had as much in common as humanly possible, but there were character.emotional issues that weren't compatible. They could have been rectified without too much trouble with proper attention - which is what you seem to be doing with your BF. You'll be fine - having the capacity to remind yourself that you're different people is precisely the type of temperament/attitude that seem to be conducive to attaining compatibility. (In the case with my ex, the issues were unrecognized and unattended, so things blew up. We weren't compatible in our ability to recongize what matters to whom. I.e. it was an 'approach' problem rather than an 'inventory' problem.)
Katherineos123 Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Compatibility is does the person you are with challenge your mind' date=' make you laugh, entertain you, keeps you on your toes and at the same time make you feel safe, adored, respected and like you have a true companion who is your team mate not just an opposing force. Compatibility can also come in the form of opposite qualities one brings into a relationship, like one person who has the ability to organize and stay focused while the other has the ability to inject some fun into the relationship to help the overachiever loosen up a bit and relax. These are all common compatibility issues that are sussed out early on, and what ultimately creates that "spark" that we all talk about. It is also charged with sexual chemistry. But one of the most basic compatibility issues for me at least is do I have FUN with this person generally speaking, do I look forward to spending time with them no matter what we are doing because I know we will have fun. [/quote'] Very well put.
Trialbyfire Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 IMO, the most important form of compatibility are core values. If one is monogamous by nature and the other isn't, having to constantly fight temptation, you're asking for trouble down the road when the chips are down. Also, how do you view life? If one believes in victimhood and the other in personal responsibility, the two are going to have some issues. Actually, more like the latter personality type will have problems. The former will expect the latter to "take care of them".
Author Sam Spade Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 How is having similar interests equal to compatibility? It goes far deeper than that. I agree that it's not necessary to have similar interests, although it would be a benefit IMO. Compatibility still is necessary for me, though. but of course compatibility is necessary; the main point that that piece makes is simply that rather than "given", or a funciton of a bucket o'traits, comptibility is mostly a function of attitude/temperament conducive to proactively establishing compatibility; I.e. an action/willingness to be compatible.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 Yeah I have to agree with Elswyth, compatibility and common interests is not the same thing. Compatibility is does the person you are with challenge your mind, make you laugh, entertain you, keeps you on your toes and at the same time make you feel safe, adored, respected and like you have a true companion who is your team mate not just an opposing force. Compatibility can also come in the form of opposite qualities one brings into a relationship, like one person who has the ability to organize and stay focused while the other has the ability to inject some fun into the relationship to help the overachiever loosen up a bit and relax. These are all common compatibility issues that are sussed out early on, and what ultimately creates that "spark" that we all talk about. It is also charged with sexual chemistry. But one of the most basic compatibility issues for me at least is do I have FUN with this person generally speaking, do I look forward to spending time with them no matter what we are doing because I know we will have fun. I need to be challenged intellectually on some level to have fun and if that is not there we are definitely NOT compatible. Common interests can be fabricated and shared at any given point of the relationship, they can be created and we choose to have common interests or not compatibility cannot created it's either there or it isn't. A person who is attracted to someone outgoing and picks a mate who is very introverted and shy will not find what they are looking for in that mate no matter how much time they spend together. No, with all due respect, I fundamentally disagree. What you describe is the so called "chemistry", which is of course is nice, but per another quote that i mostly agree with is "that black box of a term too often invoked to denote the magic ingredient of a good relationship. Chemistry is an alluring concept, but much too frequently people use it to absolve themselves of the need to consciously examine their approach to one another." None of the things you describe (and there is nothing wrong with them), speak to fundamental values that would be the key to a stable relationship. (not to mention that there are plenty of cases where extrovert and an introvert do pair up succesfully etc.) There are many things (like the ones listed above) that I look for in a gf. But, when I ask my self how much of this is essential for my long term happiness, the whole list basically disappears and boils down to 2-3 things such as essential values/priorities, conflict resolution style, and good attitude. (everything else is bonus though).
Citizen Drawn Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Sam, the point you make over and over again isn't one that is flawed. However, just because a beaten up old car will get you from a to b doesn't actually mean you should buy one if you can afford something better.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 31, 2009 Author Posted July 31, 2009 Sam, the point you make over and over again isn't one that is flawed. However, just because a beaten up old car will get you from a to b doesn't actually mean you should buy one if you can afford something better. That's a good but incomplete analogy: I love (sic) my 10 year old (sic) car. I could easily afford a brand new one, but prefer a life without monthly car payments . Same thing with relationships - I could expend lots of additional energy (and money...) dating around and looking the years pass me by (i.e. time as well), just for the promise* of something marginally shinier, but essentially the same . *And here are the remaining problems with the analogy - it becomes easier to get a new car as you get older, and there is no uncertainty in whether you'd be able to get exactly the car you want as long you shell the cash. Finally, there are plenty of old cars that are more dependable than some brand new ones .
Touche Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 But, when I ask my self how much of this is essential for my long term happiness, the whole list basically disappears and boils down to 2-3 things such as essential values/priorities, conflict resolution style, and good attitude. (everything else is bonus though). I couldn't agree more. On a side note, I've noticed politic leanings are an important overall indicator of compatibility...not always but very often it really is. It often speaks of an overall philosophy and way of looking at things that spills over into child-rearing, finances, etc. Just thought I'd throw that out there. And I've talked a lot about the importance of temperament on here before. It's so crucial in my opinion as far as compatibility goes. I'm basically an optimist. It never worked out with me before when I was paired with a person who basically was a worrier and a gloom and doom type person (just to give an example.) Anyway, you said it all with the above. It's very, very true in my experience.
utterer of lies Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 But, when I ask my self how much of this is essential for my long term happiness, the whole list basically disappears and boils down to 2-3 things such as essential values/priorities, conflict resolution style, and good attitude. (everything else is bonus though). Well, there's sexual chemistry and compatibility, don't forget that. Without it, any R is doomed.
sumdude Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Well, there's sexual chemistry and compatibility, don't forget that. Without it, any R is doomed. True... yet how do you define it? How many R's start with amazing sexual chemistry and end in a war of who can be colder and don't touch me!? Obviously if it was never there than the R would probably have never blossomed anyway. I think there's a biological component to it.. pheromones etc I mean some women just smell sexy Then there's the physical component.. do you move well together. and the most important the psychological component.. the mind is the largest sex organ. and finally.. one which has been the demise of many a relationship, do you have at least similar sex drives. If they're too far apart eventually it becomes a problem.
Jimmy's_Brother Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 The most important aspect of whether or not two people are romantically compatible is their general demeanor. If he's laid-back, funny, and happy - and so is she - they're compatible. If he's high-strung, a workaholic, quick temper, but she's chill and relaxed - incompatible. NEVER ignore the difference or similarities in energy levels, demeanor and ambition.
vanilla87 Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Divorce isn't all bad. If nothing else, it makes singles considerably more cautious about getting married; people are waiting longer to tie the knot and, with the exception of the occasional fly-by-night, drunken Las Vegas betrothals, most folks do the best they can to ascertain whether their prospective mate is a good match. After all, compatibility is the name of the game, right? Well, truth be told, not exactly. Over the years, many reporters have asked what people considering marriage should know about their future partners in order to determine compatibility. That's a reasonable question. After all, it makes perfect sense that two people planning a life together should discuss major life decisions such as whether to have children or remain childless, how many children they want, where to live, religious beliefs, how free time should be spent, with whom they'll spend holidays, and so on. Many of life's disappointments may be avoided if people discover in advance of marriage that their expectations simply do not jive. However, I'm convinced that a false sense of security can come from believing that agreement on these issues or that having similar values, backgrounds, or even likes and dislikes can insure a happily-ever-after-marriage. It doesn't. Take as many compatibility quizzes as you like, Match.com-ers, these questionnaires won't offer a clue about what really makes marriages work. Why? Well, for a few reasons. To start with, what a person believes at one stage in life may be radically different from what she or he believes years later or with more of life's experiences under one's belt. In short, people change. If people think that their partners' attitudes and beliefs early in marriage will be the same when they turn forty or fifty, they may be in for a rude awakening and feel that they've been fooled by a bait-and-switch ploy. They haven't. Secondly, even if you have similar backgrounds and values, it doesn't necessarily mean that you will see things eye-to-eye on important issues. For example, many believe that being of the same faith is a prerequisite to having a successful marriage. I once worked with a very religious couple whose faith was the most important thing in their lives. However, they had major disagreements about how to practice their religion and eventually ended up divorcing. I remember reading a study listing several factors that placed marriages at risk of divorce such as having divorced parents, marrying at an early age, marriages where the woman had achieved a higher educational degree than the man, cohabitation prior to marriage, and so on. As I read the article, I quickly became aware that my husband of thirty-something years and I were poster children for marriages doomed to failure. (I hope he doesn't read the article.) So, is longevity in marriage simply the luck of the draw? Are loving, life partners just chosen randomly? Absolutely not. What then, accounts for marriages that survive the odds, marriages that last far beyond what compatibility quizzes, matchmakers, or even research predicts? The answer is simple. Both partners must agree about the importance of working out their differences in fair, constructive and loving ways. There must be a platform upon which both spouses feel safe sharing difficult feelings and knowing that their partners will really care, really listen and take their feelings into account, even if it isn't convenient. When both people know that their feelings matter, that it's more important to feel connected than to be right, love works. Naturally, this ideal sort of interaction doesn't happen each time conflict arises in relationships. After all, we're only human. But if, over the long haul, there is more caring than competition, marriages can survive virtually any kind of infraction, crisis or misfortune. If more people screened their partners for their willingness to learn and practice constructive conflict management skills, I feel certain I'd be selling fewer Divorce Busting books. And that would be a good thing. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/divorce-busting/200807/love-first-fight I feel this makes a better point when trying to decided about compatibility IMO. To make it work, you need to fight fair and in a caring manner. People get competitive and always try to be the right one in the argument. They tend to forget the love they have for one another and seem to get stubborn or closed minded about their views. I did like how they stated that even people who have religion as a top reason for marrying each other, if you don't practice the same way, you will not find that good of a common ground in the long run no matter how much you love each other, because you have to be open minded for it to work out for the better of the relationship. And the whole compatibility quiz stuff is true, its not the way to figure out 100% if your meant to be together. Even eHarmony is not always a good thing, that electronic match-maker. People change and 50 years from now if your married, you WILL have different opinions then the ones you have now, they may even contradict everything you believe right at this moment. So if your not flexible enough to believe that your opinions and views of life and/or values will change 50 years from now, your just getting hooked into a dream world is what they are trying to say to the reader. You need to open your mind and find someone just as open minded as you are, because your spouse will change too 50 years from now, and not just their looks too. I think thats why divorce is so high now. People are set in their ways and don't realize that when they said "I Do" to their spouse however long ago, that they were a different person because no one stays the same. If we did it would be very very boring 24/7. Change is apart of our evolution as human beings. Thats how we grow and make relationships grow as well. By trying to hold onto what was and not embracing what's now, you set yourself up to either be disappointed or regretting being married. Hopefully people will be open minded in the near future and be willing to let the change happen, because when you put on the rose colored glasses to adjust your world view of the relationship, you are just doing what the other 8,000 other failed marriages tried to do as well.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 31, 2009 Author Posted July 31, 2009 The most important aspect of whether or not two people are romantically compatible is their general demeanor. If he's laid-back, funny, and happy - and so is she - they're compatible. If he's high-strung, a workaholic, quick temper, but she's chill and relaxed - incompatible. NEVER ignore the difference or similarities in energy levels, demeanor and ambition. Yes, i think so, temperament is key. But (as a career driven, pretty ambitious guy) I'm not sure what exactly to think of ambition. Of course I wouldn't be interested in a girl without any amount of ambition whatsoever - like completing some sort of graduate degree, having her own career, etc. But that's a pretty barebones requirement (one can easily meet it by just going through the motions). Would I want the other extreme? The Christian Ananmour/Marina Vlady/ etc. types for example? While immediately exciting, the answer is probably not - I don't see how this could jive with a long term orderly family life. Which in turn can lead me to despise the orderly family life . That's one of my trickiest requirements - driven and ambitious enough to make her own money and not be a vegatable, but not so much so that it makes being somewhat traditional impossible .
Author Sam Spade Posted July 31, 2009 Author Posted July 31, 2009 The answer is simple. Both partners must agree about the importance of working out their differences in fair, constructive and loving ways. There must be a platform upon which both spouses feel safe sharing difficult feelings and knowing that their partners will really care, really listen and take their feelings into account, even if it isn't convenient. When both people know that their feelings matter, that it's more important to feel connected than to be right, love works. Agreed, dismissing/invalidating the perspective of the other is the single most poisonous thing that can happen to a relationship. Even if it happens just once, strong resentment can build over time and explode eventually. It's very hard to do (esp. the older you get) since people get so set in their ways and develop strong opinions about stuff.
Isolde Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 The most important aspect of whether or not two people are romantically compatible is their general demeanor. If he's laid-back, funny, and happy - and so is she - they're compatible. If he's high-strung, a workaholic, quick temper, but she's chill and relaxed - incompatible. NEVER ignore the difference or similarities in energy levels, demeanor and ambition. I disagree somewhat. Moderate differences in some areas of personality, if accepted by partners that are capable of compromise, are present in many successful relationships. I do agree that opposite personalities like the types you described above would be tricky though.
Recommended Posts