Compatibility.

[ZA Dater]

In a lot of respects this is a retrospective post for that I apologize. Am I wrong is equating compatibility to compromise? Is there really a distinction between the two.

Whilst feeling sorry for myself I pondered the meaning of compatibility and compromise. Do we as people learn about incompatibility by hitting our heads against the metaphorical wall and simply getting nowhere or do we cover that up with compromise and simply do so in order to get somewhere?

Sure,  logic would say someone who does not drink is not compatible with someone who drinks like a fish but could it also not be argued that if one compromised then they would be compatible? Or am I totally wrong?

I look around me and again maybe I wrong but I see compromise making up for incompatibility but then I wonder what would actually make people compromise, what would the thought process be? I mean sure, instead of doing ABC on a Saturday morning, they do XYZ with their partner  but in the grand scheme of things how much does that compromise actually matter. What I am saying does compromise actually play any role at all in attraction? 

Again probably subjective.

My own experiences suggest no amount of compromise will matter if there is no attraction but again my own life experiences count for very little when I sit back and look at the absolute nothing I accomplished.

[basil67]

2 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

Sure,  logic would say someone who does not drink is not compatible with someone who drinks like a fish but could it also not be argued that if one compromised then they would be compatible? Or am I totally wrong?

As it so happens, when I met my husband he drank like a fish and I didn't drink much at all.  His drinking caused me concern as he'd sometimes end up in unsafe situations, so I told him I was uncomfortable and he compromised by significantly slowing down.  

Also, he said he wanted children and I hadn't wanted them.  I realised that I would have to think long and hard about my stance because I didn't want to lose him. After a while, I realised that my desire to not have kids was formed when I was with my ex-h who would not have been a great father, whereas my husband would be a great father.  So in the end I decided that I would be open to kids with a guy who was good husband/father material.   We now have two kids and I've never regretted it.  

But to answer your question about the compatibility/compromise conundrum:: people form a relationship when they are already broadly compatible and the compromise is simply about fine tuning.   Of course, both parties need to communicate when there is problem which needs to be addressed with compromise

Edited December 8, 2022 by basil67

[Alpacalia]

Quite an interesting subject.

A compromise, to me, is seeking alignment with another person by saying, "I'm willing to take a little pain for you, and you're willing to take a little pain for me". Sounds wrong, doesn't it? I can't say if that is the right answer for your question, so I don't know if that's it. In its broadest sense, compromise is a way to resolve a disagreement or conflict by making reasonable concessions on both sides.

A large part of the problem with that is that unfortunately, a large number of people who suffer from, say for example, a traumatic experience around consideration and accommodation are not aware of how much damage compromise is actually doing to them until the damage is already done.

There is also the problem of subconsciously being inclined to act in ways that are incompatible with the values he or she holds to be true in the way that they need to.

Compatibility, on the other hand, is when two things are able to exist or occur in harmony with one another without any problems or conflicts, even if they are totally different in function or nature. Having well-matched characteristics means the couple is in harmony and they both have the right qualities to live happily together.

Creating harmony is not difficult when we are a good fit ("compatible") with the people around us.

It's a nice topic! Thank you for sharing!

[NuevoYorko]

6 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

In a lot of respects this is a retrospective post for that I apologize. Am I wrong is equating compatibility to compromise? Is there really a distinction between the two.

Yes there is a distinction between the two words, look them up in the dictionary for that.

If you are living in a close relationship with another person,  you should be compatible or else you'll be miserable.  If you are not basically compatible, it's better to step away without too much investment.  

 When you are living in a close relationship with another person, compromise is required in order to have a harmonious existence.  That is absolute.  Every successful interpersonal relationship, including friendships, business partnerships, creative collaborations,  governing bodies, BOD's  depend intrinsically upon compromise.   

[introverted1]

Compatibility goes to core values and personality traits, imo.  It is necessary to be aligned on whether to have children, how to handle finances, lifestyle, and similar things. 

Compromise is needed for smaller details within compatibility.  For instance, you might both agree that having a clean house is important, but one of you has more tolerance for clutter than the others, so you compromise on how much and in which rooms.  Or you agree fundamentally on the importance of extended family but you compromise by taking turns about where you'll spend important holidays. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by introverted1

[Els]

It's a lot more nuanced than that; compatibility is a spectrum. On one extreme, there are some people who are so immensely incompatible that no amount of compromise would possibly result in a workable situation for them, and on the other extreme there are a few people who are so compatible that they rarely have to compromise. Most of us fall in the middle of the spectrum, although I daresay that most happy, healthy LTRs fall closer to the latter than the former.

I don't know if you've ever had an LTR, but if you have, you'd realize that compromise can be exhausting. It's one thing to compromise on a few things now and then, another thing entirely to compromise on almost every aspect of your life (i.e. too much of it), or to compromise on certain things that matter very much to you but you and your partner have polar opposite, irreconciliable views on (i.e. on core issues).

Personally, I have a few non-negotiables that I will not do for anyone and I will never accept in my partner, and those few things are basically set in stone. On the other hand, I can and do compromise on a few minor things with H.

[smackie9]

It all depends on what it is, how important that thing is to you, and if it's a dealbreaker. Know your list and stick with it. To compromise on things is figured out as you go along. It's all about what you can live with, but only if it's a healthy choice, and not damaging to your relationship.

 

[NuevoYorko]

In fact, people who have successful relationships have established how to compromise with each other.  There is no such thing as people who are exactly alike.   This is how we do it:  If there is a decision to be made, and we are not completely aligned on the choices, we each bring our list of options to the table.  We've given a lot of consideration to our options.  At that point, we look for any options in common, and that is the "winner."  It might be my first choice and her 4th choice but we both selected it so ...

Of course we are very compatible and have similar likes and dislikes so much of the time we both want to do or buy the same thing and nobody is compromising.

Also there are times when a person will do something they really don't like because it will make their partner happy.  That's serious compromising but also a way of showing love. 

[BaileyB]

15 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

In fact, people who have successful relationships have established how to compromise with each other.  There is no such thing as people who are exactly alike. 

Very true.

15 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

Also there are times when a person will do something they really don't like because it will make their partner happy.  That's serious compromising but also a way of showing love. 

That’s also the beauty of a good relationship. Sometimes, I give so that he can get what he wants… other times, he gives so that I get what I want. I just built a home with my partner - when I look around the house, I can see things that he chose because they were important to him and other things that I chose because they were important to me. We didn’t always agree but we compromised (a lot) and it worked out! 

Relationships are always negotiated. What NuevoYorko has described above is essentially the process of conflict resolution - let’s try to find some common ground where we both agree. 

We could be very compatible but not necessarily agree on which painting we want to hang on the wall in the living room or whether we should spend Christmas with family or stay home to spend the holiday by ourselves… We negotiate and hopefully find a solution that is amenable to both people. But usually, one person gets a little more of what they want than the other - but that’s ok, because in another discussion it will go the other way…

Edited December 11, 2022 by BaileyB

[Foxhall]

On 12/8/2022 at 9:29 AM, ZA Dater said:

Sure,  logic would say someone who does not drink is not compatible with someone who drinks like a fish but could it also not be argued that if one compromised then they would be compatible?

I think slight opposites can be definitely good together,  but maybe extreme differences such as indicated here are not such a good match.

In reality I feel you would be most compatible with a quieter girl, who that being said has still a bit of spark about her,

There are plenty of these around although it may not always seem that way

keep putting yourself out there I suppose is all you can do and hope your patience will be eventually rewarded,

I have found that compatibility comes from being comfortable with a person, if you establish that you are at a good starting point and build from there.

 

[ZA Dater]

Really interesting view points here! 

Simplistically one would need to find some a balance between being compatible and compromise. I am walking back most of my experiences over the two decades and this is the recurring theme. Maybe there comes a point where the compromise is not worth it and leads to someone being incompatible with another.

Maybe this is where the "work" happens, the give and take but I still maintain there needs to be some sort of foundation to work from.

Where I think fundamental problems arise is when a person is not very marketable and thus not compatible with the very ethos of dating. Someone who is not overly emotional will struggle in that market.

Maybe I am wrong.

[glows]

On 12/8/2022 at 8:41 AM, introverted1 said:

Compatibility goes to core values and personality traits, imo.  It is necessary to be aligned on whether to have children, how to handle finances, lifestyle, and similar things. 

Compromise is needed for smaller details within compatibility.  For instance, you might both agree that having a clean house is important, but one of you has more tolerance for clutter than the others, so you compromise on how much and in which rooms.  Or you agree fundamentally on the importance of extended family but you compromise by taking turns about where you'll spend important holidays. 

Yes, I agree. I’ve seen it this way as well.

Core values usually aren’t compromised on. This is the foundation of a longer lasting relationship.

Also, ZA, there are varying degrees of emotional and all within reason for specific situations. There are some universal traits that are seen as positive (not to all perhaps but many). Being able to communicate well, adventurous, empathetic or open minded are usually seen as positive traits as people bond or know one another. You don’t want barriers to knowing someone otherwise it makes the point of being in a relationship moot.

[Alpacalia]

Thinking about this some more.

A win-win scenario is a scenario that is a genuine “yes” for both parties.

It is not a case where I would be willing to concede and be in some level of pain for your sake and expect to be treated the same way in return. It is easy to tell when you have come up with a win-win when you both feel as if you have come up with a good deal and not as though we each had to sacrifice something important to meet some middle point which makes no one feel happy.

Each compromise involves a sacrifice. So the tricky part is that it can be a recipe for resentment.

If we make certain concessions, or sacrifices, we may expect payback or reward later (usually subconsciously). In a situation like this, it turns into a "I did this for you back then, so I need you to do it for me now" kind of situation. The issue with this in the sense that if that reward or payback does not materialize then we may grow resentful if it does not materialize.

Resentment is one of the most corrosive forces there can be. In spite of the benefits of compromise and for all its good and glory, it can also be a bit of a ticking time bomb waiting to explode at any given moment.

  

[Lotsgoingon]

There are many people who just should not be couples no matter how willing they are to compromise. People cannot compromise everything. They are not sufficiently compatible to use your language. Some things you cannot compromise on--I mean due to our individual quirks. 

There is a different way of thinking that goes beyond compatible. We can go wholistic. Good romantic partners form a great team. The whole of us as a team far exceeds the sum of our individual selves. Translation: in a great partnership, 1 + 1 = 7 or  1+1 =11. 

Yes, there are compromises people have to make in all relationships, but it's much easier to do so when you and your partner form a great team because the team has so many bonuses that outweigh the compromises. 

[ZA Dater]

2 hours ago, Lotsgoingon said:

There are many people who just should not be couples no matter how willing they are to compromise. People cannot compromise everything. They are not sufficiently compatible to use your language. Some things you cannot compromise on--I mean due to our individual quirks. 

There is a different way of thinking that goes beyond compatible. We can go wholistic. Good romantic partners form a great team. The whole of us as a team far exceeds the sum of our individual selves. Translation: in a great partnership, 1 + 1 = 7 or  1+1 =11. 

Yes, there are compromises people have to make in all relationships, but it's much easier to do so when you and your partner form a great team because the team has so many bonuses that outweigh the compromises. 

This is a really interesting post. I have always taken much the similar team view but I do question whether it can actually work in reality as it would seem to in theory. Do you think people sometimes over compromise for various reasons?

[basil67]

39 minutes ago, ZA Dater said:

This is a really interesting post. I have always taken much the similar team view but I do question whether it can actually work in reality as it would seem to in theory. Do you think people sometimes over compromise for various reasons?

It does work in reality because all solid couples do it to keep each other's needs met

And yes, some people over compromise - we see it here all the time.   Basically, if one compromises so much that they are miserable or aren't getting their own needs met, then it's over compromise.   I can understand this slowly happening over a long term when a person is trying to hold their marriage vows/family together, but I don't understand why people do it in a young relationship.  I hope someone who's read more on this topic than me will enlighten us 

[Lotsgoingon]

Ditto @basil67: yes lots of people compromise too much.

But there is a limit. People build up resentments when they over compromise over long periods.

And yes, I think lots of people in couples feel like their relationship is a great team. 

 

[ZA Dater]

12 hours ago, basil67 said:

It does work in reality because all solid couples do it to keep each other's needs met

And yes, some people over compromise - we see it here all the time.   Basically, if one compromises so much that they are miserable or aren't getting their own needs met, then it's over compromise.   I can understand this slowly happening over a long term when a person is trying to hold their marriage vows/family together, but I don't understand why people do it in a young relationship.  I hope someone who's read more on this topic than me will enlighten us 

Following on from this. Do you think in say a bar scenario, party scenario, book shop and to be fairly inclusive OLD scenario that people consider compatibility from the outset or does initial attraction mean more than compatibility?

When I was in this game, I used to look  at compatibility first, my view was its irrelevant finding someone attractive if there is no common ground/possible compatibility. I think guys who get the ONS thing right simply let attraction trump all else but equally I wonder how many of those encounters statistically lead to any sort of relationship?

As you may have guessed I have been thinking a lot and trying to retrospectively put some sense into years of searching, to which I have now closed the book. 

Maybe its wrong to equate attractiveness to the ability of someone to compromise, I am guilty of this, I'd compromise a lot more for someone I found attractive which I guess is wrong.

[basil67]

OLD wasn't a thing when I was last single, but as it so happens, I met my partner at a party.   The first thing which caught me was the ease of conversation. The second thing which caught me was the sexual attraction which swiftly followed the fun conversation.   Then when we formed a relationship, we dealt with the compatibility/compromise stuff as it came up.       

As it so happens, there is stuff he and I have in common, but there's a lot we don't have in common and it's still fine.  He's extrovert, I'm introvert.  We're both bookish.  He's sporty but if you throw a ball at me, I'll duck.  And I can't run to save my life.   I'm artistic/creative but he's not in the slightest.  I cook meals, he bakes.  He's a techo and I'm a stay at home mum.  We both love the beach and body surfing.  He's a mad skier and I learned to cautiously enjoy it.  Our politics are similar as are our morals and ethics and views on child rearing.  

In short, initial cerebral attraction was my lead, sexual was second and considerations of compatibility came later.   Of course, had he been a poor conversationalist, it would never have gotten off the ground.  Immediate physical attraction has never been part of the equation for me choosing to date someone or compromise.

Edited December 13, 2022 by basil67

[Weezy1973]

2 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

that people consider compatibility from the outset or does initial attraction mean more than compatibility?

In those scenarios it would pretty much always be attraction first. How could it not be? It takes a lot of time to see someone’s core values. 

[BaileyB]

4 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

Do you think in say a bar scenario, party scenario, book shop and to be fairly inclusive OLD scenario that people consider compatibility from the outset or does initial attraction mean more than compatibility?

Compatibility is attractive. Physical attraction may get you in the door, but compatibility is what the relationship is really built in…

I remember meeting my partner at a party as well… I didn’t think he was particularly physically attractive. But as we talked, we both realized we had so much in common. The conversation was easy. He was kind and funny. That is what attracted me - a nice guy who is fun to talk with with whom I have a lot in common… I remember as the evening went on looking at him thinking, I guess he is kind of attractive… I don’t know, is he attractive? The physical and sexual attraction definitely grew as I got to know him and the relationship progressed - it certainly wasn’t my first draw. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by BaileyB

[ZA Dater]

Really interesting responses! Interesting that divergent views but it's interesting that compatibility does feature but equally so the importance of communication. In some instance it would seem it's really a case of having a bit of communication, compatibility and attraction.

I suppose the question is do people look long term compatibility or short term and then refine over time?

It's interesting to look back at interactions, be it in person or OLD and put a lot of this thought process.

As I say today has been a bad day mostly so it's been an introspective day. Do any of you ever try and determine how compatible you are and if there are people you may be more compatible with? Following on from that do you ever feel you degree of compatibility does not generally match the people you find attractive?

[Els]

7 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

Maybe its wrong to equate attractiveness to the ability of someone to compromise, I am guilty of this, I'd compromise a lot more for someone I found attractive which I guess is wrong.

These things (attraction, compatibility, and ability to compromise with one's partner) are all separate issues, and my opinion is that we need ALL of them, to a reasonable degree, to maintain a happy and healthy LTR.

I'm sure it's normal to be more prone to over-compromising when you are infatuated with someone due to attraction. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in the long term once the honeymoon period is over.

[ZA Dater]

15 hours ago, Elswyth said:

These things (attraction, compatibility, and ability to compromise with one's partner) are all separate issues, and my opinion is that we need ALL of them, to a reasonable degree, to maintain a happy and healthy LTR.

I'm sure it's normal to be more prone to over-compromising when you are infatuated with someone due to attraction. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in the long term once the honeymoon period is over.

Perhaps this is one of the many challenges! Maybe I am being stupid but I do not think that people can become compatible if they are too incompatible to begin with, there is only so much ground to give. I think its also maybe true to say, with time the inclination to compromise becomes less if one is looking for a relationship. Lets be honest I think  everyone has their list of what they would like in a partner.

[NuevoYorko]

12 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

Perhaps this is one of the many challenges! Maybe I am being stupid but I do not think that people can become compatible if they are too incompatible to begin with, there is only so much ground to give. I think its also maybe true to say, with time the inclination to compromise becomes less if one is looking for a relationship. Lets be honest I think  everyone has their list of what they would like in a partner.

You are talking about something different than the rest of the people here are.

Of course compatibility has to be in place for a successful relationship.   Most people select each other based on compatibility.  They might initially be attracted to looks or other superficial qualities but true compatibility - you know it when you experience it.   

I think that you have "compatibility"  conflated with  "compromise."    Throughout your myriad posts here, we've all been acquainted with your insistence that you are only attracted to "10's" and you aren't interested in dating people to whom you're not attracted.  But the "10's" aren't attracted to you.

So you're thinking about compromise as in:  maybe you'll need to compromise and accept a mere "8" or even (gross) a "7."   That is more like "settling."  

That's not what is generally being discussed here.  Most of us are talking about already being with a person and how compromise plays a role in the long term relationship.   

I've said it dozens of times and I will say it again - just because a woman is not pin-up material physically or the most bubbly personality in the room at a party does not mean that you'd be downgrading to get to know her.   You'd have to be interested enough.  For some reason, though I thing you were hanging around with your ex for a few months before it happened, in that case you managed to explore a person who didn't resemble a supermodel and ended up really liking her.   

That was NOT "compromising."  It was simply being more open / less rigid than usual for you.  The compromising probably came along in different ways, like you agreeing to go somewhere with her and her friends when you didn't feel like doing it.  That would be considered a compromise for the good of the relationship and as a loving gesture to your partner.