It is sometimes said that opposites attract, but is “being
opposite” really a useful standard for determining compatibility in intimate,
interpersonal relationships such as marriages, partnerships, and
companionships?
Like most clichés this popular belief is overgeneralized and
can be misleading, even dangerous. This is because the attraction between
opposites can sometimes be a telltale sign of dysfunction. A dysfunctional
relationship is one that does not support cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
adjustment among its participants. For example, dependent individuals may be
attracted to other individuals who enable or encourage helplessness or
dependence.
Similarly, a person who is passive and another who is
dominant may seem like a match. The passive individual may even seek out a
dominant partner. However, in some such cases, this is a condition of an
oppressive relationship. The powerful one may treat the passive one like a
doormat. Indeed, the classic case of an abusive relationship where the
recipient of the abuse has a “victim mentality” is a case in which one
individual is dominant (the perpetrator) and the other passive (the victim).
Indeed, it is no accident that many who harbor victim mentalities come out of
abusive relationships only to enter into another such relationship.
This isn’t to say that all relationships arising from
opposites attracting are dysfunctional. For example, some who are quiet and
reserved may look for mates who are boisterous and extroverted and the
relationship may (or may not) be functional. However, it is not because the
relationship is between opposites that makes it compatible. Rather, there are
more fundamental personality attributes that can make a couple compatible.
So what really makes
couples compatible?
As a preliminary to answering this question, the concept of
compatibility itself needs some clarification. First, in the sense in which
this question is posed here, the concept of compatibility is that of functional
compatibility in contrast to the dysfunctional relationships briefly discussed
above. Indeed, most people who want to know if they are compatible with their
mates want to know if they are functionally compatible.
Second, compatibility is not all-or-nothing; rather, it
admits of degrees on a continuum from incompatible to highly compatible. Thus
you can be more or less compatible with your mate. So, the question addressed
here is not merely whether you are compatible but instead how compatible. The
degree to which you and your significant other are compatible depends on
several variable that are discussed below.
Do you and your
significant other share basic values?
Functional compatibility is increased to the extent that the
couple shares basic values. A basic value is a value from which the other
values in your belief system are derived, but which are not themselves derived
from any further values. For example, the belief that it is (or tend to be) wrong
to steal is a basic (moral) value for most people. From this value many other
derivative values follow such as the wrongfulness of white collar crime. Thus
it is not likely that a couple will be functionally compatible if one party to
the relationship holds such a basic value while the other is a thief.
Because religious values can also be basic values, there can
be genuine incompatibility between individuals who, from very strict
fundamentalist religious values, derive many of their derivative values (e.g.,
no use of birth control, traditional gender roles, strict dress code, keeping
the Sabbath, etc.) and individuals who do not share the same basic values. For
example, an atheist is not likely to get along well with a strongly religious
person.
So, there needs to be at least some core basic values that
hold the relationship together. If not, there is likely to be little, if any,
functional compatibility.
How other-regarding
are you and your significant other?
Two people who are ego-centered are not likely to get along.
An ego-centered person is one who believes that what he or she wants, desires,
prefers, values, or believes is good, right, and true; and therefore, that
others should share the same subjective states as he or she does. If one
individual is ego-centered while the other is not, there is a greater chance
that the relationship will last but it is not likely to be a very functional
relationship. This is because, sooner or later, even very tolerant people tend
to become wary of constantly appeasing a self-centered person. In some cases,
this tolerance can turn to the dysfunction of mindlessly adopting the values,
preferences, and beliefs of the ego-centered mate as a coping mechanism. This,
however, is the height of dysfunction.
Do you and your
significant other complement each other intellectually?
What is important here is that both individuals have an
ability to comprehend ideas, issues, and problems that arise in the course of
ordinary life in a reasonable and thoughtful manner. This does not mean that
you must have the same IQ, that is, ability to solve problems. It rather means
that there is potential to share insight and perspective in a mutually
enlightening way so that the exchange of ideas flows in two, not just one
direction, and both parties benefit. Two people in such a functionally
compatible relationship can also be intellectually oriented in different ways.
Thus one may be better in the sciences while another in the arts. In fact, such
contrasting orientations can mutually enhance the relationship by making things
more interesting and instructive for both parties.
On the other hand, there are some ego-centered kinds of
people who are drawn to mates whom they perceive to be unintelligent. In some
cases this is a means of maintaining dominance and control in the relationship.
The well educated male professional who looks for a “trophy wife” is an
example. But this kind of relationship is dysfunctional because the weakness of
one person in the relationship is exploited for the perceived benefit of the
other. In reality, neither party to the relationship benefits because the
dominant figure forfeits the opportunity to have a partner from whom he or she
can learn; and the less intelligent partner is not provided with the
opportunity to be nurtured cognitively—including helping to foster a stronger
self-concept.
Do you share
interests?
While compatible couples do not need to share all interests,
they should share at least some interests. Other things being equal, couples
who have little or no interests in common are likely to be less compatible than
ones who have some significant common interests. Here, “significant” refers to
interests that provide frequent occasions for engaging in mutually rewarding
activities. Thus, a couple who has a common passion for music (and can find
common ground on the genre) can increase compatibility through engaging in
music-related activities (such as concert going, jamming, listening, etc.).
Are your temperaments
compatible?
Are you both high strung? This can lead to a very turbulent
relationship although not necessarily an incompatible one, so long as the other
criteria are appreciably met. If one party to a relationship is extremely
anxious or obsessive-compulsive, this can place a serious strain on the
relationship and lead to significant loss of functional compatibility.
A couple will be more compatible when the two parties are
more disposed to managing disagreements rationally and talking things through
rather than engaging in name-calling or other self-defeating and irrational
tactics. Many relationship problems stem from such poor emotional and
behavioral management skills. Thus, functional compatibility can be improved
through working on such coping skills within the context of the relationship.
Couples counseling can be geared largely toward increasing such compatibility
through the teaching of such relationship skills.
Do you relate to each
other authentically?
It is not uncommon to learn that a relationship, which
seemed “ideal,” has come to an end. In fact, there really aren’t any ideal
relationships and ones that seem to be so are generally too good to be true.
Relationships are imperfect because human beings are imperfect. Beneath the
veneer of perfection there is often a reality that lacks congruence with the
outer façade. The essence of such inauthenticity is the breakdown of meaningful
communication.
On the one extreme are relationships where there is too much
communication, albeit of an unnecessary nature. In this sort of relationship
parties are indiscrete in how they speak and act to one another. This includes
couples who are inconsiderate of each other’s personal space and feelings, who
speak out of turn, provide too much information (“chewing off the ear” of the
other), who are insulting or indiscreetly honest. On the other hand, there are
relationships where there is not nearly enough constructive communication. In
these, the parties rarely if ever argue or disagree, or disclose what they really
think or feel.
Somewhere in the middle lies the Aristotelian mean, which is
the province of an authentic relationship. In this sort of relationship the
parties do not wear masks that hide their true thoughts or feelings. They feel
comfortable disclosing to one another and are disposed to discreetly and
considerately level with one another. Thus, expressing one’s dissatisfaction
with the other’s words or deeds does not need to include finger pointing,
blaming, reprimanding, degrading, or punishing. Such ease of constructive
communication is a core component of highly functionally compatible
relationships. It is never perfect, but it avoids the extremes of
dysfunctional, incompatible relationships.
Are you attracted to
each other?
It is not likely that your relationship will flourish if you
do not like each other. Here, being "attracted" means that you enjoy
spending time with the other and look forward to it. There may be a certain
mannerism that you like—the way he or she smiles, the tone of voice, the facial
expressions. This is psychological attraction but it shades into the physical.
You may find the other person to be handsome, beautiful, or sexy. There is no
formula for such “chemistry” but it is no myth that the lack of such chemistry
is a strong indicator that the relationship will not be a very functionally
compatible one.
This does not mean that sexual attraction is the only form
of chemistry. Indeed, many people have strong companionships where they enjoy
being with each other even though there is not necessarily a sexual component
to their relationship. While sexual attraction tends to bring people together
it does not necessarily hold a relationship together. In fact, relationships
based primarily on sexual attraction tend to be short-lived.
Sexual activity can play an important role in marriages and
partnerships, however. It can provide a way of expressing unity with the other.
Indeed, the sex can provide a vitalizing and unifying aspect of a relationship.
Social psychologist Erich Fromm succinctly expressed this in his classic work,
The Sane Society. “Erotic love," said Fromm, "begins with
separateness and ends with oneness.” Such sexual relating is giving as well as
receiving. It vacillates between self-gratification and gratification of the
other. This kind of sex is not to be confused with the purely self-interested
desire for sexual stimulation. The latter could equally be fulfilled through
masturbation. On the other hand, unifying sexual activity, where there is both
giving and receiving, can promote highly functionally compatible relationships.
It is this form of sexual relating that can be properly called “making love”
because it is an expression of love and solidarity with the other (see also my
blog on “How Good are You at Loving?”).
As you can see, figuring out how compatible you are with
your significant other is a complex question. Nevertheless, using the standards
I have provided here, you can come to a clearer understanding about how
compatible you are. Accordingly, utilizing these standards, you are invited to
take the below compatibility inventory.
FUNCTIONAL
COMPATIBILITY INVENTORY
RANKING KEY: 0 = Incompatible | 1 = weak | 2 = Average | 3 =
Strong | 4 = Very Strong
1.) Do you and your significant other share basic values?
_____ (enter ranking)
2.) Do you and your significant other complement each other
intellectually? ______
3.) Do you share interests? ______
4.) Are your temperaments compatible? ______
5.) Do you relate to each other authentically? ______
6.) Are you attracted to each other? ______
Overall Total (add up rankings) ______
Final Average (divide Overall Total by 6) _____
For example, if your give standards 1-6 the following
rankings respectively, 2, 4, 3, 1, 4, 3, then your overall total would be 17
(2+4+3+1+4+3 = 17) and your Final Average would be 2.83 (17 / 6 = 2.83). This
would put your functional compatibility ratio in the high average range.
Can you increase your functional compatibility ratio?
Yes! For example, you can cultivate more shared interests,
work on your temperaments, and work on communicating more authentically.
About Author
Elliot D. Cohen (Ph.D. Brown University) is
President of the Institute of Critical Thinking and one of the principal
founders of philosophical counseling in the United States. He is founder and
editor of International Journal of Applied Philosophy and International
Journal of Philosophical Practice, ethics editor ofFree Inquiry Magazine,
and co-founder and Executive Director of the National Philosophical Counseling
Association (NPCA). Author of twenty one books and numerous articles in
philosophical counseling, applied philosophy, and professional ethics, his
books include, The Dutiful Worrier: How to Stop Compulsive Worry
without Feeling Guilty (New Harbinger), The New Rational
Therapy: Thinking Your Way to Serenity, Success, and Profound Happiness (Prometheus), What
Would Aristotle Do? Self-Control through the Power of Reason (Prometheus), The
Virtuous Therapist: Ethical Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy (with
Gale Cohen) (Wadsworth),Philosophers at Work: Issues and Practice of
Philosophy (Wadsworth), Caution: Faulty Thinking Can Be
Harmful to Your Happiness (Trace-Wilco).