After I my last post, in which I responded to the common objection that early marriage means a higher likelihood of a poor match, some very interesting discussion arose in the comments regarding compatibility, chemistry, and commitment.
In my post, I basically argued that while compatibility (which I interchangeably referred to as “chemistry”) is nice in a relationship, it’s not essential, or at least not as important as sharing similar values and practices. But then some readers started to notice that my terms were a little fuzzy. For example, don’t shared values fall under the category of compatibility?
Chemistry.
It started when Hallie R. asked me what I meant by chemistry. She suggested defining it as “an ability to get along, in general, without trying too hard, the ability to ‘ignite’ things in each other – whether it be physically or in conversation.” This seems pretty key to a good relationship.
Then Michael Dundas asked whether compatibility and chemistry were the same thing, wondering whether you could have one but not the other in a relationship. Good question!
Sarah offered these distinctions:
I consider chemistry to be the lust factor. It’s what might initially draw you to someone in particular. It could be physical attraction, or perhaps it’s the way that person makes you feel. Whatever it is, it’s almost immediate.
Compatibility speaks to the long-term. Chemistry might wane over time or diminish completely — you could find yourself no longer as attracted or at all attracted to the other person. Compatibility is the ability to make a real go of things because it assumes shared values, priorities, life goals, etc. Of course there are couples who are perceived as incompatible (she votes liberal and he leans conservative), but who are compatible in other ways.
Michael and I seemed to agree that these were good distinctions, although Michael added that compatibility might also include “personality traits, opinions and beliefs that may be different [but] do not affect the feeling of one person towards the other.”
Finally, Kristin noted that while similar tastes may not play that important a role, having compatible temperaments is rather important for a successful relationship. I hadn’t even thought of that.
I wonder if there’s more to be said on the topic. So now I’m asking the rest of you: what do you think? How would you define compatibility and chemistry? Are they two different things, or are they the same? How important are they to a long-term relationship? What other things (traits, practices) are key to a strong, lasting marriage? Or has it all been covered already, and am I just dragging this on now?
I look forward to hearing from you!
Photo courtesy of Chemical Heritage Foundation
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I totally agree with Sarah’s definition. I think of chemistry as the initial ‘in love-ness’ of a relationship. I think that chemistry plays a part in long-term relationships as well, although, since it is largely a feeling, it will come and go. You may have months or even years when you don’t feel that spark…maybe due to having kids, illness, stress, gaining weight, or even just aging. That doesn’t mean it’s time to leave the marriage, or that you’re incompatible.
I think that compatibility is more important in the long term. I think compatibility is simply the willingness to work together on the relationship, making the effort to do what makes your spouse happy, even if you don’t agree or if it doesn’t come easy to you. I think being willing to put your partner first can overcome almost anything.
I completely agree with Sarah’s definition as well. Chemistry is that first ‘spark’, something that attracts you to another person. You can have chemistry with many people, and chemistry alone won’t make a marriage successful. I’d say that the amount of chemistry has little to nothing to do with the success of a marriage.
Compatibility is more important to contributing to a successful marriage, but I don’t think you absolutely have to have good compatibility with your partner in order to have a successful marriage. Compatibility, I would agree with Sarah on this as well, has to do with similar values and goals. It may also have to do with how you and your partner’s personalities interact with one another. Extremely compatible partners find it very easy to get along with one another and have similar ways of thinking about things. However, even if a couple is not very compatible, it does not mean the marriage will not work. A couple could hardly ever see eye-to-eye, always interpret what the other is saying in a different way than intended, yet still have a successful marriage.
I think a “good match” is simply enough love and care for another person that you are willing to always work at the relationship, no matter what obstacles may come; and that your partner is equally as committed to the relationship as you are.
Reading your previous post had me thinking about something I read on a different blog about ‘choosing’ whom to love. I was wondering if you thought there is that “one special person” for someone, or if it really is just a choice.
Amanda, I think you and I are on the same page here. One of my concerns with this whole issue of chemistry and compatibility is that people will obsess over the issue, worrying constantly that they are not “compatible” enough to marry the person they’re with or stay with the person they’re married to. While I find this discussion intriguing, and understand that it’s valuable to be compatible in certain respects, I still think it’s important to emphasize that a good relationship has more to do with choices you make than the personalities you’re born with.
To answer your question, I’m not completely convinced that there is some “Mr. or Mrs. Right” for every person, but rather than we make relationships work by choice, just as you suggest. Thanks for your thoughts!
For me chemistry is just one of the many aspects of compatibility. I don’t know if I buy the “29 dimensions of compatibility” advertised by e-harmony, but it do believe that compatibility has a bunch of facets, of which chemistry is one, and not one that I would rate the highest in terms of importance. Some of the things mentioned by Sarah are more important for sustaining a relationship in the long term, like common values and priorities, personalities that mesh, complimentary communication styles, etc.
In my marriage we’ve discovered that compatibility doesn’t always mean sameness. In some things it’s good that my wife and I are opposites and can compliment each other, filling in for each other’s weaknesses. In other things, such as values and spiritual life, it’s critical to have like-mindedness.
I can’t say I really understand what constitutes this thing we call chemistry. I think it’s part physiological, part attraction, part spiritual. I suppose there is some actual brain chemistry involved too. All I can say is that I’m glad my wife and I have it, and I’m simply amazed that it hasn’t faded after 27 years!
“Compatibility doesn’t always mean sameness” – good point!
I believe that compatibility and chemistry are two completely different things. There have been many people in my life that I was compatible with, but we shared no chemistry or vice versa.
I believe compatibility can be created but chemistry is organic. Chemistry is something that can change, grow or diminish over time, but it still is born from an organic place.
Interesting points made in this post and I loved reading all the comments.
I completely agree with Scott in that compatibility doesn’t always mean sameness, compatibility is working together, whether that means mirroring each other, or balancing each other out.
Amanda makes a great point that irregardless of compatibility or chemistry, “good match” is simply enough love and care for another person that you are willing to always work at the relationship.
Shannon – I like that: “Chemistry is organic…”. Nice way of putting it!
Shannon – your comment jogged another thought loose in my head. Compatibility is something you can work at to improve or enhance over time, with compromise, understanding and maturity. Chemistry is either there or not and I don’t think you have any control over it. Like you said. It’s organic.
Scott – you said ‘chemistry is either there or not and I don’t think you have any control over it’.
I agree to some extent, however I do think you can work to make the conditions right in order to foster it. For instance, if you are fighting a lot, or have drifted apart, you may not feel any chemistry. But if you work at the relationship and talk about your issues, you may find that chemistry returning.
I also think chemistry comes and goes over the course of a relationship. It’s obviously there at the beginning, and you’re right, I think that initial chemistry isn’t something you can force…it’s either there or it’s not. But further on in a marriage, you sometimes have to make the choice to work at chemistry.
I agree that Chemistry is immediate and I think a lot of research has been done on it so even Chemistry (dot) com has a lot of information regarding chemistry that’s legit.
My definition of Compatibility is different though. I don’t think of it so much as similar interests (that’s for friendship, and not everyone wants or needs to date a friend) as having complementary personalities.
Thanks for the shout-out, Kathleen
I like the thought of chemistry being organic.
For me, good relationships are made of a sequence of choices. I don’t know whether I believe that people are just “meant to be”; if a couple divorces or a relationship doesn’t work out, does that mean that each individual just picked the wrong person? It’s dangerous to entertain a conviction that suggests communication, effort and commitment are secondary or all together unimportant to the success of a relationship.