Conversations with Robert: What is Compatibility?
Authors: Demcenko, Z., & Hawkins, R.L.Lately, I've found myself asking not just who am I choosing as a partner, but how am I choosing a partner. This question sparked my curiosity in exploring what makes people compatible life partners. As my friends asked me what I liked about the people I’m dating, I would rattle off, “well he likes the same music as me, and he reads books, and wants to get married and have kids, and well I guess he’s nice to me and I enjoy spending time together.” Although the things I listed are perfectly reasonable qualities to want in a relationship, I found myself dissatisfied by my answers, thinking, “is that all it really takes for me to choose someone?” It felt like an underdeveloped way to assess compatibility. Even more so, I worried I wasn’t aware of unconscious patterns that would attract me to a partner that played on my attachment wounds. I wanted to be more specific and thoughtful about my decision-making process.
What is Compatibility?
As I was retelling my frustration with my experiences to Robert (my friend, mentor, and colleague), we began discussing how a couple’s worldview must be compatible. Essentially we framed compatibility as the willingness to engage in open-minded communication, make compromises, and grow together, rather than simply aligning on surface-level qualities or shared interests. Robert stated, “compatibility is determining whether your reasoning, values, personality traits (i.e. agreeableness, openness, etc) align. Ultimately your worldview must be similar.”
It can be easy to fall into the trap of viewing compatibility through the lens of similarity. For example, if Person A and Person B both take their coffee black, listen to NPR, and drive hybrid cars, you might assume they’d be a good match. From a reductionist perspective, we might conclude these two people won’t clash as they merge their lives because with this level of overlapping specificity in their interests they’ll likely continue to think, feel, and operate in the same way in other life domains. This might lead to the belief that they’ll avoid experiencing the number one predictor of divorce—contempt, according to relationship researchers John and Julie Gottman. Robert pointed out this is a logical fallacy, “if we are the same here, we will be the same there. It’s all-or-nothing thinking.”
Breaking Down The Components of Compatibility
Existence, all its moving parts, ambiguity, and fears, can lead us to feel fairly overwhelmed when it comes to trying to thoughtfully slow down enough to analyze the nuances of compatibility. We tend to use heuristics to manage life and, in many cases, assess romantic compatibility, such as the one described above with Person A and Person B. To better understand compatibility, we broke it down into three categories: behavior, logic, and worldview.
Behavior: We typically look at behaviors, which are outcomes of our logic and worldview, as determinants of compatibility. In the example above, both people arrived at the same conclusions, but we have no information about what reasons or values led them to make the decision to drink black coffee, listen to NPR, or drive hybrid cars. Unfortunately, if we make assumptions based on observed behaviors/outcomes, we might be falsely led to believe these two people are compatible. Perhaps we might think, they’re both liberals who care about staying informed and are conscientious about the environment.
Logic: Exploring one’s logic in the decision making-process can allow us to assess compatibility without the false pretenses of making self-centered judgments based on observed behaviors/outcomes. Let’s say Person A drives a hybrid because they care about the environment and Person B drives a hybrid because they inherited it from their parents and didn’t want to spend their own money on a different car. These two people have different reasons for driving the same car, and while the difference in logic doesn’t make them inherently incompatible, we can begin to see how they diverge. These differences can actually be a really great thing because unique thoughts/ideas can be exchanged between Person A and Person B, leading to interesting conversations, mutual appreciation, and expanded perspectives.
Worldview: Here’s what really matters. Worldview encompasses one’s values and informs the logic we use to come to certain decisions.
Potentially Compatible Views: In this scenario, Person A and Person B might discover they are compatible in their views regarding the environment, efficiency, finances, politics, etc. They’re both liberals who believe in reducing their carbon footprint because they care about the future of the Earth and want to do what’s in their control to leave a viable environment for their children.
Potentially Incompatible Views: In this scenario, Person A drives a hybrid car because they are a liberal who believes in reducing their carbon footprint because they care about the future of the Earth and want to do what’s in their control to leave a viable environment for their children. Person B drives a hybrid car because they are saving up to buy their dream car, a Bugatti, so they can impress people at the golf court. Person B’s underlying values are quite different— and they may even hold opposing political views, financial priorities, and family plans.
Differing Interests, Shared Values – A Recipe for Compatibility
Although similarities can create a sense of ease, they don’t guarantee that two people will effectively navigate the complexities of a long-term relationship. Compatibility isn’t just about agreeing on what to eat or how to spend free time; it’s about how individuals communicate, resolve conflicts, and grow together over time. My therapist once said, “No one really wants to date themselves.” The differences in our interests, work, personality, and attachments aren’t just what make relationships exciting; they also offer a chance to break free from our own limiting patterns. It would be so boring to date carbon copies of ourselves.
Here’s what compatibility might look like when Person X and Person Y hold different interests. Person X might be more spontaneous and Person Y more structured, but if both value compromise, understanding, and adaptability, they can find a rhythm that works for them. It’s not about being the same—it’s about having shared principles that allow them to navigate the bumps that might arise from their differences. “I’ll bend a little your way, and I’ll bend a little your way.” We could even find there is an exchange of strengths and an opportunity for challenge based on such differences that could lead to each person’s growth.
Differences are part of what makes relationships interesting, but we do have to know our dealbreakers. For example, differing music preferences might not be a big deal because both people agree it's not a dealbreaker, so it's compatible. However, if one person cannot accept the difference and decides it is a dealbreaker, the differing preference becomes an incompatibility.
Additionally, the state of existence is not inert and therefore we must anticipate that we ourselves, our partner(s), and our world will be ever evolving, leading to the question of “are we compatible enough that we will stay committed to working through these changes and celebrate our differences as partners?”
How does Uncertainty Play a Role in Clouding Our Understanding of Compatibility?
Uncertainty can be quite the mood killer—unless you learn how to tolerate it. Relationship anxiety, broadly defined as a worry about whether you and/or your partner are 'enough,' often manifests as overanalyzing dynamics, idiosyncrasies, and other qualities. In the pursuit of finding the 'right one,' an intolerance of uncertainty, coupled with the desire for a perfect relationship, can drive a wedge between you and potential partners.
Tolerating uncertainty is embracing the notion that ambiguity is a natural part of relationships, and not everything can be controlled or predicted. Next, it is being able to trust yourself in handling challenges and adapting to changes. Practicing mindfulness and self-awareness can help you observe your thoughts without letting them spiral into cognitive distortions. Rather than reacting to every little worry, take a step back and ask yourself if the anxiety is rooted in the present moment or if it’s based on fears about the future.
Partners as Gears Metaphor
Relationships aren’t about finding someone who perfectly aligns with every aspect of you. Rather, what if we viewed relationships like two gears connecting—each spinning in its own way, but choosing to turn together?
Robert used the analogy of two gears spinning together to display the idea of wholeness and choice when it comes to choosing a partner. “I’m a gear, turning in a certain way, with a rhythm and direction unique to me. Similarly, I need someone who is their own gear, spinning in a way that aligns with mine. We're not incomplete without each other; we are both whole, but when we connect, it's a choice—a conscious decision to spin together. Maybe, my third tooth and their fifth tooth don’t align perfectly—and that’s okay. It’s in those moments of difference that growth happens, and rather than fearing imperfection, I can learn to be okay with the slight grind.
Attachment Styles and Compatibility
For a relationship to work, partners often need to understand their own attachment styles (secure, preoccupied-anxious, dismissive-avoidant, fearful-avoidant) and those of their partner, working together to create a balance that honors both their emotional needs. With honesty, communication, trust, and mutual effort, even relationships with seemingly incompatible attachment styles can succeed.
Consider this couple: Nicole has an anxious attachment style in which she craves a lot of closeness, seeks reassurance compulsively, and feels insecure without constant emotional connection. Her partner, Zlata, has an avoidant attachment style and overemphasizes independence, struggles with too much emotional intimacy, and pulls away when feeling overwhelmed.
Compatible Scenario: Nicole and Zlata value personal growth, understanding emotional differences, and flexibility in expectations, which leads them to work through their differing attachment styles as a team, allowing for a sense of unity, opportunity for bonding, and feelings of closeness. If both value self-growth and evolving as partners, they can create a sense of understanding that bridges their emotional gaps. Additionally, if their worldviews align in a way that both see these differences as an opportunity to learn, rather than as dead end barriers, they can approach their differences with less judgment and more curiosity. Overall, their values, worldview, and reasoning are compatible despite their varying emotional needs, insecurities, and defenses. When problematic behaviors appear, they can reason through them and adjust to them, rather than succumb to resentment or contempt.
Incompatible Scenario: Here, Nicole and Zlata are struggling with their differing attachment styles because they have mismatched priorities in intimacy and rigid expectations. Nicole judges Zlata for her unavailability, while Zlata criticizes Nicole for her neediness. They value getting exactly what their attachment style dictates, constant emotional connection (Nicole) and withdrawal (Zlata), so they never align in a sustainable way. “If only she could be more independent, and if only she could be more available.” It’s the classic Pursuer-Withdrawer Dilemma. In this dynamic, the more one partner withdraws (Zlata), the more the other pursues (Nicole). This can create a cycle where neither person feels truly satisfied or understood, because they’re both stuck in their patterns rather than adapting to each other’s needs. In compatibility terms, when the behaviors align, all is well. When Zlata is available and Nicole feels needy, everything is fine. When Nicole feels secure, and Zlata is busy, things are great. When the behaviors change, however, there is nothing securing the bonds together; no outside reasoning, or superpositioned point of view that keeps the relationship alive despite the behaviors leading to unpleasant feelings. This relationship becomes bathed in conflict that has little chance to adequately recover from.
Remember Person A and Person B who both take their coffee black, listen to NPR, and drive hybrid cars who came to the erroneous conclusion that overlap in behaviors/choices means they are compatible? They may have come to this conclusion because they are unconsciously trying to predict/avoid future conflict because they do not feel emotionally or mentally resourced enough to navigate conflict. They get to feel a false sense of security in the belief, “we’re the same person, so we’ll always agree.” Compatibility is key to effective conflict management because the reasoning and values one has is critical to understanding and also wanting to understand the other’s point of view along with potentially being open to changing.
Robert discusses the steps to effectively resolve conflict thusly:
Agree on what happened.
Decide which problem to explore first.
Be honest, trusting, and communicate as effectively as possible, as specifically as possible.
Let’s apply this to the fictional character’s above.
In the event Person A and Person B acquire some money and it is time to buy new cars. Person A, who is seeking electric cars for intensely environmental reasons, and Person B who merely obtained the car through their parents may come into conflict. Person B can finally afford their dream Bugatti vehicle, while Person A does not value having an expensive car at all.
When Person B arrives with the car and is clearly excited at their purchase, Person A feels hurt, and almost insulted at the situation. Due to their incompatibility the follow may occur:
Person A: “How could you do this? That’s disgusting! Such a waste!”
Person B: “Excuse me? My feelings and my dreams are just a waste to you?”
Person A: “How is killing thousands of trees and polluting the air our children will breathe somehow a dream of yours?”
Person B: “You never got it, and you never will. This is more than just a car, okay? It’s part of my lifestyle.”
Person A: “You’re a child. Just a pathetic child. Grow up. Take the car back.”
Person B: “No. I’m standing up for myself this time. I’m not going to back down and just do whatever you say anymore.”
Etc..
We can clearly see that these two are not even arguing about the same topic. Person B has an entirely different point to make while Person A is fixated on their values around environmental impact. Neither are approaching the subject at hand, or have even agreed that the other person is earnestly attempting to communicate. Let’s look at two more scenarios, one where the worldview is different, but the conflict steps are followed, and then lastly where the conflict steps are followed and the worldview is also the same.
Person A and Person B are the same people as above, but Person B uses the steps to healthy conflict above:
Person A: “How could you do this? That’s disgusting! Such a waste!”
Person B: “Wait, you’re talking about my new car? Or the fact that I bought it?”
Person A: “You bought a gas-guzzling polluting sports care for your own ego.. That’s disgusting.”
Person B: “So to be clear, I’m pulling up with my fantasy car, the one I can finally afford, and you’re upset because it’s not environmentally sound. That is the thing you’re upset about.”
Person A: “Yes. That is an immature purchase. We should be adults and recognize our impact.”
Person B: “If you’re upset about how cars make pollution, I can understand that. I’m sorry that the car I like so much doesn’t suit you, but it was my decision, and we both agreed I could purchase the next car. I’m honestly disappointed that you weren’t excited for me, but I trust that this is bothersome to you because of how much you care about things.”
Person A: “I appreciate you recognizing that this hurts all the work I’ve done to help alleviate our impact on the planet. I am glad you got your car and are happy, but I wish it just didn’t pollute so much.”
Etc…
We can see that because the topic was at least agreed upon, clarified, the conversation could move onto true feelings and true understanding. A conversation about the car is now more likely to end with some resolution; maybe acceptance, maybe a concession, but in any case it is likely not to end with resentment or contempt.
Lastly, let’s look at Person A & B when Person B has a similar worldview.
Person A: “How could you do this? That’s disgusting! Such a waste!”
Person B: “Yeah, I know. I just really, really wanted it!”
Person A: “You know how I feel about this sort of thing, and you got it anyway?”
Person B: “As much as I know that you care about having an environmentally conscious car, I got it anyway because I felt that I wanted something just for me. We take care of the planet in all these other ways, I felt that I could have what I wanted for a few years without it doing too much damage. Is that fair?”
Person A: “I’m not sure. I still feel annoyed and insulted by it.”
Person B: “Well, if it was really that bad of a choice, and really does cause that much pollution I’m sure I can trade it in or get some of my money back before the end of the month. Let’s sleep on it.”
Person A: “Fine.”
In this scenario there is less discussion about “what is wrong” because based on their worldview they both instantly recognized the problem. Both of them knew there could be a conflict with his behavior. Both recognized immediately that the behavior was something that would need to be discussed so less work had to be done on the front side. Most of the conversation is validating feelings, and agreeing that there are options to resolve the conflict, and less of the conversation is about searching for what the problem even is. When the worldview is similar, and the reasoning is similar, the behaviors are just a matter of modification and flexibility.
To summarize, Robert states that solving emotional dilemmas are similar to solving any other kinds of problems, from insults to infidelity, to financial concerns or shrimp on fire in the kitchen, the steps to resolve conflicts and resolve them without lasting scars and burns reside in three key areas: Trust, Honesty, and Communication. With those three values, and behaviors, most relationships will thrive.
Now, when someone asks me, “what do you see in him?” I’ll be able to say, “Well, I like the way we argue. I’m attracted to how he reasons through dilemmas. I trust he’ll be able to navigate life’s curveballs with me. It feels promising that he values honest communication. We’ve discussed important topics about our views on relationships. I like the ways I can grow from our differences.”