Chemistry Vs. Compatibility

What is it that we think of when we try to define compatibility? Does it have something to do with harmony, or a minimum of conflict? And how do we define chemistry? Does it have to do with excitement? Sexual excitement? Or are these concepts so intermeshed, so blended together psychologically, that it is impossible to view them as essentially different?

We probably would agree that both compatibility and chemistry are pretty important. I tend to think of compatibility as a "top down" process in that it involves cognitively processing, or thinking about, analyzing, our past experiences with others to determine what is likely to result in a minimum of conflict and the most enjoyment.

I tend to think of chemistry as a "bottom up" process in that it involves using our senses, such as vision, smell, touch, and hearing to form an immediate perception. A perception is different than a thought, in that, once again, thoughts originate in our brain, and stay in our brain, while perceptions originate in our senses, and go up to our brain, where they are, hopefully, processed along with our thoughts.

Now, perceptions of other people can cause us to experience feelings that range from mild interest to extreme excitement. The question is, when we think of "chemistry," does it always have to do with sex? That is, is all chemistry sexual in nature?

Freud certainly thought it was, hence, identifying libido as the source of all motivation. He would say that in mature adults the role of the ego and superego would be to rein in libidinal lust. For the mature adult, the ego would mediate, or negotiate with the demands of the id, the source of libido, and the superego, or conscience. The mature adult might sublimate his libidinal drives into socially desirable endeavors, such as work, or doing good deeds. He would also be able to not immediately act upon his libidinal urges, but, instead he would exercise his thinking processes to decide how to proceed when a sexual object presented itself.

Motivations. So, Freud thought of libidinal lust as a drive that motivates. Would it be too much of an extrapolation to say that "chemistry" motivates? If we stick with the Freudian line of thought, it probably wouldn't be too much of an extrapolation.

Let's try another line of attack. Another psychodynamic theorist, Silvan Tompkins, believed that the emotions themselves were what motivates behavior. In his Affect (emotion) Theory, he believed there were two positive emotions, enjoyment/joy, and excitement/interest. The negative emotions included fear/terror, distress/anguish, anger/rage, dissmell, disgust, and shame/humiliation. Surprise/startle was given an neutral designation.

If we were to extrapolate the positive emotions to the concepts of compatibility and chemistry, I would relate compatibility mostly to joy/enjoyment, and chemistry to interest/excitement.

An example of chemistry would be a young woman who sees a young man walking in the mall. She is excited by the confident, relaxed manner in which he walks, as well as by his overall appearance. She is motivated to approach him and talk to him. She is further motivated by the tone and resonance of his voice and the smell of his cologne.

Following this line of thought further, let's say that this young woman has gone on her first date with the guy she met in the mall. On their date they walk in the park, talking about their common interests and career paths. As she evaluates the experience she is motivated to go out with him again. The evaluative process results in the experience of enjoyment, which then provides motivation. Would it be too much to say that in this instance, compatibility provides at least part of her motivation?

Online dating. Now we get to the meat of the matter. Online dating allows people enormous opportunities to meet and form relationships. Those who use online dating sites have motivations that range from a brief hook up, to a search for eternal bliss in marriage, or something that approximates marriage.

For those who are interested in the brief hook up, compatibility probably isn't all that important. But, for those who are interested in eternity, and recognize that the chemistry of the moment may not be quite as compelling ten or twenty years down the road, compatibility is probably a more important issue.

"Compatibility tests" abound on dating sites. Some are well thought out and seem to have some validity. Some are, well, pretty bogus at best. What defines a good compatibility test? Well, probably a bunch of questions that are positively related to, or "predict," levels of enjoyment that couples who are married experience. This is something that is possible to implement. But again, very few dating sites actually do this.

What about the measurement of chemistry? If we purely define chemistry as a "bottom up" process in which the senses send sensory input to the brain and the arriving perception triggers the emotion, or affect of interest/excitement, then we probably need to have a way to measure physical reactions to the perception, such as EEG, EMG, EKG, skin temperature, corneal dilation, and so on, to visual, auditory, tactile (touch), olfactory (smell) experiences.

Now, I'm not arguing that this wouldn't be a good idea. I think it would. It would just be time consuming, expensive research to do, and would be ungodly expensive to implement in real life on a dating site. Could you imagine it? Each person who signs up at a dating site would have to be measured somehow for their skin texture, smell, vocal quality, visual presentation (the easiest), and so on. Then they would have to be assessed for how they react to a myriad of exposures to varying types of skin textures, smells, vocal qualities, body parts and types, etc.

So far, the measurement of chemistry, in my opinion, doesn't exist. Wish it did. So, for my money, I'll go with compatibility.