The Myth of Compatibility

Why What We Call “Compatibility” Is Really Just Rigidity

I kind of hate the idea of compatibility. Not because I don’t think it exists, but because of what it creates. It creates unnecessary analysis while dating and in a relationship, and can even cause relationships to end. People call it “compatibility” when it’s really just a lack of flexibility and desire to put in effort.

Compatibility has become this kind of repository or dump category people use to explain something extremely complex that actually has nothing to do with what the definition of compatibility even is.

Compatibility:
“The natural ability to live or work together in harmony because of well-matched characteristics; the quality or fact of being in agreement.”

In this sense, one part of the definition—the natural ability—implies that there is something innate between two people that either results in compatibility or not. The second part—the quality of being in agreement—is experiential, not characterological.

When we think about compatibility, most of us default to the former. We think it’s innate. When I think of compatibility, I think of the latter: a quality of a moment, an experience, a dynamic that is created, shaped, and under constant change.

I favor this one, and would encourage you to do so as well—especially if you’re dating, and especially if you’re in a relationship and feeling like you’re “not compatible.”

I know that we all want to be objective. We want some measure, some black-and-white criteria: compatible or not. So we take a snapshot of a few traits and run our analysis based on history, Instagram memes, and past experiences. Then we use the result of that analysis to form either a hypothesis to test or a conclusion to rest in.