Can human compatibility/relationship be calculated and measured

[sushi]

I always wondered how facebook alogrithim match and find compatible people for you

is it a matter of topic (conversation and interest) and life experience?

how do you measure the compatability (or incompatiblity)between two people that never seen or met each other?

I know i am incompatible with alot of people, but finding the compatible one is hard

what makes two people compatible and what are the variables. How strong is the compatibility or how weak is the compatibility?

 

[Black Rose]

a lot of data and many correlations.

 

[BurnedOut]

Of course it can be. Ask a counsellor/psychiatrist/psychologist and they will tell you the myriad number of ways that can be judged.

Anyway, a layperson can lay the ground for deductions as well. The easiest method is to measure the amount of
- Mutual friends they have
- Mutual interests
- Emotional stability
- Intellectual compatibility
- Degree of acceptance towards one another
and of course, Trust and Openness.

As far as I can tell, all of these can be measured by algorithms to a *good* and not a *significant* extent.

Social media algorithms mainly rely on the first two and turns out that it works pretty well. The third one is invasion of privacy but it is not difficult to implement. Such algorithms already exist in order to measure the amount of aversion or attraction customers have towards a particular product by doing NLP on their textual comments. 4th one can be measured by constructing a time series data sheet and then measuring correlations. Trust and Openness can probably be measured as well but it is quite difficult to do so.

In toto, the first three aspects are definitely measurable to a good extent. Which means that computers can figure you pretty well.

 

[sushi]

i understand what you say but it will still be hard as fuck.

 

[scorpiomover]

I always wondered how facebook alogrithim match and find compatible people for you

Dating software uses the ideas of the designers, the ideas of psychologists, and probably machine learning to improve the matches.

is it a matter of topic (conversation and interest) and life experience?

Compatibility tends to follow similar patterns.

E.G. if you can talk easily to a person, you usually find that you don't argue all that often.

Life experience is usually on a similar par. E.G. people who have had mental illness for years, have a great understanding of the sorts of problems that other mentally ill people have.

Another thing I discovered, is that some people are usually punctual and extremely annoyed at people who aren't punctual. Some people are often late, but also don't mind when other people are late.

So if you're a punctual person and you also get annoyed when other people are punctual, you're going to find it hard going dating someone who is often late.

Conversely, they'll also find it difficult to date someone punctual, because the other person keeps getting annoyed at them, but they don't get annoyed at him when he's late. So it feels like a 1-way street.

how do you measure the compatability (or incompatiblity)between two people that never seen or met each other?

2 factors seem to bring people together.

1) Similarities: often, people are drawn together because they have a shared love of the same things, or similar pet peeves.

2) Opposites: often, people are drawn to each other, because one is strong where the other is weak, and the other is weak where the other is strong. In these aspects, the things that normally put other people off of you, don't bother this person, because they are so strong in these qualities, that they can handle things easily, even for another person. Likewise, they feel much more comfortable to be themselves with you, because they know that you are strong in the areas that they are weak in, and so it doesn't bother them.

I know i am incompatible with alot of people, but finding the compatible one is hard

It looks hard.

It's meant to seem hard.

Women & men want to meet a partner ASAP, to have sex ASAP, have a relationship ASAP, and have kids ASAP.They don't want them to get in the way of their career. But they know that he longer they wait, the less they can enjoy sex, a relationship, and having children.

More importantly, those who wait longer and have less children, are not going to spread their genes as much as those who have more. So we can expect that the genes that will proliferate in the population and become dominant, are those that increase the chances of having more children.

So most men, and most women, have a subconscious constant urge to meet someone ASAP, that is driven by the biological reproductive instinct.

That's why so many women are dating losers and abusers. They'd rather keep dating someone, so they find someone suitable, rather than stop dating for so long that they never have a relationship with anyone.

So people WANT to find a way to be able to date you.

You yourself have the same instinct. It's biological.

So you and everyone else have evolved so that you can have an LTR with someone ASAP.

OTOH, the TV and film industries that regularly produce romantic films and romance series, and other industries that make money off people being single and looking for a partner, have a regular income from those who are single and seeking a partner.

If dating was easy, then that regular revenue stream would come to a very quick end.

So money and biology are in conflict here. So there's a strong motive to develop clever psychological manipulations that can hijack your reproductive instinct without you knowing about it, and cause you to believe things that are going to make it more difficult for you to find someone.

This has effects. People are often suffering with depression and anxiety, or just generally feel like it's very difficult. This tends to make those people less inclined to make efforts to meet people. So they meet less people who they might be able to date.

Then on top, once they've met a person they might be compatible with, their pessimism about relationships makes them less likely to signal interest. So the other person is more likely to either conclude that they are not interested at all, or that it would be quicker to just move onto someone else who is more positive and keen about dating. So they are also less likely to convert that meeting into a relationship.

So you need to be optimistic about relationships, and need to have a general attitude of measuring:
1) how many new people you meet/contact a day,
2) how many of them convert into dating,
3) how many of your dates convert into a relationship.
Based on those, you can estimate the chances of a relationship forming on any one day.
Based on that figure, you can calculate how many days it would take before you can expect to be in a relationship.

If that number is lower than you figure, then you need to either show interest to a wider range of people, or change your behaviours to meet more people per day, or to change your behaviours so that the people you meet are more the kind of people you want to date, etc., until your calculations reach a point where you can expect to meet and start a relationship with someone within a timeframe that is accepable to you.

 

[Cognisant]

Compatibility is a myth perpetuated by the dating industry in order to turn people into products.

 

[Black Rose]

Compatibility is a myth

like dislike

put in the right ratios

a certain kind of empathy

 

[sushi]

Compatibility is a myth perpetuated by the dating industry in order to turn people into products.

no soulmate? you are incompatible with everyone on this planet, just as everyone else?

thats very nihilistic

 

[Cognisant]

I am very nihilistic.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I am very nihilistic.

What is the difference to being confused?

----------------------------------------------------

Facebook does not care about matching people. Its not even their business model.

Yes matching people is possible and easy.

People have been doing it since Adam and Eve.

Look where it got us. There is more than 7 billion people.

 

[sushi]

I am very nihilistic.

What is the difference to being confused?

----------------------------------------------------

Facebook does not care about matching people. Its not even their business model.

Yes matching people is possible and easy.

People have been doing it since Adam and Eve.

Look where it got us. There is more than 7 billion people.

what about the amount of divorces and dying single?

what about loneliness and not finding right companions friends

 

[ZenRaiden]

what about the amount of divorces and dying single?

what about loneliness and not finding right companions friends

What is wrong with divorce? Is it really wrong or unnatural?
Are people dying single unnatural?

Is being lonely really that wrong and is not finding friends really that bad?

Obviously this does not work for many people.

Question is why do they make decisions that make them end up in those situations.

One needs to realize many social expectations don't really have any meaningful function. They simply don't work.

That is for example why divorces became popular.

Nature has precedence of social behaviors.

What does however mean to be compatible?

We know who we like and who we don't like, there is no need for extra ordinary equations here.

People know what is and is not beneficial to them most of the time.

However the lifestyle we have and the work we have and activities we have and also the way we think and behave usually defines compatibility very fast for us.

Not much need to think about it.

 

[Cognisant]

What is the difference to being confused?

My nihilism is a lack of confusing preconceived notions, like soulmates and compatibility, I don't let a belief in these concepts obstruct my observation of reality.

 

[sushi]

I speak for myself only, but i do not have much like finding people that are somewhat compatible with me other than on internet, other than intelligence gap is too great or lack of share interests. So reall life socialization and random encounters is not really an effective way to find people you can relate to. Friends introduce their friends to you, or you meet random people at your job, or joining social events. Other than that, its hard to find people who are compatible with you.

it is almost like random particles colliding with other pariticles, to see which stick together and which repel each other. The process is purely dependent on chance.

 

[Black Rose]

as with chemical bonds, reaction happens fast at the beginning then settles.

 

[Hadoblado]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by compatibility not existing? What does it look like to you? A pure hierarchy? Or do you mean compatibility calculators used by dating sites only? Then we're probably in the same ballpark.

If I were to design a compatibility calculator, I would base it on commonalities and especially shared interests. If I was going mega big brain I'd make an algorithm that shapes your feed by assigning invisible factors based on clicking and pairing behaviour, which would identify stuff like six-pack having and being attracted to six-packs. I sort of assume this is what the better ones already do, but even then it would only assist in prioritising pairing suggestions. Suggesting a percentile for compatibility would be marketing only, a meaningless but possibly reassuring gesture that drives people together.

 

[scorpiomover]

I speak for myself only, but i do not have much like finding people that are somewhat compatible with me other than on internet, other than intelligence gap is too great or lack of share interests.

Then it's a good thing for you, that internet dating has become so popular then.

So reall life socialization and random encounters is not really an effective way to find people you can relate to. Friends introduce their friends to you, or you meet random people at your job, or joining social events. Other than that, its hard to find people who are compatible with you.

The people who I dated, or almost dated, and where there was mutual attraction and a lot of chemistry, came from random encounters with people who were friends/acquaintainces of people I was with, and who just happened to be there at the time.

They were often stunningly attractive. I couldn't figure out why they would be attracted to me, and often assumed that they were just being friendly. But they kept showing signs of attraction, for years, which confused the heck out of me.

Conversely, I've met lots of people online, who I seemed to gel with. But any suggestion of meeting up, even as friends, seemed to get continually deferred.

I've also been set up on several blind dates by friends who I got on with very well. They have said that we'd got everything in common, and I could see why. But I was always struggling to hold a conversation with them, even though I would often talk to people for hours at a time, and even 15 hours straight.

it is almost like random particles colliding with other pariticles, to see which stick together and which repel each other. The process is purely dependent on chance.

If the particles are neutrally charged like neutrons, then yes, the process is purely dependent on chance.

But lots of particles are heavily charged, like electrons. Then they are naturally attracted to some particles, and repelled by others.

 

[scorpiomover]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by compatibility not existing? What does it look like to you? A pure hierarchy? Or do you mean compatibility calculators used by dating sites only? Then we're probably in the same ballpark.

If I were to design a compatibility calculator, I would base it on commonalities and especially shared interests. If I was going mega big brain I'd make an algorithm that shapes your feed by assigning invisible factors based on clicking and pairing behaviour, which would identify stuff like six-pack having and being attracted to six-packs. I sort of assume this is what the better ones already do, but even then it would only assist in prioritising pairing suggestions. Suggesting a percentile for compatibility would be marketing only, a meaningless but possibly reassuring gesture that drives people together.

Such a calculator works well for people who are usually attracted to the people that your compatibility calculator says are very compatible, and are mostly unattracted to the people that your calculator says are definitely incompatible.

Thus, that would work for those people whose patterns of attraction are similar, and whose patterns of attraction follow the same patterns as those in your compatibility calculator.

But if different people have different patterns of attraction, then all those people whose patterns of attraction don't follow the same patterns as those in your compatibility calculator, would find that your calculator sets them up with people they are incompatible with, and rejects the people they are compatible with.

Even if we set up multiple calculators for multiple patterns of attraction, we still have the issue that occasionally, two people can have different patterns of attraction that happen to coincide in specific cases.

It would work for all humans, if you could design a calculator that covers every single person's patterns of attraction in one ginormous highly complex pattern that describes all forms of attraction and unattraction perfectly.

But I gather that most dating sites aren't aiming to be that perfectionist about their matches. They are just happy if a lot of people find love through their site, and they make decent money from their site, and most likely assume that other people would find love on another site or via another way, like real-life interactions.

 

[Hadoblado]

The way you wrote that tied my eyes in knots x-x

I'm not sure if we understand each other. For the first part, where I base it on mutual interest and commonalities, these are things that facilitate pairing but are not necessarily meaningful for compatibility.

For the second part, this would not be imposing patterns such as commonalities but identifying patterns bottom up by looking at who your interest is expressed in. Can you give me an example of the sort of pattern that you think this would not pick up on? I'm not saying there aren't any, but it's not clear from your post that you have a clear idea.

 

[Cognisant]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by compatibility not existing? What does it look like to you? A pure hierarchy? Or do you mean compatibility calculators used by dating sites only? Then we're probably in the same ballpark.

Compatibility is the notion that being in a relationship with someone who is more compatible with you is easier, so if you just find the right person having a relationship with them should be easy right?

I think that's an entirely backwards way of thinking, I think relationships require an intensive focus and dedication to what you both want the relationship to be. There's so many ulterior motives to be distracted by, you can date someone because they're attractive or they're smart or they're wealthy or whatever and no matter what that ulterior motive is, it's still just a distraction.

Love is emotional intimacy and that intimacy requires trust and negotiating the terms of a relationship precludes that trust, I mean how can you trust someone with your innermost thoughts and feelings if they're going to use them as leverage against you?

Basically you need to want love and they need to want love too, you need to be able to put everything else aside and tell yourself that you want to love this person and be loved by them, which means opening up to them emotionally.

All this shit on dating sites is completely irrelevant and lulls people into this toxic notion that they don't need to open up, they just need to find the right person and that person will open up to them and of course when everybody's thinking that nobody gets anywhere and those who do open up just end up having it used against them as leverage, or just get discarded.

I'm sure we've all experienced this, the people you love don't love you and the people who love you just don't seem that appealing because it makes you think "I could do better".

Just find someone that's serious about love, that's all the compatibility you need.

 

[Yellow]

Compatibility is a myth perpetuated by the dating industry in order to turn people into products.

Preach!

Really, though, most people could be compatible enough with most people given some shared experiences. We're really not that complicated and we're totally into breeding and bonding.

Long-term companionship requires effort. There are no accidents or happy coincidences there. Granted, some people are better at relationships than others.

We're also not monogamous animals, and even if we matched people down to their favorite toothpaste, we're not going to overcome that.

All this shit on dating sites is completely irrelevant and lulls people into this toxic notion that they don't need to open up

I agree. Controlled intimacy is a real mess.

 

[Hadoblado]

If we do away with the dating site context, and just focus on the more fundamental claim: "Some people are more compatible with each other than with others". This is something you disagree with?

Some people are super fucking annoying though?

What about demographic stuff? Or is that outside of compatibility?

Recent example from work: A girl is/was interested in me, but there is a fundamental incompatibility with our outlooks. They are very entitled in a spoilt kind of way, and I have little respect for that (and am also completely unwilling to have someone that sort of dependent on me). Am I wrong to think we're incompatible?

This is genuinely interesting to me because I see the value of compatibility as underestimated by people in general. You too Yellow what do you think?

I suspect we're defining things a bit differently?

 

[Cognisant]

I'm sure if you and this girl were marooned on an island you would talk, get to know each other, adapt to each other's personality and forge a deep friendship based on shared experiences.

Ditto for that chick I called a stupid selfish whore, given enough time and effort we could make it work, not that I'm planning to reach out to her anytime ever because the fact is I'm not marooned on an island with her and even though I was willing to put in the effort she clearly wasn't.

Again, just find someone that's serious about love, that's all the compatibility you need.

What about demographic stuff? Or is that outside of compatibility?

If someone's race or socioeconomic class means more to you that who that person is I'd say that's not a compatibility problem, that's a pull your head out of your ass problem.

 

[Hadoblado]

I was thinking more stuff like gender and age.

Desert island thing feels a lot like "the last person on earth" scenario though I take your point. There are a lot of people I'd leave behind though.

I don't disagree about commitment being a big deal and that a lot of the narratives surrounding matchmaking are nonsense. I just don't think it's the whole picture.

 

[Yellow]

If we do away with the dating site context, and just focus on the more fundamental claim: "Some people are more compatible with each other than with others". This is something you disagree with?

Some people are super fucking annoying though?

What about demographic stuff? Or is that outside of compatibility?

Recent example from work: A girl is/was interested in me, but there is a fundamental incompatibility with our outlooks. They are very entitled in a spoilt kind of way, and I have little respect for that (and am also completely unwilling to have someone that sort of dependent on me). Am I wrong to think we're incompatible?

This is genuinely interesting to me because I see the value of compatibility as underestimated by people in general. You too Yellow what do you think?

I suspect we're defining things a bit differently?

I can't speak for Cog, but I may be overreacting out of a dislike for the influence of surveillance capitalism in our mating workflows.

I used a lot of most's to account for the few people who really get on your nerves, and the few people who find that everyone gets on their nerves.

But not to sound cliche, people are more than the sum of their parts. There are people I love being around who are absolutely incompatible with me. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself.

Sure, it would be nice if my partner agreed with me on fundamental things. But more importantly, would this person happily sit next to me, knowing we have different opinions? Would a person I nearly perfectly match with harp on the few differences we have? I think those are more important to compatibility.

Does it matter if they're into fitness and I'm not? That depends.

If they need their partner to be into it, then maybe. But do they care to spark that interest? Am I open to giving it a go? Those are more important than compatibility too.

So as I ramble, maybe you can either need to be compatible or flexible. The less flexible, the more compatibility matters, and the more flexible, the less it matters.

 

[Cognisant]

Of course I'm not going to have a physically intimate relationship with a morbidly obese 60yr old woman with all the grace and charm of a bogan with a meth addiction, even if she is the last woman on Earth.

But irl there's no shortage of people who are at minimum adequate for my standards and it goes up from there, as such superficial compatibility is a factor in the absolute sense but not a relevant one practically speaking.

 

[Hadoblado]

Right, seems like you guys think about this stuff in softer terms than I was attributing to you. I think we basically agree on most of this, but with different estimates and using different points of reference.

I see people as reducing pairing to some sort of objective market where people negotiate terms based on perceived value. I actually agree with this account except for the degree to which it is important (and in that it's mostly socially constructed not objective). On top of this, there are various layers of compatibility including what you're talking about Cog with dedication as a factor that expands the range of compatibility of the individual. So I'm talking about compatibility in a very broad all-encompassing "any factor that isn't reducible to market value" kinda way.

 

[scorpiomover]

The way you wrote that tied my eyes in knots x-x

I'm not sure if we understand each other. For the first part, where I base it on mutual interest and commonalities, these are things that facilitate pairing but are not necessarily meaningful for compatibility.

For the second part, this would not be imposing patterns such as commonalities but identifying patterns bottom up by looking at who your interest is expressed in. Can you give me an example of the sort of pattern that you think this would not pick up on? I'm not saying there aren't any, but it's not clear from your post that you have a clear idea.

Don't need one, not unless I'm writing a computer algorithm for a dating site.

What do you do with a partner? Spend time with each other? Talk? Hang out? Go places? Share woes? Lean on each other for help?

Apart from sex, the rest is stuff you'd do with friends.

Consider that for a moment.

If you got on with someone as well as you do your best friend, and you were attracted to each other, don't you think you'd want a relationship with each other?

Now imagine you meet someone, and you're attracted to each other, but you can't stand each other. If not for the attraction, you'd never want to be around her or her around you. How long do you think that would last?

You have to have something that draws you to each other other than sex, and that is either friendship or something along those lines.

 

[scorpiomover]

Just find someone that's serious about love, that's all the compatibility you need.

Cog, think about what you said.

There's no shortage of women who want a serious relationship.

If that is all you need, you could be in a relationship today. So could pretty much every man in the world.

Moreover, if that's all you need to stay together, then since when the relationship began, the couple already had that, there would never be a reason to split up.

No relationships would ever break up.

There would be zero basis for casual sex, or dating. Everyone would be hooked up for life.

That's just not what happens.

For instance, in the ultra-religious world, everyone is serious about love. They're all looking to get married forever. I used to be in that crowd. People didn't go for the first girl they met. They had to keep going on dates until both parties wanted to marry each other.

Granted, divorce is much lower amongst the ultra-religious. But even they still sometimes have divorces.

Different people have different needs.

 

[scorpiomover]

I see people as reducing pairing to some sort of objective market where people negotiate terms based on perceived value.

Lots of people tried this: women looking for guys with money. Men looking for women to provide sex. Relationships got commercialised. But they last shorter, and they are harder to establish.

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to see why it doesn't work.

So I'm talking about compatibility in a very broad all-encompassing "any factor that isn't reducible to market value" kinda way.

Well, think about what I wrote above then.

If it wasn't for the sex, would you still want to be besties with the person? Would you still want to live with that person as flatmates?

 

[ZenRaiden]

OK understood.

 

[sushi]

One can only measure how similar or different two people are.

Compatibility is impossible to predict and calculate for now

physical, emotional, social, mental compatibility is as far as i can get.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Compatibility is impossible to predict and calculate for now

physical, emotional, social, mental compatibility is as far as i can get.

Depends.

I am pretty sure many things people think that makes one compatible partner are not always as important as people think. That is why sometimes those who we seem to like flunk test fast and end up in ex bin.

What is really important is to know what compatible traits are most important most of the time.

People today do many different things.

Some sit all the time and work and sit and come home and sit.

Some people party and go out all the time and even at work they interact vigorously.

Some people like N people like to contemplate and speak about future.

S types talk less, but talk a lot about past experiences and love to do things more than just contemplate them.

If N talks about something S thinks Ns want to do it.
Ns talk about ideas, S ultimately talk about ideas that are actionable and real to them.


So a lot of time S will hear Ns talk about something and that translates for S to action.

I can talk about many things, and yet have no immediate interest in them.
Like this topic.... I am not looking for anyone, yet I can entertain and talk about compatibility. It does not mean actually I am looking for someone compatible.
On other hand its an interesting topic, but most S types would translate this topic to action. They would think everyone in this thread is looking for someone compatible.

Immediate action and interest are S things. Thats why also humor works differently with S types.
The older the S type gets the less down to Earth they are and the more theoretical they can get, because over time they learn there are people who just talk or think, but don't necessarily do things.

I can talk about pancakes, but not make one in my whole lifetime.
This is something inconceivable to S types.
They either talk and make pancakes or they won't talk about pancakes.

After all why would you talk about or think about something you have no use for.

INTPs simply think about stuff, because the option is not to think about it.
How is not thinking about pink elephants possible.

Not really so you just end up thinking about so many things.

So its very wise for INTPs not to talk to S types about anything, but just the things you are willing to do with them. Otherwise they will imagine that if you are talk about compatibility the will assume you are thinking of actually for real going out with someone or even them and having a date.

If you talk about soccer with S types they will end up inviting you to soccer game even though your theoretical interest does not translate to actual interest.
Knowing players and rules and statistics does not mean an INTP actually will go out of their way to watch people kick the ball forever and predictably miss goal post for 90 minutes.

Also people have a learning curve and tolerance. Over time some things are easily tolerable and some are not. Some things you learn about people over time by step by step day to day life only then you can see what its like to wake up eat lunch and go to sleep with people and not get fed up with stuff.

This all however does not mean there are no shortcuts in understanding.

Some things are predictable.

However we change and we live in a world where those who adapt and change fast are those who win.

Its important to change and learn. Some people however will not do so for rest of their life. If you do end up with those or those who change in opposite direction of your change you will split up.

Some some common thread and interest is important beyond regular stuff.