Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D.
Previous
|
Next
Dancing with the Stars
May 20, 2008 12:09PM
- 5 comments
A couple of weeks ago, I had a media day. I was on Good Morning America to talk about my stint that evening on Dancing With The Stars. It was kind of a strange day for an academic-- but I enjoyed it. The rather risky thing I was doing was predicting which DWTS couples would work best as a team , given how they did on a compatibility questionnaire I designed for Perfectmatch.com and converted into a non romantic test for working well with one another in any situation--in this case, dancing.
I received each star's answers, and then predicted how well each couple would do, without knowing anything about their talent since they had not performed yet. So far, the test is holding up pretty well. The people I thought would not work well together have not; the people I thought would be a good team are doing well. Of course talent is no small part of this so it will be interesting to see how well my predictions hold up.
The whole exercise, however, got me thinking: how much of any kind of compatibility is replicated in romantic relationships? Can we tell much about who we should try and make a committed romantic bond with from who we work well with, or who have been our closest friendships in the past? I have come to the conclusion that we might be better off in our love relationships if we did in fact use our other kinds of successful relationships as a guide.
The problem though is that when we link up with romantic partners we often ignore every other kind of compatibility except sexual attraction. Who knows what constructs chemistry between two people, for example why are some of us attracted to people like the people we have grown up with while others of us are looking for the exotic, the different, and the unknown? Why do some people like dark good looks and others , only light? It's not possible to predict who a baby will hanker for twenty years later... but it might be possible to know something about who he or she will be compatible with once a stable personality has been formed.
In Duet, the Total Compatibility System I designed for HYPERLINK "http://perfectmatch.com" \nperfectmatch.com I pulled together eight of what I felt were the most important characteristics that helped ( or hindered) maintaining a happy relationship. Given the time people will give an internet test I couldn't put in every characteristic that might be important, and so it is not a complete list of everything that is important in a relationship. But I am surprised how well it works. People find out about their own personality profile, someone else's, and then decide for themselves if they want someone who is the same as they are, or different in specific ways that might help balance the relationship. Self knowledge is the first important step, then reviewing personal history to see how these various aspects of yourself have worked to strengthen, or diminish , past loves.
I looked at impulsivity ( risk taking or risk aversiveness), level of energy ( A or B types) outlook ( optimism versus caution ) and lifestyle ( change and variety versus predictability) These are areas where , in general, similarity helps.
I also ask questions about whether or not someone is a perfectionist and has strong opinions or whether someone is flexible and as likely to go one way or another( structured versus flexible), leadership and dominance versus a more collaborative nature, temperament ( passionate or calm) and style of emotional self nurturance ( introversion or extraversion) These characteristics can often work best when they are complementary rather than similar.
On the net people can choose to meet a date based on these characteristics, or based on attraction to a picture and description or a mix of all the information available. People differ, of course, about which tools they will use to find their one and only, but the process has fascinated me from the very first time I started being involved in the dating ******* world. After observing it all for years, and dating myself for awhile in the same manner, I have actually come to the conclusion that dating this way is superior to the old fashioned way of meeting someone at a dance, or party or some other chance happening. I believe that knowing who you might be compatible with , and not just who you are instantly attracted to, is a huge advantage...if someone uses all the information available to them from the start.
I know this flies in the face of the mystique of two strangers, seeing each other across the room, instantly knowing that they have met " the One". It's not that I dismiss that as impossible: there are too many stories of just that happening to discount it happening. Still, I wonder how many people who have met that way stay together, as opposed to the people who start out knowing how compatible they are likely to be. I vote for the addition of compatibility information before one is entangled with someone else based on physical attraction alone. Call me unromantic , but I believe in science plus hormones rather than hormones alone.
The ability to have great Teamwork is critical- and it is important whether you are planning a life together--- or maybe just a dance.
Pepper
I received each star's answers, and then predicted how well each couple would do, without knowing anything about their talent since they had not performed yet. So far, the test is holding up pretty well. The people I thought would not work well together have not; the people I thought would be a good team are doing well. Of course talent is no small part of this so it will be interesting to see how well my predictions hold up.
The whole exercise, however, got me thinking: how much of any kind of compatibility is replicated in romantic relationships? Can we tell much about who we should try and make a committed romantic bond with from who we work well with, or who have been our closest friendships in the past? I have come to the conclusion that we might be better off in our love relationships if we did in fact use our other kinds of successful relationships as a guide.
The problem though is that when we link up with romantic partners we often ignore every other kind of compatibility except sexual attraction. Who knows what constructs chemistry between two people, for example why are some of us attracted to people like the people we have grown up with while others of us are looking for the exotic, the different, and the unknown? Why do some people like dark good looks and others , only light? It's not possible to predict who a baby will hanker for twenty years later... but it might be possible to know something about who he or she will be compatible with once a stable personality has been formed.
In Duet, the Total Compatibility System I designed for HYPERLINK "http://perfectmatch.com" \nperfectmatch.com I pulled together eight of what I felt were the most important characteristics that helped ( or hindered) maintaining a happy relationship. Given the time people will give an internet test I couldn't put in every characteristic that might be important, and so it is not a complete list of everything that is important in a relationship. But I am surprised how well it works. People find out about their own personality profile, someone else's, and then decide for themselves if they want someone who is the same as they are, or different in specific ways that might help balance the relationship. Self knowledge is the first important step, then reviewing personal history to see how these various aspects of yourself have worked to strengthen, or diminish , past loves.
I looked at impulsivity ( risk taking or risk aversiveness), level of energy ( A or B types) outlook ( optimism versus caution ) and lifestyle ( change and variety versus predictability) These are areas where , in general, similarity helps.
I also ask questions about whether or not someone is a perfectionist and has strong opinions or whether someone is flexible and as likely to go one way or another( structured versus flexible), leadership and dominance versus a more collaborative nature, temperament ( passionate or calm) and style of emotional self nurturance ( introversion or extraversion) These characteristics can often work best when they are complementary rather than similar.
On the net people can choose to meet a date based on these characteristics, or based on attraction to a picture and description or a mix of all the information available. People differ, of course, about which tools they will use to find their one and only, but the process has fascinated me from the very first time I started being involved in the dating ******* world. After observing it all for years, and dating myself for awhile in the same manner, I have actually come to the conclusion that dating this way is superior to the old fashioned way of meeting someone at a dance, or party or some other chance happening. I believe that knowing who you might be compatible with , and not just who you are instantly attracted to, is a huge advantage...if someone uses all the information available to them from the start.
I know this flies in the face of the mystique of two strangers, seeing each other across the room, instantly knowing that they have met " the One". It's not that I dismiss that as impossible: there are too many stories of just that happening to discount it happening. Still, I wonder how many people who have met that way stay together, as opposed to the people who start out knowing how compatible they are likely to be. I vote for the addition of compatibility information before one is entangled with someone else based on physical attraction alone. Call me unromantic , but I believe in science plus hormones rather than hormones alone.
The ability to have great Teamwork is critical- and it is important whether you are planning a life together--- or maybe just a dance.
Pepper
What a great article. Although I love the idea of a fairytale romance of two people just knowing they're the one from one glance across a crowded room, I just don't think that happens for most people. Personally, I think that being set up, even on a blind date, by friends is the best way to meet people (although for time-conscious people these one-on-one interactions take up too much time). But for people who have little time to devote to finding someone who we can spend the rest of our lives with, online dating is fantastic. There are so many compatibility scales and key facts about a person that you would spend 3 hours on a first date trying to figure out. I'm going to have to put my boyfriend through this Total Compatibility System and see if we're compatible.
I can hardly think of 2 people who are less compatible than Mr. and Mrs. Peekawho. Yet its been 13 years now that we have been united in wedded bliss.
That is a testament to the good naturedness and doormattedness of Mrs. Peekawho.
That is a testament to the good naturedness and doormattedness of Mrs. Peekawho.
Peekawho - Doormattedness is not the same thing as tolerant. Based on your posts on this site, I would say that you're tolerant, but certiainly no doormat.
Now if my boyfriend could be more of a doormat, we'd get along great.
Now if my boyfriend could be more of a doormat, we'd get along great.
Although Swampy is interested in, and appreciates the compatibility stuff, he cannot help but look back on relationships in earlier times.
Swampy's parents were married for 49 years. Swampy's grandparents were married for 55 years. Swampy is not certain how long his great grandparents were married, but his great grandmother was married at 16 years old.
As late as the 1950s, half of women were married before they were 21.
Today, half of all marriages end in divorce. People also marry later. If Swampy took a poll as to whether or not a 16 year old should get married, most people would say no. Yet, was Swampy's great grandmother, at 16, more mature than a 16 year old today? What made her ready and able to enter into a marriage?
Swampy's parents, and grandparents, and probably great grandparents, did not have perfect marriages. They had their conflicts, sometimes serious ones. But they gutted it out and found a way to stay together and to make their lives work. They didn't spend their time taking compatibility tests, they developed the skills they needed to continue on the fly.
What have we lost?
Do we expect more out of a partner than did our parents and grandparents?
Are our relationships better than what they had?
Swampy's parents were married for 49 years. Swampy's grandparents were married for 55 years. Swampy is not certain how long his great grandparents were married, but his great grandmother was married at 16 years old.
As late as the 1950s, half of women were married before they were 21.
Today, half of all marriages end in divorce. People also marry later. If Swampy took a poll as to whether or not a 16 year old should get married, most people would say no. Yet, was Swampy's great grandmother, at 16, more mature than a 16 year old today? What made her ready and able to enter into a marriage?
Swampy's parents, and grandparents, and probably great grandparents, did not have perfect marriages. They had their conflicts, sometimes serious ones. But they gutted it out and found a way to stay together and to make their lives work. They didn't spend their time taking compatibility tests, they developed the skills they needed to continue on the fly.
What have we lost?
Do we expect more out of a partner than did our parents and grandparents?
Are our relationships better than what they had?
Interesting.
My parents were married for 60 years. I remember the fighting, the screaming, the hitting, the throwing things, the door slamming, housetrashing, and the drinking.
No, it wasn't that good for me, I'm afraid.
My parents were married for 60 years. I remember the fighting, the screaming, the hitting, the throwing things, the door slamming, housetrashing, and the drinking.
No, it wasn't that good for me, I'm afraid.
Post a Comment