Phrases like “compatible personalities” or “incompatible personalities” are often used to comment on interpersonal relations, especially male-female relationships. This kind of concept sounds rather abstract and elusive, yet it also seems very concrete and tangible. I have also used notions like compatible or incompatible to describe my own relationships or those of others; as for what I meant by it, let me just jot it down here.
When I wrote my post looking for a relationship back then, I did not include compatibility of personalities as any requirement anywhere. The reason is simple: this is something that cannot possibly be demonstrated in advance, before getting to know one another; it is something that is revealed through getting to know one another.
Of course, before getting to know one another, it is not entirely impossible to discuss whether personalities are compatible. In many places one can find “analyses” and “discussions” about the degree to which various personalities fit together. For example, the so-called “zodiac sign” theory. It is said that Scorpio and Pisces make a super-unbeatable romantic match. Translated into something a little more “scientific,” this is nothing more than saying that a typical Scorpio personality and a typical Pisces personality get along quite well. Of course you cannot say that this kind of “analysis” is entirely without merit. Just like modern science, zodiac analysis abstracts, typifies, and models human personality; and people who sink too deeply into, or rely too much on, such theories will have their lifeworld reshaped in turn by those theories, making the actual patterns and the theoretical patterns increasingly congruent, thereby making the theory increasingly effective.
Philosophers of science have neither the authority nor the interest to pass judgment on whether the theories of specific sciences or pseudosciences are right or wrong. What we still need to pursue is this: regardless of whether your judgment that Personality A and Personality B are compatible is right or wrong, the key point is that you still have not explained what “compatibility” itself means. In particular, I am not speaking as a detached observer making objective evaluations, but as a subject, as “I”: when I ask the question myself, what does so-called compatibility mean for me? After all, the philosopher’s pursuit is not to provide judgments for others, but to seek understanding for oneself; as for borrowing others to furnish judgments for oneself, that is even less the philosopher’s wish.
So I need to skip over the model-building, theorizing mode and offer the most straightforward interpretation of the concept of compatibility or incompatibility. The simplest way I can think of to put it is: selfishly sustaining a relationship. What I mean is that the interaction of people with compatible personalities does not need much spirit of selfless sacrifice to maintain it; and the more a relationship requires self-sacrifice, the more it demands selflessness and self-effacement, the more it shows that the personalities are incompatible.
In the most in-sync kind of exchange, the way one speaks or acts that makes oneself most at ease is also the way most in line with the other person’s likes and dislikes, and so there is no need to constantly and deliberately cater to the other person. There is no need to agonize over what one ought to do in order to make the other person happy; as long as one expresses oneself in the way that feels most comfortable to oneself, that is what the other person likes best. That is what is meant by compatible personalities.
The selfishness I am talking about here does not mean unbridled indulgence or absolute frankness, but rather comfort and ease. Many times indulgence and candor are not the most comfortable or smoothest modes of expression. For example, someone asks whether you want to take a jelly to eat. Perhaps at that moment you are so drooling that you cannot wait to snatch it up and stuff it into your mouth, but perhaps you would rather affect a bit of reserve and politely decline. Being bold or restrained, decisive or hesitant, and so on, are all part of personality as well. What I mean is expressing oneself in the most comfortable way by following one’s own character, rather than expressing oneself in the most uninhibited way.
So the so-called selfish relationship is of course still a pattern of mutual deference, mutual support, and even, if you like, mutual respect and conjugal harmony. The key is that all words and deeds merely express themselves in accordance with one’s own temperament; there is no need to agonize over the other person’s likes and dislikes, and no need to suppress oneself in order to accommodate the other person. Of course, in the course of a relationship, under mutual influence, both parties’ personalities and habits will be reshaped; yet this reshaping must be entirely natural, requiring no self-sacrifice, no suffering, and even less any stubborn struggle.
Love, of course, needs to be “managed,” but this only means that one must never regard love as something already in hand. It is by no means a trophy that, once won, can be locked away in a safe; rather, it is an activity in which one must continually participate. But sustaining that management does not mean one must be steadfast and self-sacrificing. Love does not need to be interpreted through struggle.
This is true of loving a person and loving a事业 as well. It is not the case that at all times, what one gives and what one gets back will correspond. If one has given too much and not received a corresponding return, then before lamenting the unfairness of the world, it is better first to reflect on whether one has chosen the wrong direction.
August 7, 2009
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply