Opposites don't actually attract: meta-analysis study
colorado.edu
colorado.edu
In general, in many relationships, one is controlling and the other is controllable. Relationships with two tigers often don't last because they can't stop fighting and few people tolerate that kind of constant emotional discomfort. For relationships, it's probably best if both people are moderate.
> I noticed often in couples, there is one with money and one without.
Where did you "notice" this exactly? Because this is false. People tend to mate according to similarity of socioeconomic class. That means similarity of economic class. Cultural factors (the "socio" in "socioeconomic") are also important and correlate with economic factors. Greater similarly of cultural factors and economic factors creates greater opportunity and affordances for pairing. There's a greater common ground to work with. You're not going to find many classically educated billionaires married to barely literate burger flippers.
> I guess this is out of necessity and it satisfies both the poorer person's need for sustenance and the richer person's need for control over the relationship.
I don't know what bizarro world you live in, but this is not the general case. Again, people tend to mate according to socioeconomic similarity. That means both are earning within a similar-ish range or some from families with similar socioeconomic characteristics. The only way you can conceivably control someone in this manner is not to out-earn them, but the one earning less must earn less than needed to survive, have no realistic prospect of providing for themselves, and have no family or friends he or she can rely on. Telling someone you'll take away their Birkin bag isn't much of a threat to a poor person; starvation is. Your view of what most marriages are like is, frankly, delusional and dark, like something from an incel forum.
So called "west" is not the whole world, it's actually minority of the world. What you describe as "general case" is probably accurate in case of many western countries but not in many countries in Asia, Africa and South America.
Whenever you appeal to anecdata, you might want to pause a moment and check for actual data. Turns out that no, wealth alignment is likely one of the largest factors for finding a partner[1] and the number of couples with similar wealth is increasing [2].
"Relationships with two tigers often don't last because they can't stop fighting and few people tolerate that kind of constant emotional discomfort."
And no, most relationships aren't divided in "controlling" and "controllable" either. In fact, that's a pretty good predictor for partner violence. [3]
[1] https://academic.oup.com/sf/advance-article-abstract/doi/10....
[2] https://www.niussp.org/family-and-households/homogamy-among-...
[3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/088626051988468...
If you’re comparing yourself to your partner in any capacity there will likely be tension.
See how you can make up any story and make it sound plausible? This is why so many people don't trust studies in psychology or economics.
(\ _/)
(o_o )There ya go, you forgot that
The only case I have literal evidence against your case is Physicians in the US. About a quarter of physicians marry other physicians, and this has been trending up for a long time: https://www.ama-assn.org/medical-residents/medical-resident-...
You can’t claim this is connections after marriage.
I strongly suspect the social factor is that high earning professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) are already on the same professional tracks when they get married. They have social circles consist mostly of other professionals. When the meet someone to marry, odds are high that person is part of their professional circles.
What I haven't seen is any data on same sex relationships. Are men as indifferent to a male partner's earning potential as they are to a female partner's? How about for women, do same sex attracted female doctors also prefer other female doctors, or do they pair with female nurses and secretaries?
It's tempting to think that the one with money is getting the better deal (e.g. in terms of evolutionary biology) but I feel like it's a flaw in our psyche as it overlooks the power of capital and capital's ability to make itself more valuable over time. Attractiveness generally only declines over time, unlike capital which only appreciates.
And look at the wives of many of the richest men. The beauty of wives is not strongly correlated with husband earning, certainly not beyond middle/upper middle class and upward where each additional dollar earned means less. Other factors are at work. This should be obvious.
And it's not as if mating takes place at some grand event where every person is a potential candidate for everyone else of the opposite sex. We're distributed, we are embedded in social and kinship networks in time and place. We are exposed to an exceedingly small number of people in life, certainly before the typical age at which we tend to marry. No idea where all these boneheaded ideas about mating comes from that defy basic reason and experience.
Sometimes, it's not necessarily about control, as a sexually attractive female alpha may not be controlled by a male beta, the dynamics can be the other way around. However, it still works because a wealthy male can have a trophy wife/gf that can show off around, get satisfied sexually, while female gain control and access to resources.
Second, I'm looking through the article and not seeing analysis on whether this idea of similarity in partner choosing is a mechanism in choosing a partner or holding a partner, or both. Personally I've found I have a habit of being initially very attracted to people with certain traits that I find really unattractive long term. As I got older it tempered me into working a bit harder to learn more about someone to find what traits they have that I find long-term attractive that you really can't know from just a few dates.
I know so many people in unhappy relationships that are either truly stuck or believe they're stuck, due to economic factors, a child, or simply being unable to face the uncertainty of life without the partner they don't love or even hate. That's without even getting into abuse traps.
Complements and mutuals.
That is, individuals who balance one another out, but also share at least some common foundation.
Yes, it's a relatively small sample (just a US state), but I've seen enough to conclude that at least when it comes to ethnicity/race/skin-color, opposites don't attract each other. There's a term for it—homophily.
[1] - https://www.staradvertiser.com/2012/02/16/breaking-news/hawa...
My comment is indeed about ethnicity/race/skin-color. In this context, I've noticed intense homophily.
> Across analyses, political and religious attitudes, educational attainment and some substance use traits showed the highest correlations, while psychological (that is, psychiatric/personality) and anthropometric traits generally yielded lower but positive correlations.
See an interesting chart here[1]. Anecdotally, I'm also pretty introverted and attracted to extroverted women. On the other hand, I'm also a Christian and have a hard time dating someone that doesn't at least share some set of overlapping moral and ethical values. I also don't smoke, and could probably never date a habitual smoker (no matter how attractive she was on other axes).
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373552866/figure/fi...
Narcissism of small differences provides an informative context for opposites. People from deeply similar niches, of social habits, education, work and other attributes, pair well with other people, highly similar, who maintain a few essential differences.
I feel quite baited into replying.
The study was looking at long term couples which is fair to do. I believe internally, we all know this - I'm looking for a long term partner with similar desires.
Opposites attract during short term relationships - a lot. There's something "exciting" about it, but long term the excitement doesn't make a healthy relationship, probably the most toxic.
We do the - Marry, Fu__, Kill for a reason. Many times Fu__ turns into Kill given enough time.
The less punchy title would be: Opposites Don't Attract in Long Term Relationships
My parents are as different as can be, yet somehow they work well together.
Difference is not just difference. There are different kinds of differences.
Just like in softwre engineering, I find human social systems fascinating. A recent example is the so-called "Bama Rush", which is rushing sororities at the University of Alabama, something I honestly probably never would've heard about were it not for Tiktok. Where I'm from we have nothing like Greek life so I find this fascinating.
UA is an SEC school. SEC schools are a sporting division for the NCAA. UA college football is a big feeder for the NFL. Non-Americans may not realize that the Ivy League too is a sporting designation, not an academic one.
Here are some things I learned:
1. UA itself is a feeder into Alabama politics, called The Machine [1];
2. Pre-Civil War southern society had a very rigid structure. Correct or not, I tend to refer to this as plantation society. This is the realm of cotillions and debutantes. This harkens back to Regency England and earlier. The concept of a "debut" isn't exclusive to the South but it's more pronounced (it seems);
3. "Social proof" is such a huge factor in all of this. So much of this is about either seeking upward social mobility or, in the very least, insuring against downward social mobility. Greek life is a part of this;
4. Traditionally women went to college to get what's referred to somewhat derisively as an "MRS degree" (ie to find a husband). This sort of thing happened in the North too where colleges had "sister colleges" (eg Radcliffe for Harvard, which didn't admit women 60 years ago).
Now I bring all this up because when I see comments about the importance of money (from other commenters and elsewhere), I think that's a very shallow (and basically incorrect) analysis. So much of matching in this environment is about social status and mobility. Power and money are proxies for that. You cannot ignore the importance of shared values in all of this.
Thing is, you see this same pattern play out even somewhere like NYC, which very much isn't "plantation society". There are various proxies for social status like what school you went to (high school and college), where you work, your social connections and so on.
In London, you see people reduce other people to what postcode they live in (eg W4, N1, etc).
In LA in particular but probably elsewhere, if you're friends with an A-lister, you will be able to get into exclusive clubs, restaurants, etc even if by yourself. Just that connection alone is sufficient.
You see a lot of these same themes play out in period fiction lkke Pride and Prejudice.
Now you may think this is all very transactional. To a point it is. Compatibility does factor into it too. But you also find so many people who "settle". Another way of putting this is that they have certain goals and they find a partner who is sufficient for that.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_(social_group)
The Ivy League is absolutely a sports division. But in practice, it's honestly more of a set of "arms reduction treaties", where the schools have decided to limit the expense and effort put into their football programs. They still want to maintain the image of "well-rounded student athletes." And, you know, beat their rivals. But the the student-athlete image thing is important.
They do hope the study will spark more research across disciplines, from economics to sociology to anthropology and psychology."