Despite claims from dating apps, machine learning and similarity matching fail to predict romantic compatibility. Compatibility isn't about finding a perfect match based on pre-existing traits; it's about actively building a unique "tiny culture" of rituals, jokes, and shared history together over time.
According to psychiatrist Mimi Winsberg, the degree to which two people mirror each other's texting style—such as vocabulary, sentence length, and emoji use—is a strong indicator of chemistry. This "language-style matching" is a digital equivalent of mirroring body language and predicts long-term sustainability.
The concept of a vast 'mating marketplace' driven by immediate value signals is a recent phenomenon. Evolutionarily, humans formed bonds based on long-term compatibility within small, familiar tribes, suggesting that today's dating apps create an unnatural and potentially detrimental dynamic.
Deep connection relies on a shared “fun age”—a mutual understanding of what constitutes play and enjoyment. Whether it’s childlike pranks or quiet domesticity, having compatible fun ages allows partners to cultivate both levity and gravity, which is essential for long-term relational health.
Bumble's founder envisions a future where personal AI agents "date" each other to pre-screen for compatibility and deal-breakers. The goal isn't to replace human interaction but to use technology to save users time, energy, and the stress of bad dates by filtering for genuine compatibility upfront.
The endless-swipe model of online dating is miserable because it frames the core problem of love as a search for the 'right' person. This distracts from the actual, harder work: learning to build compatibility and navigate conflict with an inevitably imperfect human.
Intense initial chemistry is often misinterpreted as a special bond. In reality, it's more likely an attribute of one person who is alluring and 'sparky' with everyone, making it a poor predictor of long-term compatibility and success.
Strong initial chemistry is often mistaken for genuine compatibility, leading people to commit prematurely. The subsequent attempt to change a partner to fit a preconceived vision inevitably breeds resentment and conflict when values are discovered to be misaligned.
Chris Appleton compares modern dating to buying a house. Initially, you're charmed by basic features, but over time you learn your absolute needs (e.g., 'good natural light'). This experience-based filter helps you quickly disqualify poor fits and focus on a smaller pool of more compatible partners.
Speed dating studies show couples who "click" are biologically in sync, even if a person violates the other's stated preferences (e.g., height, religion). This highlights the limits of algorithm-based matching, which cannot capture this multi-sensory phenomenon.
Modern dating culture wrongly treats compatibility as an entry fee for a relationship. A healthier approach is to view it as the outcome of sustained effort and love. Compatibility is something you build with a partner, not something you find ready-made.