Can Opposites Really Attract in Relationships?

[theoristo]

If you're enormousely interested,passionate and invested in a subject (say science),and you're going out with a person who has no interests,or whose interests and passions are completely opposed to yours,does this sort of relationship last,is it even worth it?

 

[Permanence]

I think it depends what you want from her and what you're willing to put up with to get it. Regardless I don't think the scenario you described is a recipe for disaster. It isn't like your partner despises what you love.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think the way it works is if you both like pizza that's enough common ground for a relationship.

 

[bp_psy]

No, it's absolutely impossible and completely unheard of. It will never last.

How exactly can a person's interests be ''completely opposed'' to science ? Are they into voodoo or something?

 

[leroyjenkens]

No, it's absolutely impossible and completely unheard of. It will never last.

How exactly can a person's interests be ''completely opposed'' to science ? Are they into voodoo or something?

Fundamentalist religious person, maybe. I could see that type of person being completely incompatible with someone who loves science.

 

[theoristo]

Fundamentalist religious person, maybe. I could see that type of person being completely incompatible with someone who loves science.

Exactly.

 

[StrayCatalyst]

If there's a person with whom you share enough interests - it's okay to not share all of them. But if it's something as important to you as science, and the other person has no interest, then you're going to run out of things to talk about pretty quickly. A religious person can be compatible with a scientific person - but only if each person is willing to try to share the other's point of view. That being said, it's a lot easier (and more likely to succeed) if the two of you are both on the same page, when it comes to something as fundamental as science vs religion.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Exactly.

In this case I would predict doom for the relationship.

Some new age types are riddled with pseudoscientific ideas that could cause a lot of debates, but there is some chance you could correct them over time. Religious fundamentalists are more fanatic and resistant, in my experience.

 

[theoristo]

In this case I would predict doom for the relationship.

Some new age types are riddled with pseudoscientific ideas that could cause a lot of debates, but there is some chance you could correct them over time. Religious fundamentalists are more fanatic and resistant, in my experience.

I try not to debate it ,I just try to avoid it and appeal to her with riddles,mysteries and try to make her think about things by herself ,she doesn't seem to like it.

 

[daveyrocket]

Having common interests is much less important for predicting the likelihood of a relationship surviving than having common values. You can date someone who has no interest in your passions as long as your passions don't conflict with that person's values (or vice-versa). If you're a member of Peta, dating someone who is an avid hunter probably isn't a good idea.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I try not to debate it ,I just try to avoid it and appeal to her with riddles,mysteries and try to make her think about things by herself ,she doesn't seem to like it.

If you're not constantly debating it and have a lot of other common ground, I'd say it's worth it to continue. If the relationship ever crashes at some point due to this difference in thinking it will still have been mostly a good experience, or, at least, a learning experience. People break up over far more trivial things.

 

[Pythagorean]

having the same passions can be extremely annoying because you will still disagree about the details but since you're both passionate, both of you will be stubbornly right.

 

[MarneMath]

I try not to debate it ,I just try to avoid it and appeal to her with riddles,mysteries and try to make her think about things by herself ,she doesn't seem to like it.

It's doomed because you think she's dumber than you are. In my opinion, once you feel you are trying to better your partner and have the hubris to believe you can and should then you've already determine that the relationship should fail.

My wife is a reasonably intelligent person and in many ways more so than I am. I have no stomach for her corporate business world, and she thinks my futile attempt to improve public health is a noble but impossible goal. My work is important to me, her accounts are important to me, but every winter, we go duck hunting and have a great time.

I agree with daveyrocket that values is where it matters. If science is what you value most, then clearly someone who values it little is not someone you would want to be with. However, science may be important to you, but other things like family values, life goals, parenting styles, and money management may be more important to you in a partner and thus the partner's lack of interest in science can be more tolerable :).

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Fundamentalist religious person, maybe. I could see that type of person being completely incompatible with someone who loves science.

Exactly.

Perhaps common disinterests are as important as common interests. A scientist and a religious fundamentalist - let's see, what would they both ignore? -sex?, TV? golf?

 

[Sentin3l]

Speaking from experience (I dated a very devout girl throughout high school), it doesn't work. What happened with me is that she began to see me as someone who needed to be "saved" and when I didn't fall for it; she considered even the fact that she knew me was a sin.

In general this match up doesn't work. It would be different if the person you were seeing was just disinterested in science, but many of the fundamental tenets of some religions go directly against proven science. It's a ticking time bomb of a relationship.