Journal Entries from 1997

12-3-97 at 1:45 a.m.
I think I'm getting some insight into people's interactions. I think people involve themselves with people who complement their personalities..like almost opposites. But I don't think it's as simple as "opposites attract." I think people ARE in fact interested in people very similar to them--very similar CORE personalities, BUT...those are fewer and farther between, in terms of relationships because although you really like the similar good things, attributes, they have similar weaknesses too. So if you get 2 people who, for example, are very social, but have trouble opening up to people, they'll be drawn to each other, but generally won't become seriously involved because neither wants to risk it. Oh, so then they'll become seriously involved* (probably) with people who are maybe less social, but open up very easily because what one person is unwilling to do, the other is eager to do, and vice versa. *actually, revision: people who are similar do become involved sometimes because sometimes it's easy, but sometimes these are the bad relationships because the good ones are ones you have to work at. ?? Similar weakness
Or like in my case, I like people who are artistic, sensitive, passionate, funny, confident, individualistic...I'm those ways too, but with these characteristics, people often tend to also be bull-headed, shy, moody, proud, unwilling to sacrifice, etc. So nothing will ever happen with those people because we have those same weaknesses, and neither is willing to budge. So who do I tend to become serious with if not those people? Well actually, I tend to be involved with people pretty close to that, only maybe that they're more extroverted than me (or occasionally, more introverted, like Dan). And then, maybe yeah, I get involved with people with all those characteristics, but then because of their pride, and need for privacy, people who have trouble opening up- and that's where I come in because it's fairly easy for me to open up, but it's a point of frustration for me because I want THEM to open up. So I'm good for (complement) someone who is maybe less shy, artistic, less sensitive, passionate, funny, confident, individualistic, one of us has to budge (them! :) ) more social (extroverted?) and has trouble opening up. And that person would be good for me. Like someone who is less sensitive, more social, and they could help me be more comfortable socially and I could help them open up more.
But because it's so hard to overcome weaknesses, I would go for...wait...I've gotten confused...
So the people who are especially contemplative, or philosophical, passionate, sensitive, artistic, are the people I am REALLY attracted to.
Which one is it: people with similar strengths are the ones who become involved with each other easily, but it's less happy, they'd be happier with someone with similar weaknesses, OR is it: that people with similar weaknesses are the ones who become involved with each other easily, but it's less happy, and they'd be happier with someone with similar STRENGTHS, and that's less common?
So maybe the best, but uncommon, relationships are where people have similar strengths AND weaknesses, but each person ends up a different way due to those things?

So the artist who cannot socialize, but CAN open up, SHOULD date the poet who CAN socialize, but CAN'T open up.
So friendly, shallow people should go out with friendly, slightly less shallow people.
Deep, shy people should go for deep, slightly less shy people.