Thoughts on Integral Compatibility

I have pondered the mysteries of compatibility, whether in friendships, business relationships or sexual relationships. My long-time bias has been towards understanding types and their compatibility. But finally I have arrived at viewing compatibility in a much more complex way. Below is a provisional model of Integral Compatibility.

Let’s start with the understanding that this is a model, which I’ve expressed mathematically. Think of compatibility as an overlap in space. The greater the volume of overlap, the more compatible individuals are with one another.

My favorite measure of compatibility is Type . Using the enneagram as your typology, and knowing your specific type, we would indicate compatibility as follows: 3 points for types that are on either side of your type. That would be, if you are a Type 3, a +3 points for the other person being either a Type 2 or a Type 4. Add +2 if the other person is across the enneagram from you, that is (for a Type 3) Types 7 or 8. Add +1 point if the other person is your same type, or your stress or flow type—that is, Type 3 with Types 3, 6 and 9. Add +½ point if the other person is one of the two remaining types; for Type 3 this is Types 1 and 5.

Moving on to States, add one point for each state that both parties consciously, deliberately share. For most people, this will only be the gross, physical state. For those not used to the concept of state experience, we each exist and perceive gross, subtle, causal and non-dual states. However, most of us only have voluntary competence in the gross state. I suspect that many couples add on a second shared state (most likely subtle) by the use of drugs or alcohol. This is only a temporary asset to compatibility, and not recommended.

Lines of development add more compatibility. Add one point, with a maximum of three possible, for each significant personal line of development common to the other party. Lines of development could include items such as the following: same college degrees, same profession, same religion and religious commitment, and other items of personal mastery that are important to both parties. If both are masters of the same line, but one does not value this line, it is not part of the compatibility equation.

Quadrant bias: add one point for each shared quadrant perspective. Thus, if both parties share a focus on the interior-individual quadrant, valuing dreams, meditation, spiritual experiences, than this is +1. If both parties value the physical self, through extensive personal fitness, nutrition, exercise, athleticism, and so forth, +1. If both value infrastructure and systems of group interaction, add +1. If both value a shared cultural bias, add +1.

At this point, you have a compatibility score for any two people which is the sum of scores for Type, State, Line and Quadrant compatibilities. Now we will look at the levels of development.

Consider the normal level of development for adults in the country where parties live. For the United States this would be the Traditional level of development. (Also known as the Blue meme, or Amber meme.) If both parties share this, add +1. Add + 0.5 for each additional level they share above Traditional. Thus, if one party is at Modern, and the other at Pluralist, add +1 for their shared Traditional, and +0.5 for their shared Modern, or +1.5. Only add additional points if both parties share that meme. If one or both parties are not up to Traditional, then only allot them +½ point.

Now, multiply the Level score times the combined scores for type, state, line and quadrant.

Several examples to illustrate this compatibility:

Person A, who is an enneagram type 9, gross state, many lines of development, functions in all four quadrants and is at integral development, with:

Person B, who is an enneagram type 3, gross and subtle states, many lines of development, functions in two quadrants and is at pluralist development.

A and B compatibility: 1 + 1 + 3 + 2 = 7 multiplied by 2 to get a compatibility score of 14. (We got the first 1 from type, the second 1 from state, the 3 from shared lines, and the 2 from shared quadrant perspectives.)

Person C is an enneagram type 5, with gross and subtle states, multiple lines of development (2 shared with A), integral development and two quadrants.

Person A with person C: 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 = 7 multiplied by 2.5 (shared traditional, modern, pluralist and integral development) to get a score of 17.5.

Person D is an enneagram type 6, with gross state, fewer lines of development (1 shared with A, two quadrant bias, and Traditional development.

Person A with person D: 1+ 1 + 1 + 2 = 5, multiplied by 1 gives a score of 5.

Person E is an enneagram type 1, gross state, several lines of development (2 shared with person D), and one quadrant bias. This person is at the Warrior stage of development.

Person D with Person E: 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 6 multiplied by ½ as one person, E, is not up to the cultural norm, gives a score of 3.

This may seem too mathematical to some readers, but it indicates the importance of personal levels of development, and how they can hugely affect the perceived compatibility of any two people. It also explains the relatively shallow nature of most relationships as viewed by people who are at integral development, or higher. Fairly minimal compatibility becomes important when both parties are highly developed. And conversely, large compatibility (of type, states, lines and quadrants) does not mean much if the developmental levels of the parties are below the norms for their social matrix.

Lalia Wilson