Furthermore, based on the assumption or belief that “opposites attract”, some people apparently also seek dissimilarity in personality, as exemplified in the following statements:
“We look like total opposites. He’s tall and dignified, and I’m short and hysterical. We are opposites in terms of the way we look and the way we act, but because we get along so well we balance each other out. Or maybe we get along so well because we are opposites.”
Moreover, anecdotal and clinical evidence also indicates that, for instance, highly emotional women have the ability to make quite an impact on highly cerebral men, or that aggressive men exert some kind of attraction on conciliative women. Likewise, research found out that couples in complementary relationships, e.g., combining dominant people with submissive partners, reported higher satisfaction than do people who were with partners who resembled themselves.
Various accounts may be employed to argue against the notion that “birds of a feather flock together” and to explain why, on the contrary, opposite personalities could attract one another very much in the same way as the extremes of a magnet. First of all, differences can be exciting and add spice to a relationship, both in the short and long terms. If the two partners are too similar, boredom may set in after a while, as their opinions or responses are too obvious or foreseeable. But if they are dissimilar, the process of discovering another person’s culture, views, beliefs or ideas can have galvanising effects on both, raising their interest and passion for one another. Not being familiar with or fully understanding somebody can be seen as a source of thrill or eroticism. The mystique of the unknown thus can contribute to the creation of sexual tension between the two opposites, resulting, in the best case, into an amorous relationship.
At the same time, interacting with someone who holds different mental positions offers the opportunity to learn something new and valuable, or to sharpen one’s own argumentation skills. At any rate, distinctiveness allows people to experience a wider spectrum of emotional or intellectual opportunities. Dating or being with someone who is different from oneself offers a person the chance to find out what he likes and dislikes in a mate. She can then force him to look deeper into himself by challenging his own convictions, thoughts or feelings, thus expanding his knowledge and life experience. Furthermore, a woman’s awareness or insight that she is liked or loved by a man who disagrees with her on a number of points is particularly gratifying, as it shows her that her partner likes or loves her because of who she is and not simply because of her views. This is likely to make her feel unique and special, rather than just being like everyone else. Another explanation could be the existence of an innate defence mechanism that drives people into the arms of partners who are their complete opposite – like, for example, when a man used to suppress his feelings (as his own way to cope) finds himself attracted to women who dramatise their emotions.
One key aspect in this regard is complementarity. In fact, it is not necessarily the difference per se that enables or intensifies the attraction, but the compatibility between two individuals, be it in terms of personalities, preferences, skills, etc. Accordingly, absolute dissimilitude is neither necessary nor recommended. On the contrary, complementarity in one particular, significant personality dimension seems to be enough to tip the scales – while similarity in general (e.g., in background, interests, intelligence, etc.) remains the main factor for attraction. Partners just need enough distinctness to make it interesting and to balance their own individualities, yet not so much that it would impede the development of their personalities or interfere with their lifestyles.
Related proverbs and citations:
chóng yáng mèi wài
To worship and have blind faith in foreign things.
 Cited in: Pines (2005), p. 58
 Pease / Pease (1999), p. 268
 Yoo (2012)
 Pines (2005), pp. 58-59
 Pease / Pease (1999), p. 268