Two maxims are commonly believed: 1. opposites attract and 2. "birds of a feather flock together." Human personality is far too subtle and complex to pigeon-hole into simplistic sayings. A shidduch is composed of two people. If one person alone is subtle and complex, how much moreso is putting two people together subtle and complex! Generally BOTH maxims are false and meaningless. For example, neither is true for the attribute of "practicality." Two people may be deeply in love but if they both end up on the street because neither remembered to pay the rent, that's no marriage! At least one must be practical. If both are not practical, the couple won't be able to function. You don't NEED one to be impractical (opposites attract). You don't need BOTH to be practical (birds of a feather). What counts? The marriage must contain practicality.

Some traits, because of the dynamics, must fit one of the two maxims. When you witness a couple who are opposites or the same, you assume, respectively, that opposites attract or likes attract likes (just the fact that two mutually existing maxims exist shows you that both are suspect). You are witnessing and FOCUSING ON ONE OF THE TRAITS whose dynamics are mutually exclusive or whose dynamics require similarity for a functional, compatible marriage.

A couple SHOULD be at opposite points on the spectrum between domineering and passive. Two strong-willed people will repeatedly clash and two passive people may sleep through life. The more one is controlling, the more the other should be passive. If you see two who are opposites on the spectrum between passive and domineering, you haven't proved that opposites attract. You've proven that there's more to life than banging heads together.

Intellectual level must be similar. Otherwise, they may never be able to talk to each other. Humaneness and sensitivity level must be somewhat similar. Otherwise, they may never be able to relate, understand or fulfill each other.

Let me give an example of a complex case. If a woman has a domineering nature and (in her family) her father was the decision maker, she will expect the man to make decisions. But, she won't accept a husband's authority. This will undermine compatibility. She will be in a dilemma. She won't accept or respect a man who won't be a strong decision maker, while if she marries a strong decision-maker, she won't accept or respect his strong decisions. She is going to have to work hard to reconcile strongly contradictory and mutually exclusive elements within, in order to have a compatible and stable marriage.

The spectrum between stinginess and generosity presents another complex condition. If both are generous, or to a lesser degree, if the man is generous and the woman stingy, the match is OK. But if the man is stingy and the woman is generous, the marriage can be explosive. The Talmud says "women's minds are close to money." In practical married life, women tend more to spend and make most purchases for the household. Since she understands spending in her nature, a stingy woman has some "margin" to understand a spending husband. The stingy man is further away from spending, so he is the opposite. A stingy man will get angry and fight when his wife spends in ways that he feels are unjustifiable.