After yet another argument with my g/f, I'm starting to wonder about this. I've always been a hopeless, mushy romantic, and I've believed in soulmates my whole life.

My definition of "soulmates" is a bit less romantic and a bit more empirical than that of most "hopeless romantics", though. To me, quite simply, soulmates are two people who are happier together than they could ever be with anyone else in the course of their lifetimes. This is something which I suppose could be measured (assuming "happiness" can be gauged) if there was a way to temporarily pair each person with every other person in the world, one at a time, and then make objective observations. Of course, this would not be feasible because of scope...it's only theoretical that this could be measured at all.

Aside from that, it comes down to the "feeling" you have about your partner, as determined from being with them for a reasonable amount of time (not less than, perhaps, a year).

After thinking about this for a while now, I began to wonder how other people feel about the idea.

So, do you believe in the concept of "soulmates" (either as I've described, or in any other way)? (i.e., "one perfect match".)

Or do you think that two people only have to be matched well enough in order to have an acceptably beneficial relationship over a lifetime? (i.e., many possible acceptable matches.)

I put down undecided. I agree with your last suggestion: Two people need to only match well enough in order to have an acceptably beneficial relationship over a lifetime. There's ALWAYS someone else out there that will meet your needs, just as you'll meet theirs.

Granted, this also suggests that some may be better matched than others. With that in mind, it is technically possible to have a soulmate by being the most matched out of all acceptable possibilities. It is also possible that several people are equally matched with you, and thus you can have multiple "soulmates."

Now that I've sucked out all romantic meaning of the phrase soulmate, let me stress that there is another variable in the equation, TIME. As you and your mate grow older, you may find that you need each other more. In that sense, it is very possible for a couple to grow INTO soul mates (when they weren't previously). So, instead of needing someone with a nice smile, pretty hair, and great personality, you just need your girl with all that she is.

Does a non-belief in the existence of souls preclude a belief in soul-mates?

I voted 'no', but I think your definition either guarantees or precludes the existence of a soul-mate (within a high degree of probability) depending on how you look at it. I've actually looked at this problem in the past, and came up with some somewhat discouraging conclusions. Looking at divorce statistics (and the number of unhappy relationships that remain intact), it is even more discouraging.

If you could repeat your life over and over, choosing a different partner each time, quantifying the total lifetime happiness you achieved with each one*, until you've tried every potential partner on Earth, there would be exactly one who resulted in a maximum happiness value. Excluding the highly improbable case that there was more than one person who caused you to achieve precisely this maximum happiness value, there would be exactly one person on Earth with whom you were soul-mates (finding said person without supernatural intervention is likely an intractable problem.)

However, I believe most would agree that the definition of a soul-mate implies mutual happiness. I.e. you are soul-mates if and only if you can achieve maximum happiness by being with your partner, AND they achieve maximum happiness by being with you. It is quite possible (indeed, likely) that in a given relationship one person will be quite blissful and the other could be miserable, indifferent or just moderately happy. In spite of the fact that on partner's happiness is fairly dependent on the other's, I assert that it is highly improbable, given the number of potential couplings (on the order of 10^19, depending on how you calculate it), that there exist a significant number of soul-mate pairs on Earth.

Even if you were to relax the definition slightly by making a pair soul-mates if the sum (or product) of their two happiness values were to be considered, it is still most probable that an optimal pairing would not exist for The vast majority of people. An example:

Let's look at a world with just six people (we'll call them A through F). After trying all the possible couplings, we come up with the following happiness values (to find the happiness for X in a relationship with Y, look at row X and column Y.)



Here, we can see that A is crushing on C, who really is happier with B, D and especially F. F doesn't dislike C, but would rather be with B. B on the other hand, likes Mr. Popular C, who happens to also be D's favorite. D is the only one who can tolerate E, who in turn has a fondness for A and various degrees of loathing for everyone else. A, on the other hand, doesn't much care for E's sociopathic attitude. While we see here that A and D would get along quote well, neither is each other's first choice. Likewise, D would be very happy with C, but isn't even C's second choice. Doesn't look like any of these people have a soul-mate.

If we look at the sums of each pairing, we get:



A and D clearly are soul-mates according to these numbers, though neither has achieved as much happiness as they could have with someone else. However, C has no soul-mate because their maximum happiness would be achieved with D. F would also be best off with D, and B would be best of with F. Poor misanthrope E doesn't even make anyone's second choice. The best they can hope for is to bump of D and C (the only person to ever like him) and get a life of mediocrity with A.

The best result for global happiness is for A to give up on the possibilty of being with their soul-mate commit to an unhappy relationship with E and B and F to get together as well as C and D. Everyone has to settle. If our soul-mates meet up, C and F can also do pretty well, but B and E will both probably end up being all alone.

So in conclusion, in a population of significant size, while there may a slim chance of a handful of soul-mate pairs, they are unlikely to meet each other. The vast majority of people will have to settle, though many or even most will find some happiness (if not maximum happiness). Some people are screwed no matter what. Even the numbers I chose for my example are optimistic. Most people are going to be to be incompatible with any given person (negative happiness value) for being the wrong gender, too little in common, far too young/old, etc., which further reduces the probability that they'll find a suitable partner.

* Method for quantifying total lifetime happiness (PATENT PENDING):

Calculate the total quantity of neurotransmitters, hormones, etc. relating to both "happiness" and "unhappiness" (i.e. dopamine) released during a relationship. Multiply each value by the relative emotional strength of the respective chemical. Compute the sum of the adjusted values for each "positive" chemical, and subtract the sum of the computed values for the "negative" chemicals to get the total happiness value. It is expected that such values would fall into a normal distribution.

I feel like quoting our dear forum founder's response to another poll on a "strange" subject:



I voted yes, because I tend to still believe in this "True Love" crap.

Actually, I think your signature describes a method I would be just as satisfied with...

"Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the world."



(ummm...Can I change my vote?)

But seriously, thanks for a very detailed and insightful analysis of relationships. So looking past the idea of "soulmates" for a moment, considering the population of the world it seems there would be a significant percentage of people I could be quite happy with who would be equally happy with me. I guess it's time to talk to my girlfriend...


I know this is waaay OT, but I just wanted some insight from people with objective opinions who I trust.

This is actually a somewhat interesting conversation.

But "soulmate" is one of those concepts, like "love at first sight".
Some people swear it's happened to them, and some think is BS.

Sadly, we cannot ABX love relationships.

BTW, your new avatar is giving me the creeps.
Why you change so much?
Is that a dachsund?

I was somewhat disheartened to see that the 'believers' weren't even in the majority here..

I don't think for a couple to be soulmates they have to be the single happiest combination that would be possible for them, they just need to achieve 'transparency' with regards to achieving perfect happiness..

I had a go at fleshing out the terms needed to meet what is "good enough" for a couple to be soulmates, and that is where it stops being an objective analysis and become romantic mush

For example.. If both members had the power to forgive eachother for any indiscresions and no problem was great enough to come between them, then they are soulmates. I think it's fair to say anyone with 'a summed happiness of over +50' in Phongs example would meet that criterea.

Following that example, I think A and D could become soulmates, as well as C and F, or B and F. It just depends who met who and what happened. And regarding the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce, that's because people marry the wrong person, not their soulmate.

I was somewhat disheartened to see that the 'believers' weren't even in the majority here..

I don't think for a couple to be soulmates they have to be the single happiest combination that would be possible for them, they just need to achieve 'transparency' with regards to achieving perfect happiness..

I had a go at fleshing out the terms needed to meet what is "good enough" for a couple to be soulmates, and that is where it stops being an objective analysis and become romantic mush

For example.. If both members had the power to forgive eachother for any indiscresions and no problem was great enough to come between them, then they are soulmates. I think it's fair to say anyone with 'a summed happiness of over +50' in Phongs example would meet that criterea.

Following that example, I think A and D could become soulmates, as well as C and F, or B and F. It just depends who met who and what happened. And regarding the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce, that's because people marry the wrong person, not their soulmate.

No, I do not.

The whole concept is a load of bunk.

<Must resist obvious comment about correlation between user name and apparent luck in love>

D.

I've just been waiting for the day on HA when someone mentions ABXing "being in love" to make sure it's the real thing. I think phong's "six people but no soul mates" world goes even beyond this!


I've got a mate who likes Soul, but he's not my Soul mate. <ducks>


Anyway, I voted yes. There do seem to be a million factors (some of them having very little to do with what the two people are actually like) that can cause one person to be the best suited person to another person, and for it to be reciprocal.

However, there do seem to be lots of people who aren't comfortable enough with themselves, and aren't interested enough in other people (in the right way) to ever be really happy with anyone else, or to make anyone else (except someone desperate) really happy. Or maybe we're all desperate.


Cheers,
David.

Amen

After very recent events in my life, I'm starting to shy away from the idea of "soulmates" and settle more on just the concept of "enough in common to justify a life-long match" between two people. Not as romantic-sounding, maybe, but more realistic I think.

I'm also surprised how close the "Yes" and "No" votes are so far...Currently, Yes = 20, No = 24. I figured in a scientific community full of practical-minded people that the voting balance would be leaning more strongly toward No.


It was creeping me out, too, so I changed it. I'm trying to find one pic I can call my "main avatar", but I'll still change sometimes if I find something really interesting. The one you saw before was a "mandog"...a quite well-done PhotoShop job that someone did on a pic of a Labrador Retriever. (BTW...now my avatar is the center portion of my favorite Michael Mott piece, Nap In The Sand...and I think this will be my permanent one.)

Ladder Theory is a rather insightful take on what attracts men and women to each other. It is definitely not what I would call "objective", but it does make some interesting points.

I thought I did, until I had my dreams ruined, when she went with another guy, and now she's with him.

I still miss her like hell though, but I don't think we're soul mates.

Ruairi

I "tried out" many women for many years, trying to find the great romatic love "who will make me happy", before I met my wife. We have been married ten years, and I'm very grateful. But neither of us looks at the other as the ultimate source of happiness. It's a partnership of trust, affection, caring, and faith. We have a much better marriage because of our Christian commitment than we ever could without. Knowing who God is makes it much clearer who your spouse, or any human, can be -- and what they can't be. Our hope/worship is in the Creator, not the created.

Could someone else be "better"? Maybe. Could someone else make me "happier"? Doubtful. That ultimate happiness we crave is, we believe, found in the Father, not the wife or the husband.

You think thats air you're breathing?

The real question is, can you ABX the difference

Ahh, a Matrix fan.

Edit: Changed quote date and time to ISO 8601 format.

Weeeeee!!!! My vote has made a draw again! (29 to 29).

It is difficult to study love, and sure that soulmates have to do with love.
I'd define a soulmate as the person that has the ability to understand one's feelings and wants to help you to achieve your goals. (I can't find the exact words....) (no... mum doesn't count ;D )

As other members in this thread has said, being soulmates is mutual. i.e. someone is a soulmate of you if you're his/her soulmate. Else, it is only (temporary) love, or feelings.

People that match these criteria do exist, but, as phong has said, it looks like they are scarce in our society. ( Too much divorces... I look at my family and I'm scared.. both of my sisters and my parents are divorced... )

I think i found my soulmate some years ago, but we aren't a couple anymore.
Why do I say then that we were soulmates? Because we were quite happy with each other, we gave us what we were missing (feelings, love,... don't know the exact words), and we thought alike in many things.
Also, this relation was special, because my life was quite different when I was with her. Used to talk more, be more active, more generous... hope you get what I mean.. (btw... this ended because of stupid reasons... distance, money, and family)


I think it's difficult to find a soulmate nowadays, because people is becoming too materialistic, and this implies wanting something for oneself, not for one's mate.
People tend to abuse of the word "love", seem to pretend that the most handsome is the best lover, (when it usually is the opposite because of this), think that all the people is bad and hope for that perfect match to appear just for them.
In other words, people expect to receive but don't give a thing.


I'd like to close these words saying that if people tried to be friendlier with the ones close to them, we would live much happier. It is difficult. I know.


Ps. to ScorLibran : Having arguments with a couple is not synonim of not being soulmates. It can be because of thousand reasons. I had them sometimes when I missed her and wanted to see us. Arguments have to be understood, because generally they are that one or the other would like to feel better but there's something that prevents him/her to have it. Good luck in love anyway.