Secret Ingredient to "clicking"?

[Skyless]

There is probably many words to use for this, but I will call it "clicking with someone". Whether in a friendship or romantic relationship, I found in my life when this kind of connection happens, it's not always over shared interests, common cause or even similar values or matched personalities as you might expect. I have seen the same thing happen numerous times with the people close to me as well. So I guess it's not always outwardly obvious or clear exactly what fuels that connection.

So what do you think makes up that "special sauce" in the recipe to make two people click? 

What has it been in the connections you have made, epecially when it seemed unlikely?

 

[DarkSelene]

I think chemistry is the word, right?!

To be honest, I need to think more about this. I always thought it was a very serendipity thing... never stopped to think of what made it work. Guess the state of mind of both parties also needs to be in sync.

 

[EmilyFoxSeaton]

I have described it as someone else valuing what you value in the way that you value it. 

So for example.. you value not leaving people unattended at a party. But some people that you might meet might walk up to someone and say "hey why are you all alone over here?"  but you think that is terrible because it points out that they are alone. But you see someone notice that someone is alone at the party and they pretend to be very interested in the statute next to the person who is alone and strike up a conversation without making a big deal out of it.

 

[lifestream]

I think it's often just being in the right place at the right time together, and it tends to fade away after a time unless you really work at it.

 

[Xpendable]

I think it's often just being in the right place at the right time together, and it tends to fades away after a time unless you really work at it.

Pretty much.

 

[Skid Row 89]

There is probably many words to use for this, but I will call it "clicking with someone". Whether in a friendship or romantic relationship, I found in my life when this kind of connection happens, it's not always over shared interests, common cause or even similar values or matched personalities as you might expect. I have seen the same thing happen numerous times with the people close to me as well. So I guess it's not always outwardly obvious or clear exactly what fuels that connection.

So what do you think makes up that "special sauce" in the recipe to make two people click? 

What has it been in the connections you have made, epecially when it seemed unlikely?

I think a big element of clicking with someone is simply having conversations that are effortless and not stilted. You don't always have to like all the same things either, in fact I would say that's a huge misconception. I don't think genuinely clicking with someone can be forced and I find that the best friendships are ones that are easily kept. I have struck up friendships with people that I thought disliked me and that has caught me off guard a few times. It just shows you that you can make a connection with almost anyone in some shape or form.

 

[Skyless]

I think chemistry is the word, right?!

To be honest, I need to think more about this. I always thought it was a very serendipity thing... never stopped to think of what made it work. Guess the state of mind of both parties also needs to be in sync.

The word chemistry is a good one for this I think because it almost impies a multifactorial set of constituents, which is how I tend to look at it. But it's also a very top down summary view of lots of things not unlike "recipe" and I suppose I'm trying to dive down one more level down into what that might be or how people have experienced it or even if they have thought about it when it did happen.

No disagreement on the importance of sync between people for sure  In the same vein as the above question, do you think that sync is just a spontaneous, incidental thing? Or do you think it's part of the same menusha that makes up the "chemistry" as above?

 

[Skyless]

I have described it as someone else valuing what you value in the way that you value it. 

So for example.. you value not leaving people unattended at a party. But some people that you might meet might walk up to someone and say "hey why are you all alone over here?"  but you think that is terrible because it points out that they are alone. But you see someone notice that someone is alone at the party and they pretend to be very interested in the statute next to the person who is alone and strike up a conversation without making a big deal out of it.

I like that you added "in the way you value it" that made me question some of my own thoughts on this. Looking at some of my own interactions I have certainly seen that as a very common reoccurring thread in, not all, but many of my relationships. It certainly made me think about the style/substance dichotomy and the role each plays in this.

Hehe I like your example, I have always called that the "wallflower code" which I think most introverts will have an inate understanding of

 

[Skyless]

I think it's often just being in the right place at the right time together, and it tends to fade away after a time unless you really work at it.

No argument at all about the importance of the timing and location or that even the closest connection can fade without proper watering. But, do you think that's the main driver? 

i.e. at the right temporal and geographic intersect would you expect to see most people form this connection? If so, why do you think so and if not what else went into it?

 

[lifestream]

I do think that timing and where you are in life are the main drivers, yes. I also think that most people do make those kinds of bonds too.

Look at grade school, for instance. You're forming connections with people you're spending the majority of your time with for most of your childhood and adolescence, but those connections are practically severed after graduation since the main factor in the friendship, which was this substantial shared block of time, no longer exists. You really have to put the hours in to keep the friendship alive after, when you're not seeing them every day and you're moving in a different direction in life. With things like Facebook, it's fairly easy to to look up old friends and acquaintances now but really, how much are you going to have to talk about with someone you were best friends with a million years ago beyond reminiscing?

As I said, you really have to work at those serendipitous kinds of friendships where there are no shared interests or values to keep it fresh and vital. Much more so than with someone where you have things in common.

 

[Skyless]

There is probably many words to use for this, but I will call it "clicking with someone". Whether in a friendship or romantic relationship, I found in my life when this kind of connection happens, it's not always over shared interests, common cause or even similar values or matched personalities as you might expect. I have seen the same thing happen numerous times with the people close to me as well. So I guess it's not always outwardly obvious or clear exactly what fuels that connection.

So what do you think makes up that "special sauce" in the recipe to make two people click? 

What has it been in the connections you have made, epecially when it seemed unlikely?

I think a big element of clicking with someone is simply having conversations that are effortless and not stilted. You don't always have to like all the same things either, in fact I would say that's a huge misconception. I don't think genuinely clicking with someone can be forced and I find that the best friendships are ones that are easily kept. I have struck up friendships with people that I thought disliked me and that has caught me off guard a few times. It just shows you that you can make a connection with almost anyone in some shape or form.

I know what you mean and for me those have been by far the most valuable and long lasting friendships What do you think the elements are that made them "easily kept"?  I suppose I'm interested in the mechanics behind it, the parts that direct that ease, lets call it. Are they easy to get in touch with, receptive, non flakey, not affected by long periods of non contact, easy to talk to, easy to pick up a wavelength with etc? I guess the characteristics for you that would define effortless or easily kept.

 

[Skyless]

I do think that timing and where you are in life are the main drivers, yes.  I also think that most people do make those kinds of bonds too.

Look at grade school, for instance.  You're forming connections with people you're spending the majority of your time with for most of your childhood and adolescence, but those connections are practically severed after graduation since the main factor in the friendship, which was this substantial shared block of time, no longer exists.  You really have to put the hours in to keep the friendship alive after, when you're not seeing them every day and you're moving in a different direction in life. With things like Facebook, it's fairly easy to to look up old friends and acquaintances now but really, how much are you going to have to talk about with someone you were best friends with a million years ago beyond reminiscing?

As I said, you really have to work at those serendipitous kinds of friendships where there are no shared interests or values to keep it fresh and vital.  Much more so than with someone where you have things in common.

That's a good point about the interest mismatched relationships requiring more maintenance, I have found that as well. On the picking up with old friends after a very long time, it has gone in various ways for me, some have been a bit akward, some so smooth that it felt like we haven't seen each other for days instead of years. I guess I am in some weird mode this week in trying to think about why things like that happen, why they formed in the first place etc.

I certainly agree with the time/place being right as being essentially a prequisite for honestly any relationship to form. It's clearly the baselevel that everything else gets built on and nothing progresses without that leg to stand on. But I can't help but wonder about all the people that I spent similar amounts of time with in similar situations and circumstances and not really developing anything with or not being open to or wanting to in those cases etc. I guess I'm just wondering where those threads actually tied for me and how they do in other people's experiences. 

I realise this isn't the kind of question with a 2+2 = 4 type answer and I appreciate yours and everyone's input  Its interesting to see people's view on this.

 

[lifestream]

For me, the friendships that have endured have been the ones where both parties are secure enough and level-headed enough, I suppose, that you don't have to spend a lot of time with them. You don't have to stay in constant contact, you don't have to make elaborate plans or grand gestures to keep their interest, things like that. I have friends that I'm very fond of and I would rush to their side if they needed help, but spending more than a couple of days in their company wears me down and puts me on edge. I feel a little guilty for saying that, but people are generally exhausting and hard to take for me at times.

The friendships that haven't endured for me have been the ones that were serendipitous, but have never evolved beyond the time and circumstances they were forged in for whatever reason, hence I have to bend over backwards to keep the process alive. In my case, it's often that the other person has some really negative personality trait that I didn't see at first and can't cope with after a few months. To give you an example, I had a best friend whom I met purely by chance that I was close to in my mid teens for about a year until the friendship fizzled out. We kept in touch for years after that, but I found her increasingly hard to deal with because of her growing narcissism. She would show up in my life every year or so, presumably after her real friends had grown tired of dealing with her, looking for an audience or someone to fix her problems. I put up with that for a long time out of respect for the closeness we used to have but then she made a really stupid life choice about two years and I foolishly went against my better judgement and tried to help. She used me pretty outrageously and then went off when I no longer interested her and did her own thing for six months before she sent me a 'thank you' message for everything I'd done for her. I decided then and there that I would never entertain her again. I've seen her twice since, always by chance, and I've been polite but shown no interest in her. It's pretty amusing to see her fidget when she's not given the opportunity to be centre stage but it shows quite clearly that she was only interested in my friendship when it was to her benefit. That's the worst example of a serendipitous friendship gone wrong that I have, but it's basically why I think they're generally doomed to failure. Make of it what you will.

 

[DarkSelene]

The word chemistry is a good one for this I think because it almost impies a multifactorial set of constituents, which is how I tend to look at it. But it's also a very top down summary view of lots of things not unlike "recipe" and I suppose I'm trying to dive down one more level down into what that might be or how people have experienced it or even if they have thought about it when it did happen.

No disagreement on the importance of sync between people for sure  In the same vein as the above question, do you think that sync is just a spontaneous, incidental thing? Or do you think it's part of the same menusha that makes up the "chemistry" as above?

I think it's incidental. You can rationalize and understand better the type of personalities that click easily with you, but some people can still surprise us. The things we usually think matters the most (tastes, likes/dislikes, social-political views, etc.) don't really matter that much when you have respect, honesty and good communication. Besides, it's too good learning from different people, good and bad things alike, so we need to be open to meet different people. Who knows how well you can click with one of those? It depends on your own qualities plus a bunch of random factors that seem to not be completely in our control.
Of course, maintaining that synchrony becomes more important afterwards, and it's both parties job to do so - as in any interaction/relationship.

 

[Skid Row 89]

There is probably many words to use for this, but I will call it "clicking with someone". Whether in a friendship or romantic relationship, I found in my life when this kind of connection happens, it's not always over shared interests, common cause or even similar values or matched personalities as you might expect. I have seen the same thing happen numerous times with the people close to me as well. So I guess it's not always outwardly obvious or clear exactly what fuels that connection.

So what do you think makes up that "special sauce" in the recipe to make two people click? 

What has it been in the connections you have made, epecially when it seemed unlikely?

I think a big element of clicking with someone is simply having conversations that are effortless and not stilted. You don't always have to like all the same things either, in fact I would say that's a huge misconception. I don't think genuinely clicking with someone can be forced and I find that the best friendships are ones that are easily kept. I have struck up friendships with people that I thought disliked me and that has caught me off guard a few times. It just shows you that you can make a connection with almost anyone in some shape or form.

I know what you mean and for me those have been by far the most valuable and long lasting friendships What do you think the elements are that made them "easily kept"?  I suppose I'm interested in the mechanics behind it, the parts that direct that ease, lets call it. Are they easy to get in touch with, receptive, non flakey, not affected by long periods of non contact, easy to talk to, easy to pick up a wavelength with etc? I guess the characteristics for you that would define effortless or easily kept.

The things you listed are exactly what I think would make for an "easily kept" friendship! Non flakey is especially important because it shows they actually want to spend time with you! That said, I wish I had a few more non flakey friendships.

 

[Okiedokes]

For me, I guess it's someone I can relate to or really talk in depth about things with. Someone who is honest, kind, and trustworthy and maybe similar sense of humor. Being able to laugh at things together is really nice. Whether it's friends or more.

 

[TheStaggy]

In my opinion, these ''clicks'' are formed by one or more strong, common interests or outlooks. Even if that common ground is disagreeing over everything in a stimulating way, those lively discussions will draw people closer.

The original attraction will always be something physical, nobody can deny this. That person across the room doesn't look ''interesting'', there is something about their appearance that draws you towards them. The click will be a shared interest.