User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Type compatibility (according to answers on OkCupid)

  1. #11
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Can you elaborate a little more on what exactly you did here?
    Male 1 (INTP) was matched with female 1 (INFJ), for example, then the resulting match percentage (how much of what the INTP male wants is given by the INFJ female) was stored in the ("m:intp", "f:infj") bucket. Then the reverse happened, and it was stored in the ("f:infj", "m:intp") bucket. Once everyone was matched with everyone else, the values in each bucket were averaged together. Once averaged, the average and standard deviation for the ("m:intp", ...) results were calculated, for example, then used to normalize those results. Once normalized, the lower of ("m:intp", "f:infj") and ("f:infj, "m:intp") was stored as the match percentage for that type and gender.

  2. #12
    In Line to the Throne Array Cloudpatrol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    MBTI
    IXFX
    Enneagram
    479
    Posts
    2,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayce View Post

    All types are worst matched with people who are at least 3 letters different. Which again, indicates clear difference in compatibility.
    Intriguing summary!

    My mind is puzzling over the bold. I need to give that more thought and compare against IRL accumulated data-experience



    Quote Originally Posted by Jayce View Post
    I find it best to search for similarity that is not too similar. You need a balance of differences to ignite the spark.

    My highest matches are always other intuitives and rarely something else. Given they've answered a lot of questions. I also find intuitives that are not high matches so it doesn't go to say that all intuitives are good matches with each other. I find the same happening in real life too. People and relationships are so much more than type.

    I would hope for more discussion on this subject, its so interesting! Attachment 17486
    Loading...

  3. #13
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayce View Post
    I have to up this thread after finding it in the magnificent world of google search. Its amazing data really if you look at it properly. The scores are so close because of "statistics" rounding it even. Overall match is 73% so it makes more sense to restrict our way of looking at it in the 70-80 gap. Basically if we take out the 70 from the picture (deduct 70 from the score) we have numbers we can understand better. I'm by no means an expert in statistics but have taken a class at uni and understand them somewhat even though I can't talk about it in proper terms. Just bear with me. I'm also on okcupid, so I know what the questions are about and how it works.

    Out of all the matches ESFJ and ESTJ have the lowest overall matching %. This might seem to be due to them being the most picky and having the most strict opinions. But in reality its due to them being the most common types so the deviation closes in. This is further proved by sensors having the the lowest match percentages in general. So I wouldn't make correlation with Ns being more agreeable. ENFJ and INFJ lead the best match competition. My guess is this is partly due to them being rare and also that they might be more forgiving in a mate (allowing more options through).

    All the intuitives have best matches with their own type. This is a clear indication of similarity in types. All the types are best matched with similar matches on the E/I spectrum.

    Almost all intuitives are best matched with other intuitives. The differentiation is clear, bottom of the list is full of sensors and top is full of intuitives. This could again be because of type prevalence. All Sensors aren't best matched with sensors, but also with intuitives. Which would seem to indicate that intuitives are more easygoing in general, but is more likely due to type prevalence. The distinction to lower half and upper half isn't anywhere near that clear. I would say this is due to intuitives picking more suitable answers and being less strict about things.

    Contrary to one popular compatibility theory, ISTPs are worst matched with ESTJs. ISTPs and INTPs seem to be the worst matches in general. ISTPs don't even match well with themselves. I have no idea how can this even be. Maybe due to Ti they might have very individual logic systems.

    All types are worst matched with people who are at least 3 letters different. Which again, indicates clear difference in compatibility.

    What we can lightly deduct from this (and other observations in life) is that your best 99% matches might not be your best match in real life. They might be too similar, as in the same type. I personally wouldn't like to date another ENTP, I think. I find it best to search for similarity that is not too similar. You need a balance of differences to ignite the spark. High enough match, but not overly high. Then again, the questions are about life in general and not directly indicative of type per se as can be seen from the statistics. They do, however, indicate a somewhat clear correlation of similarity regarding the same type.

    My highest matches are always other intuitives and rarely something else. Given they've answered a lot of questions. I also find intuitives that are not high matches so it doesn't go to say that all intuitives are good matches with each other. I find the same happening in real life too. People and relationships are so much more than type.

    I would hope for more discussion on this subject, its so interesting! And I apologize if there is any bullshit in my comment, I might've overlooked some stuff and come to the wrong conclusions.Attachment 17486
    There's more data for the INxx types than the ESxx types, as there are more INxx types online. The lower overall match percentage for ESxJs is probably telling of how disagreeable they are (give answers not liked by others and unaccepting of answers commonly chosen by others).

  4. #14
    (in)formation Array Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baccheion View Post
    I took everyone that stated their type on OkCupid (~65,000 people, 1/3rd female) and matched them with each other (straight males with straight/bi women, bi males with bi males and straight/bi women, etc), and some numbers popped out. What do you think?
    My understanding of OKC match scores is that they are basically an indicator of how similar your romantic and lifestyle preferences are to other users'. In other words, they are a decent proxy for, rather than a true indicator of what your actual chemistry or even long-term compatibility with another person might be.

    That being the case, it would make a lot of sense that those who share a type would have the highest "compatibilities" as they should theoretically share relationship preferences/styles as well.

    More anecdotally, two of my longest term relationships were with guys with whom I had match scores in the 70% range. Anything above 90%, ime, and you just kind of slide right past each other as there's not enough friction to really create a spark.
    Little does he know I have a machete in my Chanel bag
    Likes Chanaynay, OrangeAppled liked this post

  5. #15
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind Up Rex View Post
    My understanding of OKC match scores is that they are basically an indicator of how similar your romantic and lifestyle preferences are to other users'. In other words, they are a decent proxy for, rather than a true indicator of what your actual chemistry or even long-term compatibility with another person might be.

    That being the case, it would make a lot of sense that those who share a type would have the highest "compatibilities" as they should theoretically share relationship preferences/styles as well.

    More anecdotally, two of my longest term relationships were with guys with whom I had match scores in the 70% range. Anything above 90%, ime, and you just kind of slide right past each other as there's not enough friction to really create a spark.
    Match scores are a filter. Anything below 75% (or above 20% enemy) is likely to be bad. Once above the bare minimum, there's little difference between 75 and 89, and 90 and 99.

    It makes sense as you get a 0 whenever you answer in a fashion not liked by the other person. When you have accumulated a lot of zeros, you're score is low. The problem is, if you answer all questions well, but then answer a very important question incorrectly, the other good answers drown out the extremely bad one. That makes it more likely that bad matches can have a higher match score than good matches a low score. That is, if someone's score is below the line (75%) and they've answered enough questions, then you can be fairly certain they are a bad match. On the other hand, if they are above the line, they may not necessarily be a good match. In any event, as the filter eliminates a large percentage of the potential pool, it becomes more doable to search through "unacceptable answers" for dealbreaker-type responses.

  6. #16
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Array Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baccheion View Post
    There's more data for the INxx types than the ESxx types, as there are more INxx types online. The lower overall match percentage for ESxJs is probably telling of how disagreeable they are (give answers not liked by others and unaccepting of answers commonly chosen by others).
    So they're.....

    ..... too judgemental.

    Likes Forever liked this post

  7. #17
    Talk To Me ☀ Array Merced's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    2w3 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Ne
    Posts
    587

    Default






    (I'm glad @Chanaynay feels the same way about this, lmao)
    (previously known sarcasmsunshine)
    MBTI: ENFP (Ne > Ni = Fi > Fe > Ti > Te > Se = Si)
    Enneagram: 2w3 - 8w7 - 7w8 (The Humanitarian) | sx/so/sp
    Temperament: Sanguine > Choleric = Melancholic > Phlegmatic
    Alignment: Chaotic Good
    Big 5: SLUAI
    Zodiac: Aries-Taurus Cusp Sun, Scorpio Moon, Cancer Rising
    Potter House: Slytherin
    Social Media: TumblrDiscordYoutubeMSPARP

  8. #18
    (in)formation Array Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baccheion View Post
    Match scores are a filter. Anything below 75% (or above 20% enemy) is likely to be bad. Once above the bare minimum, there's little difference between 75 and 89, and 90 and 99.

    It makes sense as you get a 0 whenever you answer in a fashion not liked by the other person. When you have accumulated a lot of zeros, you're score is low. The problem is, if you answer all questions well, but then answer a very important question incorrectly, the other good answers drown out the extremely bad one. That makes it more likely that bad matches can have a higher match score than good matches a low score. That is, if someone's score is below the line (75%) and they've answered enough questions, then you can be fairly certain they are a bad match. On the other hand, if they are above the line, they may not necessarily be a good match. In any event, as the filter eliminates a large percentage of the potential pool, it becomes more doable to search through "unacceptable answers" for dealbreaker-type responses.
    This doesn't seem to contradict my point.
    Little does he know I have a machete in my Chanel bag

  9. #19
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind Up Rex View Post
    This doesn't seem to contradict my point.
    Do you remember the enemy match you had with your matches?

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Can you elaborate a little more on what exactly you did here?
    Would it be possible to edit the original post to link to the new data here: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post2780987 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by sarcasmsunshine View Post





    (I'm glad @Chanaynay feels the same way about this, lmao)
    Updated pairings here: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post2780987

  10. #20
    (in)formation Array Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baccheion View Post
    Do you remember the enemy match you had with your matches?
    Are you trying to give some reasoning for my personal experience for the site? I'm unclear on the relevance of your reply or this question. What you said regarding matches being a "filtering" mechanism still seems to line up with what I said about values/relationship styles vs relationship quality and outcome.
    Little does he know I have a machete in my Chanel bag

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Type Me According to the Information Provided Below
    By Romello in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-28-2014, 06:53 PM
  2. who wants to take on the challenge of determining my type?
    By catherinegoode in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-2013, 06:33 PM
  3. Know of any research on type compatibility?
    By KarenParker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-28-2012, 07:20 PM
  4. What personality types tend to cheat on exams?
    By curiousel in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-11-2011, 01:57 PM
  5. Which questions on personality tests do you find the most difficult to answer?
    By Such Irony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 08:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •