Type compatibility (according to answers on OkCupid)

[baccheion]

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.

I'm trying to see if there's a connection between enemy match and your experiences.

 

[violet_crown]

I'm trying to see if there's a connection between enemy match and your experiences.

Why?

 

[Forever]

I find this extremely awesome that I can actually move the post right...

just checking in.

#easilyentertained

 

[baccheion]

Why?

To see what connections there are.

 

[violet_crown]

To see what connections there are.

INTPs

I don't feel this current line of questioning relates to the initial point that I made whatsoever. And while I'm sure that understanding how enemy percentages plays a role in chemistry, it's still besides the basic point that I don't think your study shows what you were trying to show.

Intertype relationships in socionics focus on actual psychological compatibility, which is related to, but not identical to the kinds of relationship preferences that match percentages indicate on OKC. The value of your study from what I can tell is providing some validity to the idea that there is some significance in the relationship between MBTI type and patterns of behavior. That validity of typology as a whole is challenged regularly enough that that's a fairly interesting finding.

It's also interesting to have some data around what constitutes true "nearest types" in MBTI. I don't think it would be obvious to most people that ENFxs are closer to ENTJs in terms of how they behave in relationships or what they value in partners than any of the other NT types. That's an insight that's intriguing enough to me without needing the data to say something it's not.

 

[baccheion]

INTPs

I don't feel this current line of questioning relates to the initial point that I made whatsoever. And while I'm sure that understanding how enemy percentages plays a role in chemistry, it's still besides the basic point that I don't think your study shows what you were trying to show.

Intertype relationships in socionics focus on actual psychological compatibility, which is related to, but not identical to the kinds of relationship preferences that match percentages indicate on OKC. The value of your study from what I can tell is providing some validity to the idea that there is some significance in the relationship between MBTI type and patterns of behavior. That validity of typology as a whole is challenged regularly enough that that's a fairly interesting finding.

It's also interesting to have some data around what constitutes true "nearest types" in MBTI. I don't think it would be obvious to most people that ENFxs are closer to ENTJs in terms of how they behave in relationships or what they value in partners than any of the other NT types. That's an insight that's intriguing enough to me without needing the data to say something it's not.

There's a version that calculated similarity: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...-similar-types-according-answers-okcupid.html

 

[violet_crown]

There's a version that calculated similarity: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...-similar-types-according-answers-okcupid.html

Well...now you have a solid companion to that initial study.

This is like that photocopier thing.

 

[Pionart]

Well, this is pretty good proof that type compatibility is a bullshit theory.

 

[OrangeAppled]

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.

YES.

Someone gave me advice to not answer too many questions when using OKcupid. Back when I tried that site, I found that a good strategy. Even a match in the high 80s was not too identical, since I kept the questions to around 400-500 and only bothered with the more serious ones.

It's also based on what you think you like or would like, which is not necessarily how you experience and respond to other people, especially emotionally.

It's like seeing/hearing about a new food and thinking it sounds gross, but then you try it and really like it. Or you see a dish and think you'll like it, but then you find it rather bland or even yucky. What you think you will like is not how you necessarily end up experiencing something (including people...who are not food XD ), or there is stuff you'd never imagine you'd like or are okay with until you give it a shot. That's why the algorithm thing ends up failing for me.

 

[violet_crown]

YES.

Someone gave me advice to not answer too many questions when using OKcupid. Back when I tried that site, I found that a good strategy. Even a match in the high 80s was not too identical, since I kept the questions to around 400-500 and only bothered with the more serious ones.

It's also based on what you think you like or would like, which is not necessarily how you experience and respond to other people, especially emotionally.

It's like seeing/hearing about a new food and thinking it sounds gross, but then you try it and really like it. Or you see a dish and think you'll like it, but then you find it rather bland or even yucky. What you think you will like is not how you necessarily end up experiencing something (including people...who are not food XD ), or there is stuff you'd never imagine you'd like or are okay with until you give it a shot. That's why the algorithm thing ends up failing for me.

I appreciate the way that you said this. Attraction is such a fascinating thing, because of how complex the relationship can be between what we think we'd like and what we actually like.

It's like that eternal business of the known knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. Someone could hit you super hard with something you didn't even know you wanted, much less know how to ask for it. And that unknown unknown desire could end up superseding whatever checklist of knowns you'd had prior to interacting with that person. You could have little in common in terms of preference, but strong mutual attraction and compatible interaction styles and still ultimately work it out.

 

[Tilt]

It's interesting... I am unsure about the OKC's algorithm from my limited experience. I am supposedly dating a 95% match. We have a lot of spark in our belief systems (some sort of INXX type) but it's hard to tell if it will go platonic vs. relationship with the level of similarity.

 

[baccheion]

It's interesting... I am unsure about the OKC's algorithm from my limited experience. I am supposedly dating a 95% match. We have a lot of spark in our belief systems (some sort of INXX type) but it's hard to tell if it will go platonic vs. relationship with the level of similarity.

What was your enemy match percentage? How many questions did you each answer (have in common)?

 

[Tilt]

What was your enemy match percentage? How many questions did you each answer (have in common)?

I am not sure... probably at least 300 and about 14% enemy. He said he got INTJ but sometimes gets INFJ, INTP. All I know is that he can read between the lines of what I am saying EXTREMELY well

 

[Jayce]

Intriguing summary!

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

Let me know what you find through your comparison.

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).

Thanks for clearing that up! Makes sense.

On an important side note, does anyone know why OKC ditched the MBTI thing? I would find it way more interesting to go through matches if all had their type listed. Or maybe not. Would make it a hell of a lot easier, though.

Well, this is pretty good proof that type compatibility is a bullshit theory.

Why do you think this? Relating OKC with type doesn't give the whole picture, but it gives something. And more likely that type compatibility theories are rather good, they just don't fit that well with the OKC algorithm. Judging from my personal IRL experiences, the OXXO theory (Xs are the same, Os different) works so well with S people. In group dynamics, developed "best friends" relationships have this dynamic in most cases. This comes to the N side as well with INFJ ENFP. Also, NTPs and separately ISTPs friend with each other and ENXPs with each other. And we're talking friendships here. But what relationship doesn't do well with a good friendship dynamic as a base?

And which type compatibility theory do you mean? I don't think there is a universally accepted theory about this. Would gladly like to develop one, though. Sorry if I'm coming on too strong, your opinion was so strong I wanted to "attack" it.

I am not sure... probably at least 300 and about 14% enemy. He said he got INTJ but sometimes gets INFJ, INTP. All I know is that he can read between the lines of what I am saying EXTREMELY well

How can you get 95% match and 15% enemy. I've never seen anything like this, seems rigged. Judging from only this, he seems like an INTJ main type. What type are you the closest to? ENFJ or INFJ?

 

[Tilt]

How can you get 95% match and 15% enemy. I've never seen anything like this, seems rigged. Judging from only this, he seems like an INTJ main type. What type are you the closest to? ENFJ or INFJ?

ENFJ with lower extroversion.

 

[Pionart]

Why do you think this? Relating OKC with type doesn't give the whole picture, but it gives something. And more likely that type compatibility theories are rather good, they just don't fit that well with the OKC algorithm. Judging from my personal IRL experiences, the OXXO theory (Xs are the same, Os different) works so well with S people. In group dynamics, developed "best friends" relationships have this dynamic in most cases. This comes to the N side as well with INFJ ENFP. Also, NTPs and separately ISTPs friend with each other and ENXPs with each other. And we're talking friendships here. But what relationship doesn't do well with a good friendship dynamic as a base?

Well, if there was actually compatibility between certain types over others, then this should almost surely show up in OkCupid match percentages, but given that the different between best and worst matches was only like 5%, this is not indicated.

In my opinion, type doesn't matter for friendship but there can be more romantic "chemistry" between people who are completely different (so an IJ with EP for example is like to have decent chemistry).

 

[erg]

Those statistics don't seem very useful. It is interesting to note that the best compatibility as per Socionics (my holy grail) is between duals. For example, my dual as an ENTj is an ISFj, and these two types are as different from each other as they can be. Opposites not only attract as they say, but they are the best potential relationship two people can have.

 

[Jayce]

Well, if there was actually compatibility between certain types over others, then this should almost surely show up in OkCupid match percentages, but given that the different between best and worst matches was only like 5%, this is not indicated.

In my opinion, type doesn't matter for friendship but there can be more romantic "chemistry" between people who are completely different (so an IJ with EP for example is like to have decent chemistry).

But the compatibility does shows in OKC matching. In the form of similarity. There is still clear differentiation between matches of different types. Some are better and some are worse. IJ EP chemistry is great, especially with N people, but that doesn't apply to OKC logic either. OKC is another type matchmaking that isn't designed to directly apply to type compatibility, or chemistry for that matter.

Those statistics don't seem very useful. It is interesting to note that the best compatibility as per Socionics (my holy grail) is between duals. For example, my dual as an ENTj is an ISFj, and these two types are as different from each other as they can be. Opposites not only attract as they say, but they are the best potential relationship two people can have.

I haven't found this to be true. An ISFJ, even though as cute as they can be, we drive each other crazy in a relationship, and not in an opposites attract good way. And there just isn't anything to go on. An ISTJ, which is functionally even further from me, would be my worst match. Not sure if your typing works better with non-N-dominant people but for me, its a no go.

 

[erg]

I haven't found this to be true. An ISFJ, even though as cute as they can be, we drive each other crazy in a relationship, and not in an opposites attract good way. And there just isn't anything to go on. An ISTJ, which is functionally even further from me, would be my worst match. Not sure if your typing works better with non-N-dominant people but for me, its a no go.

Conflictors are also opposites (ISFj and ENTp are conflictors).

 

[Jayce]

Conflictors are also opposites (ISFj and ENTp are conflictors).

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you giving me another opposite to go on? ISFj as in ISFP to my ENTP doesn't work either. Same with ESFJ.