Mar 22, 2009

Personality/Compatibility Test at Chemistry.com

I mentioned anthropologist and love researcher Helen Fisher two posts ago. She has put her observations and ideas about love and compatibility into test form at Chemistry.com. There, in about 20 minutes, you can take a test that tells you about your personality, strengths and weaknesses, and who you might be most attracted to. 


Please take the test (I'm sure you'll find it interesting) and report back in the following way:

1. your socionic type (self-typing)
2. your Chemistry.com test result
3. your opinion of the accuracy of the description (0% to 100%)

There are people from the MBTI or Keirsey camp who see a correspondence between Fisher's types and Keirsey temperaments or MBTI types, but I think these correlations are baloney. It's the same old fallacy of assuming that types are literally real and that only one set of real types can exist, therefore two different systems of types must either correspond closely, or one of the systems is bogus. 

In further posts I will discuss Fisher's types in greater depth. 

23 comments:

Rick said...

IEE
EXPLORER/negotiator
80%

Kanerou said...

Out of curiosity, what does signing up commit one to? Could we un-register right afterward?

aestrivex said...

type: whatever, you all know me and have your own opinions

this test: 31% director
29% negotiator
22% builder
15% explorer

this provides potentially best relations in this order: negotiator, director, explorer, builder. which is probably wrong.

Jason said...

LII (?)

NEGOTIATOR/explorer

Rick, I have also recently been having my doubts about socionics. I've been looking at my life, and there just seems to be something wrong about the notion of me being an LII. On the other hand, there seems to be something wrong with me being any type. I can be very analytical and intellectual, but, in some ways, I can be a closet romantic. In socionics, there seems to be some kind of incompatibility between these two traits.

I don't think that socionics is entirely off, but I don't think that it's highly accurate either. I think that there may be a vague trend in intertype relationships that socionics represents for many people, but not all of them, or that it might represent one limited aspect of intertype relationships. I think that in reality, relationships are much more complex than what socionics has to say about them. (For example, if you look at the Wikisocion userlists of the types of other people in the socionics community, you will notice that there are a lot of discrepancies.)

With respect to the Chemistry.com test, there are some things I agree with (and disagree with). For example, my personality profile is generally correct, but there are some inaccuracies. Further, the most suitable type for me would be the Director, and a lot of the traits of the Director would be appealing to me, but some, in my experience, seem to be off. For example, the assertive, competitive nature of the director is something that has caused me problems in relationships with others in the past. The test results seem to describe someone I would be very attracted to, but not someone with whom it would probably work in the long run. I think that both socionics and this test have it wrong in thinking that our best relationships can be determined by a formula. As I said, I think our relationships are too complex for that to be the case. Nevertheless, it's interesting food for thought.

Jason said...

Oh, I forgot: I would say that the profile is about 75% correct. (Keep posting about Fisher's types, by the way. I find them interesting.)

Jason

Peter said...

E-Explorer - 31%
N-Negotiator - 39%
B-Builder - 13%
D-Director - 16%

My socionics type is IEI
Accuracy is high... I would say over 90%....

"You are a big thinker. You easily take the large, long view of almost any topic. You are comfortable juggling myriad facts. You tend to synthesize material easily and to think in webs of factors, not straight lines. You are imaginative and enjoy theorizing."

This is sounds like Introverted Intuition.

"You are also socially savvy. You are good at both talking and listening."

This sounds like Extroverted Ethics.

Rick said...

aestrivex, how accurate was the type description?

kanerou, the test doesn't require any commitment. I think you can just unregister afterwords, or do what I do and use a dedicated spam e-mail address that you don't use for anything important.

Jason, I can think of ways to explain your experience from a type standpoint, but if you're feeling confined by the box, trying to get you to fit back into it doesn't seem the most worthwhile thing to do :) Ultimately one needs to develop a unique self-identity, even if it does have elements of different explanations, such as typology. (If you want to discuss that more, please comment on another post more related to the subject.)

The matching algorithm is unclear. My results (I am "EXPLORER/negotiator" said I "tend to naturally gravitate to EXPLORER/director." Yet in an article by Fisher it says that Explorers and Builders are most attracted to each other.

Thanks to everyone so far. I'll be looking forward to more responses.

aestrivex said...

i'd say the description is adequate. the intellectual focus is accurate, as is a general competitiveness and self-assertiveness, but i think the drive, activity level, and management aspects are overemphasized. NEGOTIATOR/director might also be appropriate. builder and explorer are clearly wrong.

Aleesha said...

EII (you type me as ILI)
BUILDER/negotiator

The description is probably about 75% accurate. The general "feel" of it seems ok and many of the details are right but there are some instances like...

"You have a traditional streak. Home, family, job and community are all central to you. You like being firmly embedded in your social groups and you feel deeply responsible for just about everyone around you. You can be fiercely protective of those you love. "

That's basically correct but I don't think many people would consider me "traditional" in any way, nor do I think that compliance with the rest of the paragraph necessarily gives one a traditional outlook. And...

"You are skilled at managing people."

No.

bibliophile8 said...

SEI
9w1

Negotiator/Builder

Umm, I'm not sure that Negotiator would be the dominant type, I think builder might work too. I'd say it seemed about 70% accurate.

Also, can anyone explain how the dopamine/risk-taking question about PDA works? I don't understand how "adventurous, risk-taking" people are uncomfortable with open displays of affection. I'm sure the rationale is interesting, though.

bibliophile8 said...

A little more detail:
-Explorer - 24% N-Negotiator - 29%
B-Builder - 26% D-Director - 19%

So, they were pretty close anyways, but everything was pretty close.

HIM said...

Socionics type: ILI

Negotiater-27%

Director-26%

Builder-23%

Explorer-22%

Fits me well. Other indicators were I had slightly higher testosterone levels though high estrogen levels (I am female). I also scored low and high on dopamine...which was odd.

Anonymous said...

synchronous ILI

Director - 29%
Negotiator - 26%
Explorer - 22%
Builder - 22%

I think the Director percentage is too high; more like negotiator/ director. (I am female)

Mihai said...

I've made a profile on chemistry.com. My chmistry type is Director/explorer. (Director - 31%, Explorer - 30%, Negotiator - 23%, Builder - 15%) and my Socionics type is Intuitive-Logical Extrovert - ENTP, type of which I'm sure of.
I have the ring finger a bit longer, I read the "fake" smiles on those four faces as genuine - and vice-verse :).
I'd say the description matches me, let's say 60%, I can't be sure of this number, though.
I consider myself more an Explorer than a Director, just I can admit that in the later years I became more confident and let's say I can make more quick decisions, as I think somehow that people and situations can't reserve many surprises to me anymore.
Despite this, I'm not persistent in pursuing my interests, in opposition with the Director style there, I'm very irrational in the Socionics sense of the word.

Nicky (Slacker Mom) said...

I am an explorer/negotiator. And I am IEE. I guess it was fairly accurate anyway. Explorer and Negotiator were almost even.

Sam said...

LII
Director / Negotiator

Fits pretty well, 80%?

-thehotelambush

Sam said...

I have to say, the matching algorithm is pretty good. It came up with at least one ESE and two math teachers!

mari said...

Socionics: ILI
Chemistry: Negotiator/Explorer

Negotiator 35% Explorer 31% Director 25% Builder 7%

I'd say the description is 80% accurate.

Jeranimo said...

Socionics: ILI, IEE or ILE

Fisher: NEGOTIATOR/explorer

Accuracy: 75%?

(description included below for reference)

The descriptions for these types are so vague:

You are a big thinker. You easily take the large, long view of almost any topic. You are comfortable juggling myriad facts. You tend to synthesize material easily and to think in webs of factors, not straight lines. You are imaginative and enjoy theorizing.

What information does that convey? To each personality type, complex activities heavily steeped in dominant function use are going to seem like the "large" view and will involve "synthesizing material easily" and thinking in "webs of factors not in straight lines". I can see the Intuitive slant because of the overgeneralizing terms "big thinker, juggling facts, imaginative, theorizing"; but they don't really mean anything to me, because I spend my time playing sports, writing music, painting, talking with friends, exercising, travelling, going out and watching movies ...the only times I'm juggling facts or any of that stuff is when I'm studying Socionics, lol.

I think this is the latest attempt to inflate the ego and make money off of peoples' self-interest. These pigeonholes aren't a matter of "true" or "untrue"; everyone has the potential to be all of this stuff at times. We're not defined by what we're good at and what we're not-- if we're going to be defined by anything, it's by how we prefer to get there and where we prefer to end up. Since this profile doesn't tell me any of that information, I don't really see it as valid or relevant. I still firmly believe in Socionics, and Socionics alone.

Fisher description:
(copied from http://chemistry.com)


You are a NEGOTIATOR/explorer

You are a big thinker. You easily take the large, long view of almost any topic. You are comfortable juggling myriad facts. You tend to synthesize material easily and to think in webs of factors, not straight lines. You are imaginative and enjoy theorizing.

You are also socially savvy. You are good at both talking and listening. And you generally read people's faces, body postures and tone of voice accurately, so you tend to intuitively understand what people want and need.

You are also highly compassionate. You care deeply about others. So you sometimes make personal sacrifices to be a supportive friend or colleague. And you like to work to improve the world.

You enjoy new ideas and novel experiences. You are flexible, affable and open to adventure. And you admire impulsive, spontaneous people, despite your tendency to plan ahead.

You dislike conflict. You seek "win-win" solutions. And with your skill as a negotiator, you adeptly bring peace to the chaotic world around you. You are a warm, insightful and often exciting companion.

gulanzon said...

NEGOTIATOR/explorer.

SEI.

Hmm, mostly agreed with Negotiator.

I notice, though, that I've been repeatedly drawn to other Negotiators, though. (It said that I would be drawn to Directors.)

MD said...

Negotiator /Explorer

Accuracy:85%

friemelaar said...

ILE
Director / Explorer
Accuracy - good.

iyara said...

Explorer/Negotiator

E- Explorer - 29%
N- Negotiator - 28%
B- Builder - 18%
D- Director - 23%

ENFP

Accuracy: ?? It's OK. Test too easily influenced by wanting to be a certain type. I've taken it before and came out Director. I am not a good Negotiator in that I am not as readily articulate as I'd love to be, so not sure how to rate myself.