ENFJ-A = ENFJ-Assertive; ENFJ-T=ENFJ-Turbulent (16personalities.com types, where A and T includes the Big Five trait of Neuroticism (A=low; T=high).
It would make more sense to do an actual Holland test (or determined your affinity manually) than to use this table. Also, ordering beyond one, two, three letters, won't be especially useful and using more letters will be overly restrictive in any case (I think I determined my ordering as ICSARE a long time ago). I just thought it would be interesting.
The correlations I made here are from a research paper - the 32 SimilarMinds SLOAN profiles have their own "favored careers" pages distinct from that, but they seem be somewhat similar to the Holland code ordering here.
______________________________________________ 1 - Not everyone has typed themselves nor can a selftype be found for some users.
2 - The affirmative results include, at least, one user who tested more than once and received, at least, one other type.
This is a very old thread and the SLOAN test results were not all at the same time...but the data is immediately available so...
For the extroversion/introversion dichotomy, there was a correspondence between Global 5-SLOAN and Socionics of 77/83 (93%).
For the intuition/sensing dichotomy, there was a correspondence between Global 5-SLOAN and Socionics of 59/80 (74%).
For the ethics/logic dichotomy, there was a correspondence between Global 5-SLOAN and Socionics of 68/83 (82%).
For the rational/irrational dichotomy, there was a correspondence between Global 5-SLOAN and Socionics of 59/83 (71%).
(Multiplying those four scores together gives a % of 39.85% - in the actual sample, there was a full correspondence of 33/68 = 48.53% (not everybody had a clear preference on all dichotomies hence the sample is only 68)).
Based on this data, the Global 5-SLOAN test would be a reasonable way of determining Socionics type.
The only significant (>= 0.7) correlation is year of birth. Close to be significant >0.6 were place of birth and number of children.
Resume: traits of meaningful correlations were not goten in "useful" research.
Jung typology and IR may give some more usefulness. Especially if typing methods/approaches will become better, than ~40% accuracy of today. What they may do when actual skills of 4 functions will be measured and objective traits of IR effects.
No one tried to do this, somehow. During 100 years of Jung typology existence and 40 years of IR theory.
I suppose there is no wish to do researches which would show ways to do good pairs for the majority. People are wished to be weakened by individualism. And by redundant labor as in Japan where ~50% sleeps up to 6 hours per a day, so they are psychicly suppressed. The task is to make slaves, by the cost people be lesser stronger and happier (in psychicly stronger state).
While scientists are directed on useless researches, alike in your example.
The only significant (>= 0.7) correlation is year of birth. Close to be significant >0.6 were place of birth and number of children.
Resume: traits of meaningful correlations were not goten in "useful" research.
Jung typology and IR may give some more usefulness. Especially if typing methods/approaches will become better, than ~40% accuracy of today. What they may do when actual skills of 4 functions will be measured and objective traits of IR effects.
No one tried to do this, somehow. During 100 years of Jung typology existence and 40 years of IR theory.
I suppose there is no wish to do researches which would show ways to do good pairs for the majority. People are wished to be weakened by individualism. And by redundant labor as in Japan where ~50% sleeps up to 6 hours per a day, so they are psychicly suppressed. The task is to make slaves, by the cost people be lesser stronger and happier (in psychicly stronger state).
While scientists are directed on useless researches, alike in your example.
There is a diagram with Big Five personality domains:
Between partners, Agreeableness has a correlation of 0.11, Conscientiousness 0.16, Extraversion 0.08, Neuroticism 0.11, Openness 0.21. Not the same as Socionics, but suggests people are more likely to pair with people similar to themselves rather than different.
Fisher, H.E. and Garcia, J.R., 2022. Mating in the Digital Age.
Possible optimal pairings based on that:
NFP&NTP
NFJ&NTJ
SFP&STP
SFJ&STJ
I think dopamine is probably associated more with extroversion than introversion (and thus serotonin is possibly the reverse), although I will have to look into that. Fisher didn't mention that here, so maybe it's a weak or non-existence correlation).
I've recently seen research though that said that only similar levels of Openness to Experience was especially important (associated with similar views on politics and religion), although I don't recall the sample size or the details. It's long been my view that (philosophical) values are more important than personality for relationships, at least in terms of optimally pairing everybody.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Especially if typing methods/approaches will become better, than ~40% accuracy of today. What they may do when actual skills of 4 functions will be measured and objective traits of IR effects.
