The Matching System

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Hi,
This is a discussion about the matching system of this site, how it works and the rationality behind its operation.
The matching calculator is based on a 1/4096 (=100%) resolution, as it includes ego association. Ego is the only quality that the user gets to select themselves, weighed at 7%, while all else is determined by the reading.
Here is a shorthand breakdown of the weighing of percentages:

Percentage Distribution

Function Quadrant: 26%
Energetic Quadrant: 26%
Development: 28%
Attitude of F: 7%
Ego: 7%
Affect: 3%
Gender: 3%
Here is as longer version of the sub-components involved:

Percentage Distribution (Full)

Spoiler

Function Quadrant: 26%

• P Axis: 13%
• J Axis: 13%

Energetic Quadrant: 26%

• Je
• Ji
• Pe
• Pi

Development: 28%

• Je Conscious: 7% each
• Ji Conscious: 7% each
• Pe Conscious: 7% each
• Pi Conscious: 7% each

Attitude of F: 7%

• Seelie/Adaptive
• Unseelie/Directive

Ego: 7%

• Ti/Te
• Fi/Fe
• Si/Se
• Ni/Ne

Affect: 3%

• Yes
• No

Gender: 3%

• Male
• Female

[collapse]

Breakdown Details

Function Quadrant (Alpha/Beta, Gamma, Delta) is weighed equally as much as Energetic Quadrant (Je/Ji/Pe/Pi) at 26%. These two factors, when combined, give a person a "same type" designation. Being the same type yields a 52% similarity by default. This is based on a hypothesis that Nature & Nurture are roughly equally (50%-50%) significant in determining personality.
The remaining 48% is divided across development, F orientation, ego and gender. Beginning with development, the calculation is nuanced. Rather than it being a yes/no match, it considers each function individually. So an SeFi ll-- and an SeFi lll- will share 2 conscious functions, and will be weighed appropriately. Even though "ll--" and "lll-" are different developments, a 3/4 match is given, or 21%/28%.
Now, this is also not calculated by sharing a development level code (i.e. l---/ll--) itself, but by what functions are actually conscious. For example a TeSi l-ll and an NeFi lll- (all having Te+Ne+Fi conscious) will score 28%/28% on development despite the codes l-ll and lll- being different. Whereas a TiNe l--l and an NiFe l--l will score 0%/28%, as they share no functions conscious even though they're both "l--l" in terms of the code. I consider this the appropriate method to weigh development, as the similarities relate most to what functions are conscious.
Now as all types are automatically at least l---, then two people of the same type will actually have a minimum compatibility of 59%, not 52%. I find this to be acceptable though, as a kind of addendum value for the qualia that is granted by being "same type" which goes beyond being same-FQ or same-EQ. And 59% for same-type still allows for considerable differences.
If someone is Adaptive they will score a positive match also with Seelies. If someone is Directive, they will score positive match also with Unseelie's. I find this appropriate, as doing otherwise would be punishing the percentage value down further among different function quadrants lacking the same J axis, effectively making the J axis value weight: 13%+7%.
Flat affect is weighed at 3% and Gender at 3%; not much to explain there, I think.

Results:

Altogether this makes it so that same-type individuals can still vary significantly, and it allows for non-same-types to actually be higher in percentage. For example:
FiSe ll-l Seelie Male / TiNe ll-l Adaptive Male = 74%
TiNe ll-l Adaptive Male / TiNe l-l- Directive Female +Affect = 59%
^ In the above illustration, a Gamma (FiSe) is more like a TiNe (Alpha) than he is to another fellow TiNe. Development/etc can make two people more alike than what even two people of the same type may be. This shows the results are not biased to Function Quadrants, and are actually tracking similarities at multiple other levels. Another illustration:
NeFi ll-- Seelie Female / NeTi ll-- Adaptive Female = 87%
^ These two differ only in their J axis, making them have a total compatibility of 87%.
I believe this strikes the appropriate balance of Nature & Nurture, and reflects what I've seen in real life and in the research done so far. But as always I am open to suggestions for modifications. Let me know your thoughts, whether you think this is well balanced or in need of tweaking. Thanks!

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Minor update:
Ego: has been set to zero for now. (points go toward flat affect)
Two reasons for this:

• We don't yet have a clear way to measure ego, nor a good definition for it. (I hope forum discussions can help us clarify what the best way to identify it is)
• It's technically not a vultologically trackable trait, and thus arguably shouldn't be factored in, as the matching system is meant to match people visually. This newly adjusted percentage should more appropriately represent vultological matches.

However, ego will remain a profile editable field, which we can discuss further as we go along.
Thanks guys.

[Author]

Posts