How two people fit
The same two people can click as friends and clash as colleagues. Pick two types, or two real results, and see how they tend to fit in six kinds of relationship, area by area.
Pick a type, or use a test result for exact scores.
Pick a type, or use a test result for exact scores.
Love and friendship
Partners
Dating, living together or married: how two styles share a life.
Compare two types
Love and friendship
Friends
What you do together, what you talk about and how you show up.
Compare two types
Family
Parent and child
What a child needs, what a parent naturally gives, and where they meet.
Compare two types
Family
Siblings
Growing up side by side, and staying close as adults.
Compare two types
Work
Colleagues
Sharing projects, meetings and deadlines as peers.
Compare two types
Work
Manager and team member
Direction, check-ins, feedback and room to work.
Compare two types
How the gauge works
Every reading comes from the same five scores the test measures. Nothing here is a separate measurement.
01
Four areas per setting
Each setting reads the four type scales as the areas of life that matter in it. Energy becomes social life between partners and check-ins between a manager and a team member.
02
Every area starts at 100
It loses points for every point between your two scores: up to 1.5 where a difference is felt every day, as little as 0.5 where it is easy to work around. If you both lean hard the same way, it loses a little more, because you share a blind spot.
03
One fit per setting
The fit is the average of the four areas. Each setting prices a difference its own way, so the same two people can find one kind of relationship far easier than another. With two test results, the fit also gets a likely range.
area = 100 − gap × gap cost − shared lean × blind-spot cost
fit = average of the four areas
- Gap is the distance between your two scores on the scale, from 0 to 100.
- Gap cost runs from 0.5 to 1.5 per point. It is highest where a difference comes up every day and is hard to work around, such as conflict between partners, and lowest where the two of you can easily split the work, such as meetings or messages between colleagues.
- Shared lean is how far you both lean toward the same letter: the smaller of your two distances from the middle. It is 0 when you lean different ways.
- Blind-spot cost runs from 0.1 to 0.5 per point, higher where two people leaning the same way tend to miss the same thing, such as two improvisers and the household bills.
- With only a type, each letter is read as a typical lean of 72%, and Composure, which the letters leave out, is not shown.
What the bands mean
- Natural fit
- 85 to 100
- Easy fit
- 70 to 84
- Workable fit
- 55 to 69
- Takes work
- 40 to 54
- Big stretch
- 0 to 39
Bands describe effort, not outcome: how much translating two styles tend to need, never whether a relationship will last.
The areas, gap costs and blind-spot costs in every setting
| Setting | Energy E/I | Perception N/S | Decisions T/F | Structure J/P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partners | Social lifegap ×1 · E 0.2, I 0.3 | Talk and dreamsgap ×0.75 · N 0.3, S 0.15 | Conflict and caregap ×1.5 · T 0.45, F 0.3 | Shared plansgap ×1.25 · J 0.25, P 0.5 |
| Friends | Time togethergap ×1.25 · E 0.1, I 0.35 | Common groundgap ×1.5 · N 0.15, S 0.1 | Supportgap ×0.75 · T 0.3, F 0.2 | Making plansgap ×0.5 · J 0.1, P 0.45 |
| Parent and child | Energy and downtimegap ×1.5 · E 0.15, I 0.25 | Learning and playgap ×0.5 · N 0.2, S 0.15 | Discipline and warmthgap ×1 · T 0.4, F 0.3 | Routines and rulesgap ×1.25 · J 0.3, P 0.4 |
| Siblings | Space and attentiongap ×1 · E 0.2, I 0.2 | Shared worldgap ×1 · N 0.1, S 0.1 | Fights and making upgap ×1.5 · T 0.4, F 0.25 | Family logisticsgap ×0.5 · J 0.3, P 0.35 |
| Colleagues | Working stylegap ×0.5 · E 0.15, I 0.2 | Ideas and detailsgap ×1 · N 0.4, S 0.3 | Feedback and disagreementgap ×1 · T 0.3, F 0.35 | Deadlines and planninggap ×1.25 · J 0.15, P 0.5 |
| Manager and team member | Check-insgap ×0.75 · E 0.15, I 0.25 | Vision and specificsgap ×0.75 · N 0.35, S 0.25 | Feedbackgap ×1.25 · T 0.35, F 0.3 | Direction and autonomygap ×1.5 · J 0.2, P 0.45 |
Each cell gives the area's gap cost, then its blind-spot cost when you both lean toward each letter. The areas and costs are our editorial judgment, drawn from type theory and from what research says about each kind of relationship. They have not been fitted to data, and we show them so you can disagree with them.
What matters more than fit
Type charts often label pairings as perfect matches or lost causes. The research does not back that up. In large samples of couples from three countries, how alike two people were explained almost none of how satisfied they were; what each person brought to the relationship mattered far more (Dyrenforth et al., 2010).
People tend to be happier with partners who are emotionally steady, agreeable and conscientious (Malouff et al., 2010), and work teams tend to do better when their members are, on average, agreeable and conscientious (Bell, 2007). Kindness, reliability and how you handle stress are open to everyone, whatever their letters.
So read a low fit as a list of things to talk about, not a warning, and a high fit as a list of blind spots you share. Any two types can get along, and any two types can fall out. Type should never decide who you date, hire or befriend.
Compare real results, not just letters.
Two people with the same type can sit far apart on a scale. Take the test, send your report link to the other person, and have them take it too: either of you can paste the other's link here for exact scores, a likely range and how you handle pressure together.
References
- Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595-615.
- Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., and Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690-702.
- Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., and Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
- Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., and Rooke, S. E. (2010). The five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124-127.
- McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., and Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
- Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., and Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889-922.
- Plomin, R., and Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(1), 1-16.
- Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Deković, M., Reijntjes, A. H. A., and Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents' Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 351-362.
- Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., and Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1-25.
- Rohrer, J. M., Egloff, B., and Schmukle, S. C. (2015). Examining the effects of birth order on personality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(46), 14224-14229.
- Selfhout, M., Denissen, J., Branje, S., and Meeus, W. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: Perceived, actual, and peer-rated similarity in personality, communication, and friendship intensity during the acquaintanceship process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1152-1165.
- Thomas, A., and Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and Development. Brunner/Mazel.
- Zhang, Z., Wang, M., and Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111-130.