As titled, pretty much a random thought that strayed into my mind. Then, I started wondering if it is possible to get a good grasp of a player's personality just by looking through their decklist.

I think not. Of all the colors, black has the smallest part in my personality, but I was playing a thoroughly evil black discard deck for the longest time. On the other hand, I guess you can tell some things, like the Timmy/Johnny/Spike scale and such.

So it is more correct to say a person's deck reflects his or her mindset?

Edit: Don't people tend to stick to a certain colour?

I think Confused is refering to deck construction rather than colour choice. I don't have any metrics, but if you've been playing the same deck with a discard theme for a long time, then that probably says something. What that something is I have no idea. The question is, if we found someone else out these with a similar story (someone else that has been playing with the same discard-heavy theme for a long time, and who also considered it "evil"), would they share a number of similar personality traits with you?

At the same time, I disagree Confused. You're making the assumption that everyone has a similar card pool to draw from, similar friends and group-metas, and similar desires. If Luis Scott Vargas plays a PTQ with a Red/White/Blue control deck over a Green/Black combo deck, that probably doesn't mean anything other than he believes the RWU deck to have a better chance at winning the tournament - and he'd drop it in a second if the GB combo deck worked better. Some players simply won't have access to cards that they want to play, and others have metas so wacky that it makes no sense to play their preferred deck.

While I think that concept of deck-types relating to personality-types may have some grounding and truth, the environment is too chaotic for any useful parrallels to be found. I think you'd have a better chance at finding relationships in games like Warhammer, where players can use the same strategy more often, pick and choose their forces more precisely, and shift meta-games less violently.

Honestly, I believe they call that Timmy, Johnny and Spike.

~SE++

I agree with the point about the card pool. I guess Johnny, Timmy and Spike explains it pretty well too.

no

I'm a Timmy johnny Melvin vorthos who plays every color and likes all cards for different reasons. Except coastal hornclaw.

Two things here. First of all, I think for this to work, you'd have to look at a person's preferred casual deck(s). In casual, you build decks you find fun, so looking at a casual deck someone likes gives you a good idea of what that person finds fun and may give you a window into his personality (may). Looking at what a person plays in PTQ isn't quite as valuable, because as you point out, what deck is best in the meta plays as much, if not a bigger role than what deck is "fun".

That said, assuming that pro players always play the best deck is over-simplistic. In fact, it assumes that there's a single best deck in a given meta, or that the best deck for one person is also the best for the next person. The deck a pro player chooses is, in part, based on their personal preferences. It's not an emotional thing however. It's more a case of having more experience with a given type of deck, therefore playing that type of deck better than another one. For instance, someone who prefers aggro decks will probably play a slightly weaker aggro deck over a control deck because they know that even though, in theory, the aggro deck is worse, in practice, they have a better chance at winning with the aggro deck due to their experience. This is why you will see pro players playing almost exclusively aggro decks, while some other players play almost exclusively control deck. Even flexible players probably have a preference when two decks are equally good. Either way though, this probably has less to do with personality, unless we start analysing the reason for that preference originally.

That is what I was saying about the pro-players; "he believes the RWU deck to have a better chance". Doesn't mean he's right, but he is playing to maximize his odds as opposed to, as you said, make an emotional choice.

Well, I have heard of people who claims they would never play aggro decks.

The reason why this question came to mind, which seems laughable now that I think about it, was because of my casual Simic deck. It used to run with undying creatures and Zameck guildmage but since Innistrad rotated out, I had to swap some cards out. Then, I wondered why do I seem to like forming decks that are opposites on the color pie. Before wondering why do I still want to continue with my G/U deck despite the main reason that I kept it around for is gone. And then, it made me wonder how much influence a person's personality has in creating what deck to play.

some people don't like mindless decks

its not a reflection of personality, they just want to have fun playing a game

And I am not saying that it is a reflection of personality. I was referring to Filobel's point about people playing what they are experienced with. His words happened to bring back some memories of hearing someone at the card shop I frequent say that before.

At first yes, the longer someone plays the game, the less likely it will be, with some exceptions.

I still play mainly red, and I'm told I'm a hot head and a bit impulsive.

I'm sorry if this has already been said or suggested; I haven't done more than skim the comments, so this is in reply to the opening question:

I think, to an extent, yes; but I think it has more to do with how they play their deck than what the deck contains. For instance, whenever I put together any deck that includes "target creature or player takes [arbitrary amount of] damage"-cards, my first choice is always to destroy their attackers. Even when I created a completely deck with as many damage-inducing cards as I had access to, my strategy was almost always "keep the opponent's field empty."

I also think you would have to know what the player has access to, what cards he/she owns. I own a lot of lackluster cards, for instance; and I never, ever, try to keep up with current formats, so my decks are invariably near-singletons from a plethora of sets.

I'm going to make myself the de facto psychologist here and say no.

I've got the credentials to back it up.

its too bad you don't have the credentials to post faster than me

that's not a personality you idiot

I would argue that is an over-simplification. After all, why take ten turns to build if you can win in four? In that respect, aggro players are no less thinking than a combo player. One views keeping it simple and going straight for the throat with maximum force using maximum speed, one kills with a minimum of resources to give them room to get that win con. Both can involve very thought-heavy processes to out-think your opponent BEFORE the match ever starts, and zero to do with actual thought use.

It is as much a fallacy to state aggro players don't like to think as to say that control players diddle around and can't go for the win without overwhelming odds.

yeah, he knows that too m8