User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 180

  1. #151
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greed View Post
    Is the Big 5 actually used to categorize people in ways similar to the MBTI, or is it simply a scale for each of the five traits that measures one's overall psychological health?

    If the latter, could the Big 5 be used as a sound, scientific basis for a typing system (such as SLOAN, which doesn't seem to have taken off) rather than using Jungian functions as the basis for one?

    It seems like such a system would serve everyone's purposes to a greater degree.
    SLOAN is a Big 5 system. This is how Big Five is used:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousness rating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet.
    Big 5 is about describing personality, it's not about explaining it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    The Big Five personality traits are empirical observations, not a theory; the observations of personality research remain to be explained.
    Wikipedia describing the consensus of Big 5:

    Consensus on the Big Five

    In a 1981 symposium in Honolulu, four prominent researchers, Lewis Goldberg, Naomi Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey, and John M. Digman, reviewed the available personality tests of the day. They concluded that the tests which held the most promise measured a subset of five common factors, just as Norman had discovered in 1963. This event was followed by widespread acceptance of the five factor model among personality researchers during the 1980s, as well as the publication of the NEO PI-R five-factor personality inventory by Costa and McCrae in 1985. The Big Five are now viewed as the first and only scientific consensus in personality psychology.

    One of the most significant advances of the five-factor model was the establishment of a common taxonomy that demonstrates order in a previously scattered and disorganized field. What separates the five-factor model of personality from all others is that it is not based on the theory of any one particular psychologist, but rather on language, the natural system that people use to communicate their understanding of one another.

    A number of meta-analyses have confirmed the predictive value of the Big Five across a wide range of behaviors. Saulsman and Page examined the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and each of the 10 personality disorder categories in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Across 15 independent samples, the researchers found that each disorder displayed a unique and predictable five-factor profile. The most prominent and consistent personality predictors underlying the disorders were positive associations with Neuroticism and negative associations with Agreeableness.[13]

    In the area of job performance, Barrick and Mount reviewed 117 studies utilizing 162 samples with 23,994 participants. They found that conscientiousness showed consistent relations with all performance criteria for all occupational groups. Extraversion was a valid predictor for occupations involving social interaction (e.g. management and sales). Furthermore, extraversion and openness to experience were valid predictors of training proficiency criteria.[14][15]
    "Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius." - Wolfgang Amadé Mozart

  2. #152
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    I'll look more into it.

    I still don't concede that MBTI doesn't have conceptual/organizational uses.

    But I'll agree that Big 5 seems more useful on a quantifiable level.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #153
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    lol argue that ENTJ way

  4. #154
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    SLOAN is a Big 5 system. This is how Big Five is used:



    Big 5 is about describing personality, it's not about explaining it:



    Wikipedia describing the consensus of Big 5:
    Just took the 300-question Big 5 test. My IPIP-NEO Narrative Report says:

    Your score on Extraversion is high, indicating you are sociable, outgoing, energetic, and lively. You prefer to be around people much of the time. Score: 78

    Your score on Agreeableness is low, indicating less concern with others' needs Than with your own. People see you as tough, critical, and uncompromising. Score: 5

    Your score on Conscientiousness is low, indicating you like to live for the moment and do what feels good now. Your work tends to be careless and disorganized. Score: 0

    Your score on Neuroticism is average, indicating that your level of emotional reactivity is typical of the general population. Stressful and frustrating situations are somewhat upsetting to you, but you are generally able to get over these feelings and cope with these situations. Score: 49

    Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative. Score: 83

    Honestly, tell me that doesn't sound ENTP (plus average neuroticism) to you.

    In fact, if someone said all of that to me and asked which MBTI mold it fits closest to, I would guess ENTP.

    I suppose the fact that I'm pretty average on neuroticism makes that particular variable less important to me personally...but I've always intuitively taken it into account when sizing up others. A very neurotic INFJ looks different from a less neurotic one, but they still have enough properties in common to warrant grouping them together. We can just create subdivisions of each MBTI type, so what's the problem?

    But I think I've figured out what's going on here: Without really realizing it, I've adapted MBTI's terminology into my own proprietary system which functions essentially like the Big 5, just with different labels.

    And I don't see how you can assert that there are only "moderate correlations" between Agreeableness and Feeling, or Conscientiousness and Judging, etc.--they seem to me to be effectively the same concept.

    Don't you see that for all intents and purposes, as long as I understand conceptually what neuroticism is, it doesn't matter whether the original MBTI theory covers it or not? If I can grasp the idea and include it in my personal theory, that works for me.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #155
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Just took the 300-question Big 5 test. My IPIP-NEO Narrative Report says:

    Your score on Extraversion is high, indicating you are sociable, outgoing, energetic, and lively. You prefer to be around people much of the time. Score: 78

    Your score on Agreeableness is low, indicating less concern with others' needs Than with your own. People see you as tough, critical, and uncompromising. Score: 5

    Your score on Conscientiousness is low, indicating you like to live for the moment and do what feels good now. Your work tends to be careless and disorganized. Score: 0

    Your score on Neuroticism is average, indicating that your level of emotional reactivity is typical of the general population. Stressful and frustrating situations are somewhat upsetting to you, but you are generally able to get over these feelings and cope with these situations. Score: 49

    Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative. Score: 83

    Honestly, tell me that doesn't sound ENTP (plus average neuroticism) to you.

    In fact, if someone said all of that to me and asked which MBTI mold it fits closest to, I would guess ENTP.

    I suppose the fact that I'm pretty average on neuroticism makes that particular variable less important to me personally...but I've always intuitively taken it into account when sizing up others. A very neurotic INFJ looks different from a less neurotic one, but they still have enough properties in common to warrant grouping them together. We can just create subdivisions of each MBTI type, so what's the problem?

    But I think I've figured out what's going on here: Without really realizing it, I've adapted MBTI's terminology into my own proprietary system which functions essentially like the Big 5, just with different labels.

    And I don't see how you can assert that there are only "moderate correlations" between Agreeableness and Feeling, or Conscientiousness and Judging, etc.--they seem to me to be effectively the same concept.

    Don't you see that for all intents and purposes, as long as I understand conceptually what neuroticism is, it doesn't matter whether the original MBTI theory covers it or not? If I can grasp the idea and include it in my personal theory, that works for me.
    But the methodology of Big 5 and MBTI is completely different, and one is trait based, and one type based... The problem with MBTI is that so many of its assumptions are wrong... You could use it in a Big 5 like fashion, but why not use Big 5 instead then? That way you are not doing anything half-way, but in the most coherent fashion.
    "Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius." - Wolfgang Amadé Mozart

  6. #156
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    And I don't see how you can assert that there are only "moderate correlations" between Agreeableness and Feeling, or Conscientiousness and Judging, etc.--they seem to me to be effectively the same concept.

    Don't you see that for all intents and purposes, as long as I understand conceptually what neuroticism is, it doesn't matter whether the original MBTI theory covers it or not? If I can grasp the idea and include it in my personal theory, that works for me.
    This thing has correlations between MBTI traits and Big 5 traits. For the most part, the factors line up, but Judging is related to Conscientiousness and Openness.. true to the typical description of Judging.

  7. #157
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    Your score on Extraversion is high, indicating you are sociable, outgoing, energetic, and lively. You prefer to be around people much of the time. Score: 78

    Your score on Agreeableness is low, indicating less concern with others' needs Than with your own. People see you as tough, critical, and uncompromising. Score: 5

    Your score on Conscientiousness is low, indicating you like to live for the moment and do what feels good now. Your work tends to be careless and disorganized. Score: 0

    Your score on Neuroticism is average, indicating that your level of emotional reactivity is typical of the general population. Stressful and frustrating situations are somewhat upsetting to you, but you are generally able to get over these feelings and cope with these situations. Score: 49

    Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative. Score: 83

    Honestly, tell me that doesn't sound ENTP (plus average neuroticism) to you.

    In fact, if someone said all of that to me and asked which MBTI mold it fits closest to, I would guess ENTP.
    I scored like you in all areas, except one: conscientiousness.
    I was in the upper 60's. You hit zero.
    So of course we could suggest 0=P and 60's= J.

    And I don't see how you can assert that there are only "moderate correlations" between Agreeableness and Feeling, or Conscientiousness and Judging, etc.--they seem to me to be effectively the same concept.
    I agree with you. (For once.)
    There is plenty of research on the net that equates high A with MBTI's F,
    and high C with MBTI's J.
    This is not news here, fellas.

    BTW, who cares about Neuroticism?
    My score was 55. It said I was neither calm, nor nervous.
    That test is as exciting as watching a parking meter expire.

  8. #158
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    But the methodology of Big 5 and MBTI is completely different, and one is trait based, and one type based... The problem with MBTI is that so many of its assumptions are wrong... You could use it in a Big 5 like fashion, but why not use Big 5 instead then? That way you are not doing anything half-way, but in the most coherent fashion.
    Right, but since I'm only using typology for purposes of expanding my own perspective, and because I don't have any plans to apply it in any scientific manner, it really doesn't matter at all to me whether I'm labeling my own arbitrary mental constructs using Big 5 or MBTI.

    The way I use it, the shorthand is very useful because I can summarize numerous behavioral patterns in just four letters. I find it more succinct.

    But Big 5 or MBTI, it's all the same shit, for my purposes. But thanks for introducing another perspective in the form of Big 5; that does improve my overall understanding somewhat.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    I scored like you in all areas, except one: conscientiousness.
    I was in the upper 60's. You hit zero.
    So of course we could suggest 0=P and 60's= J.



    I agree with you. (For once.)
    There is plenty of research on the net that equates high A with MBTI's F,
    and high C with MBTI's J.
    This is not news here, fellas.

    BTW, who cares about Neuroticism?
    My score was 55. It said I was neither calm, nor nervous.
    That test is as exciting as watching a parking meter expire.
    haha yeah, 300 questions! And I swear there were several that were exactly the same damn question as earlier ones, and this happened repeatedly.

    I agree that, regardless of the methodology used to establish them, MBTI (my proprietary form of it, anyway) and Big 5 serve essentially the same purpose with relatively similar results.

    The idea of categorizing people based on commonly observable behavioral trends has been around since at least Ancient Greece, if not longer. Isn't it telling that Big 5 came to the same conclusions through scientific means that MBTI-ers come to intuitively by just watching people and making guesses?

    That suggests to me that these "archetypes" of human behavior have deep-seated correlations to fundamental human brain chemistry. Would be interesting to research this further, but as long as I'm using typology as a subjective means of description, I have no real reason to swap my terminology over to Big 5. I'll likely carry on using MBTI's letters as a basis for my system, but including neuroticism in my analysis.

    I don't feel it necessary to subscribe wholly and exclusively to one typology system. It's still the same concepts.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #159

    Default

    The main thing I use of all the theory I've picked up is to do a sort of "lateral thinking" exercise from time to time.

    This means I sometimes try to change my perspective by trying to see things from other people's perspectives but in rather specific ways...

    As many of you know, I was introduced to workplace use of personality theory through DiSC. So I still try to change my usual perspective (which generally fits with the "Stable" style) to others ("Dominant," "Influencer", and "Conscientious").

    This translates also very nicely in changing my "interaction style" from (or accommodating another style besides) "Behind-the-Scenes" (which is an informative, responding style) to others, "Chart-the-Course" (a directive, responding style), "Get-things-Going" (an informative, initiating style) and "In-Charge" (a directive, initiating style).

    Similarly, thinking about Temperaments allows for further lateral thinking. Changing perspective from my usual preference of being Abstract and Utilitarian, to become more concrete or cooperative or both.

    The individual dichotomies allows for further lateral thinking, and the cognitive functions, still more.

    Even if I guess wrong the other person's perspective, I can keep shifting perspective till something improves communication. I just now have a systematics way of doing it because of the theory. I find it helps...if only because it keeps me shifting perspectives.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #160
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I can keep shifting perspective till something improves
    Yes, our job was to improve the productivity of the Leyland assembly line.

    We tried all kinds of things but what we noticed was that any change at all improved the productivity of the assembly line.

    Of course at first we were looking for some specific change that would improve productivity, but it turned out there was no specific change, it was change itself.

    So I wonder, is it a particular perspective that produces improvement, or is it the shifting of perspectives itself that produces the improvement.

    For if it is the shifting itself, it doesn't matter what perspective you adopt.

    And in fact any perspective will produce confirmation bias, or a false positive, just like astrology or MBTI.

Similar Threads

  1. The Grand List of Anime MBTI Types
    By LunarMoon in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 1092
    Last Post: 12-07-2017, 07:04 PM
  2. The MBTI types of MLB stars.
    By ferunandesu in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-05-2008, 04:53 PM
  3. What's the MBTI of..
    By Alfa Prime in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 08:59 PM
  4. Tone of the MBTI forum...
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-30-2007, 02:24 PM
  5. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO