User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 19 of 19

  1. #11
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    In any case, if you felt a man was genuinely friendly and interested in you for half an hour, having just met him, you'd probably think the same of him knowing him for years.
    Are you sure?

    Cant the used car salesman do exactly that? Make you feel like they are genuinely interested in you and appear kind, when in reality they may be neither kind nor genuinely interested in you?

    It seems to me that IFs tend to have more human qualities than ETs.


    INFxs more than ExTPs

  2. #12
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    No, some of the best salesmen believe they're providing a service, and enjoy doing so. The stereotypical used car salesman isn't actually all that agreeable, and doesn't really fool anyone. And in fact, he's a used car salesman. They aren't characterised as being good at being agreeable.

    It's more likely a person who scores high on agreeableness is going to be a great deal better off in the world than a used car dealer.

    Tom Hanks is immensely agreeable, for example. Used car salesman I'd acutally characterise as somewhat disagreeable.
    Let's do this thing.

  3. #13
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    No, some of the best salesmen believe they're providing a service, and enjoy doing so. The stereotypical used car salesman isn't actually all that agreeable, and doesn't really fool anyone. And in fact, he's a used car salesman. They aren't characterised as being good at being agreeable.

    It's more likely a person who scores high on agreeableness is going to be a great deal better off in the world than a used car dealer.

    Tom Hanks is immensely agreeable, for example. Used car salesman I'd acutally characterise as somewhat disagreeable.

    I see, so the agreeable people are the ones who actually do have a lot of human qualities.

    Well in the sense that you've alluded to the ENTP being agreeable, it seems like we have them along the same lines as the used car salesmen.

    Seems to me though, in that sense of the word, ENTPs wouldnt be more agreeable than INFs.

  4. #14
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
    I agree that FFM has no explicit theory, but I'm trying to figure out what might be the implicit assumptions. Extraversion includes positive emotions in its definition, but the said positive emotions are defined as an Extravert would express them. Neuroticism includes negative emotions rather than merely emotional intensity and fluctuation. Extraverts can express negative emotions; and positive emotions can be intense and fluctuate. These traits are measuring according to how they define what they measure. And they're not perfectly orthogonal. What's do you think about this?
    I'm not sure this is entirely valid... well, let me rephrase that - what FFM picked up is from the ground up. These are the terms that people grouped together naturally. What it means, what it implies... that is worthwhile debating, but the traits and sub-traits they picked have undergone incredible validation. These types of systems are very unpopular and the resistance against them is huge. I wouldn't say they are beyond reproach - that'd be contrary to what I believe - but it's shortcomings are extremely well documented... and yet it remains the main 'personality' tool. Regardless of it's faults, every system that it has been compared against tends to have more issues. Hence the defacto standard! All tools seem to natural progress towards the FFM, including the practical side of MBTI. Generalized traits with the 16PF, and so on...

    So, yes - they are measuring according to how it was defined, but it wasn't arbitrary. MBTI uses arbitrary (Jung and MB's group both defined them themselves) descriptions to resolve type; FFM took hundreds of terms while developing the theory and removed those that weren't useful. Is it complete? No - but it is by design. The ones that remained all grouped into main categories... and those main categories aren't "terms" on their own - extraversion is a collection of sub-traits that are made up of descriptive words. IOW, those words are extraversion, they are surgency, etc. The test measures it solely to predict behavior - the combined scores are then tested against behavior.

    In the sense that they are not orthogonal, FFM didn't attempt to force any model upon their results, therefore the results are completely open ended. I'm assuming you are talking about symmetry with MBTI, correct me if I'm wrong... but MBTI is perfectly symmetrical by design. There can be no real congruence between a 5FFM factor analysis and a 4 type theory... they just aren't the same. Within those limits, the correlations are surprisingly strong. It *can* be forced, but the question is if it should. The end result for perfect congruence is to refactor MBTI 4 and FFM 5 to come up with the 20 underlying dominant correlations and remap them. That would break FFM... as well as MBTI type theory.

    However, you are correct that they don't overlap so perfectly. In short, no, they cannot be interchanged - at least, T/F and J/P cannot, even at the practical level. If you take a look at the 5 words used to describe F (Empathetic, Compassionate, Accommodating, Accepting, Tender) compared to A (Centacs)(Service, Agreement, Deference, Reserve, Reticence), there is a huge gap... An example of how E in MBTI leads to A in FFM is the "Reserve" measurement. And yes, there are other fairly strong correlations, if you attempt to view it with perfect symmetry - P and Openness being one of them. In MBTI, NP is highly open (FWIW, I test highly NP and I rank extreme in openness), where as NJ tends to rank much lower in openness as a result (GF tests moderate N, and only neutral O). Again, in the practical sense, it works.

    That doesn't change the strength of the correlation between N and O however, which is the strongest of the bunch. If you compare the impact between P and N, N wins out dramatically.

    So, it doesn't make sense to associate it with NFJ? Do you disagree with all of Gonsowski's correlations?
    No, I don't disagree... Well, I do in a lot of cases, but even where I don't, I still don't see it as relevant. If you require three of four traits (independent traits), you are linking 15 sub traits in order to come up with a correlation to one main trait (4 subtraits). Even small variances in how people define words, descriptions... never mind the lack of direct comparison... can add up to incredible amounts of implied correlations. It also means the variance is gigantic. This is on top of having N being slightly to negatively correlated with neuroticism, and never mind that the strongest correlation to neuroticism is actually extroversion. I don't see any validation in his work that would convince me that that the 15 subtraits/3 main traits could be refactored into 4 traits (especially considering the contrary evidence that EsTJ would be highest indicative of neuroticism, in terms of independent correlations!) to come up with the trait of neuroticism.

    This is on top of what I consider the best golden standard in trying to figure out how well things correlate - the questionnaire trait questions. You can see a comparison here (PDF Warning)

    It just doesn't match up.

    To cover my bias, however... a small part of me finds his style extremely difficult to read, which doesn't help... he's an engineer and he writes like one... and I just can't read his stuff naturally enough to feel comfortable with it. I feel like he assumes his stance is correct, but never actually says *why* it is correct. It's just a whole lot of 'obvious' conclusions strung together (mostly referring to his NFJ mapping). In the end, I just feel like he is lacking proper methodology to make these conclusions and then can't validate them since it's not his field (not a personal attack, but he has no real way of getting a sample group together, ensuring controls, etc.) This makes his results, even if I assume the data is correct, tough to give credit to.

    Do you think its not overly useful to rely too strongly on such correlations? Or do you think we just can't validly theorize about the correlations?
    I think it is useful to understand both systems.

    However, in the end, you have to pick what works for you. SW, as can be seen, prefers raw theory over practical use. I prefer practical use. As a result, I tend to lean towards that which is more predictive and has been shown to correlate the most accurately to behavioral issues. In the first, MBTI is the better choice - it's pure theory only starting to apply more rigid controls... and in the second, FFM is the better choice - it's pure pragmaticism and is only starting to develop the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    They're separate scales, and really the Big 5 has many more studied correlations with the world than the MBTI. The MBTI is more theory based and of more limited use.
    This post was extremely well put... it covers the FFM approach very well.

  5. #15
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    It's funny, but I know there are studies wherein assessments made of acquaintances, or even strangers one has been allowed to observe a short time, tend to match assessment by people who know one another well. Whether this is because judgments are made quickly or because quick judgments are correct, I couldn't tell you.
    Yes, I think I remember one where they showed students a few seconds of a professor that would or could be taking classes with and rate them, then had them rate them later after having experienced a semester with them. (Or something similar to this.)

    And the snap judgment for many of them actually synced up with the long term assessment.

    (I'm not sure how they blocked out for self-fulfilled prophecy and the like.)

    In any case, if you felt a man was genuinely friendly and interested in you for half an hour, having just met him, you'd probably think the same of him knowing him for years.
    [Quick derail for some funny experiences with used car salesmen.

    One was a fat moustached cigar-smoking slob who just felt like a ... used car salesman. I'm pretty sure he was that slimy. (He even farted a few times as we walked around the lot.)

    Another one just came off as untrustworthy, and later on we ended up not buying a car there because they seemed to be shifting numbers around and trying to push us into a particular contract for no good reason.

    The third one I can recall was refreshing: He was a genuinely friendly guy and wanted to sell us a car so he had a routine down, we KNEW he wanted to sell us the car and was going through a routine, and HE knew that WE knew that he was going through the standard routine... and we even joked about the routine for the 30-60 minutes we spent with him. The casual honesty of the whole experience was enough for us to buy the car. And it was a good buy, and we ended up buying another car at the same spot a few years later ... turns out they have the best customer service in the local area.

    I just found this last one the most intriguing, due to the "social game" aspects...]
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #16
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    I don't think anyone has mentioned here that the MBTI's Type Differentiation Indicator (TDI) introduces the new scale of Comfort-Discomfort, which is supposed to represent Neuroticism. Apparently, from what I was told, some of the traits making up C-D were apart of one of the other scales at least on the Expanded Analysis of Step II), but were suppressed by Myers-Briggs because they had negative connotations that they were afraid would demoralize people who took the indicator (make them think there was "something wrong" with them). Yet now with FFM competing, the TDI decided to add the factor.

    Also, while Agreeableness is always associated with T/F, and Conscientiousness with J/P, they would seem to be a more direct match to Keirsey's "Role Informative/Directive" and "cooperative/Pragmatic". Those dichotomies both are associated with both T/F and J/P. For Sensors, F's are informative, and T's are directive. For iNtutitors, P is informative and J is directive. For sensors, P is pragmatic and J is cooperative. For iNtuitors, F is cooperative and T is pragmatic.
    I wonder why they have never looked at those factors.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    61

    Default

    I'm not sure if this is implicit in this discussion, but the traits in the five factor model aren't defined the same way MBTI is. What the ffm people did was write a multiple choice test without deciding what traits they would measure, decide that they wanted five traits, and then mathematically group the multiple choice questions in the way that accounted for the most variance in data from the initial survey answers to their test. Thus, it doesn't really make much sense to delve deeply into the meaning of the words used to describe these five traits- they're merely descriptions that the psychologists subjectively decided later on describe the factors that were initially defined only by math. The fact that MBTI traits were chosen a priori instead of defined by factor analysis of survey data is one critique sometimes used to say that it is less scientific than ffm.

  8. #18
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    How significant this thread would be resurrected now. This morning, on AOL News, they have this story:

    Good News
    For Grumps

    Disagreeable Attitude Won't Bring On Death Any Earlier: Traits for Long Life
    and it's about the Five Factors:

    Personality And Longevity - AOL Health

    It claims that low Agreeableness is not as bad as we would think, but that it is high Neuroticism that is harmful.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  9. #19
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    How significant this thread would be resurrected now. This morning, on AOL News, they have this story:

    Good News
    For Grumps

    Disagreeable Attitude Won't Bring On Death Any Earlier: Traits for Long Life
    and it's about the Five Factors:

    Personality And Longevity - AOL Health

    It claims that low Agreeableness is not as bad as we would think, but that it is high Neuroticism that is harmful.
    OK so that means that

    extroversion
    openness
    conscientiousness
    agreeableness
    neuroticism :steam:

    ENxJ!!!!
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

Similar Threads

  1. [Enne] BlackCat's MBTI and Enneatype correlation chart
    By BlackCat in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 10-20-2017, 08:20 AM
  2. MBTI and Enneagram Correlations
    By 527468 in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 06:36 PM
  3. Replies: 125
    Last Post: 01-23-2013, 09:13 PM
  4. MBTI and Enneagram correlation chart
    By yupyupyup in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-03-2010, 08:59 PM
  5. Correlation between shoes and MBTI
    By JustDave in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-18-2008, 12:38 PM

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