User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9

  1. #1
    Senior Member Idealatious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    91?
    Posts
    122

    Default Five Factor Model: Value Judgments (?!?)

    The FFM is like the MBTI, except more scientific, backed up by hereditary tests and factor analysis and all that good stuff, and except for the tiny fact that it inevitably ends up labeling one end of the 5 scales as "good" and one end as "bad."

    And it kind of annoys me.

    (Turn back ye who follow; this post falls into TL;DR, territory. Basically, what's the deal with the FFM's traits being so strongly associated with positive/negative traits?)

    I am (should be) reading this textbook that is talking about how "interest, enjoyment, and shyness (negatively correlated)" are related to the trait of Extraversion. So... in the Five Factor Model, introversion = lack of interest and enjoyment in life? And I thought shyness was related to social anxiety, not necessarily to introversion, although I can certainly understand the correlation. What IS extraversion? A cluster of positive traits?

    I mean no one explicitly says that, and lo! Thusly Introversion is Bad, but this is an obvious conclusion. The trait of Neuroticism - I mean, obviously it is not good to be neurotic. Low Conscientiousness indicates you are "aimless, unreliable, lazy,... weak-willed," low on Agreeableness means you are "cynical, rude, suspicious (hey, that's not so bad)", and well, Openness to Experience seems to avoid the harsh adjectives in my textbook that I really ought to be reading right now, but it's still pretty darn obvious that people want to be open to experiences.

    What I'm trying to say is - is this definition of, say, Extraversion correct? A definition that includes Activity, Excitement Seeking, and Positive Emotion? I can see the inclusion of Warmth, Gregariousness, and Assertiveness, yes. But just because those former 3 items are correlated with extraversion, does that mean that they are a part of what extraversion is?

    And why does the FFM have to infuriate me by implicitly labeling people as "good" and "bad?" Should a personality system do this? Does the system address the fact that unlike Myer-Briggs where every type is equal, someone low on E, O, A, C, and high on N might want to die after reading their description? Am I wrongly imposing my value judgments on something that is actually objective? Or does this make it more useful as a personality system, because it recognizes personality dysfunction on a scale?

    Why can't low Neuroticism be "reactive and emotional" instead of necessarily completely messed up? At least, why can't low Agreeableness refer to one's objectivity and efficiency? But would this be mangling the very definitions of these traits, forcing it to be more like the MBTI unrealistically?

    ...I mean, of course Extraversion is correlated with positive traits if you DEFINE extraversion as containing "positive emotion."

    Well I know this is rather long. But someone please say something marginally related. This textbook makes me, quite unwarrantedly (is that a word?), a bit sad to be an introvert, through the implications and wording, not through what it actually says. After all, it does interestingly clarify that positive emotionality and negative emotionality are not ends of one scale - there is apparently evidence I can't be bothered to look up that they are on separate scales. But still - why should high extraversion include all these positive emotional traits? Why is it obvious how a "well-adjusted" person "should" be? (And why do books about personality psychology never mention Myer-Briggs at all? It's sad.)

    (I apologize in advance for my ranting and generally poor wording. I am half brain-dead at the moment, furiously typing this up when I should be either studying for this exam or sleeping. Or just taking deep breaths. Sorry if this is in the wrong place/ typed in an offensively idiotic manner/ having the audacity to repeat something that may have been beaten to death in another thread before this)

  2. #2
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    All of those negatives about conscientiousness and introversion are positives, as far I'm concerned. It all depends on how you look at it. I would totally admit to being lazy and unreliable. And guess what? That's awesome. Maybe not for anyone else, but ask me if I care. All of those supposed positives is time wasted worrying about other people or how neat the tablecloth is set. I'd rather think about what I want to do. Which is not that.

  3. #3
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Also, I'm going to say that it seems like some of the people writing these descriptions (or maybe just the people at similarminds) are INTPs.. and have some kind of Fe inferior compulsion to guilt themselves and criticize all of the things they are not. Like, they've succumbed to outside descriptions of them, instead of view it objectively.

    Just a guess.

  4. #4
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Moi.

    Actually MBTI and Big5 are quite different systems, even tho they do correlate quite well(except the neuroticism scale). Basically E = E, O = N, A = F and C = J, but its not 100% correlation on any of the scales, but thats pretty much where the similarities end.

    Anyways, any really high or really low scale is a negative thing.

    I do agree that big5 looks at the negatives too much on, but thats not the reality of things or all there is to low E, O etc. even tho the negatives are pointed out quite alot. Usually whwn i think of low openness i think of jungs sensation, as its essentially the same thing(with some minor differences ofc).

    Anyways, even tho the textbook talks of negatives of having low extroversion(or others), that doesent mean that you cant see the positive on having longer attention span, not having to talk to think etc.

    Actually to learn big5 better, you could learn it by thinking of the negatives that go hand in hand with positive traits listed to extraversion and positives that go hand in hand with negative traits that are listed to low E.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #5
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    I believe it would be more of a correlation with A=informative (SF/NP) and possibly also motive focus (SP/NF), and C=cooperative (SJ/NF).
    To match Neuroticism, one variation of MBTI adds a factor called Comfort/Discomfort.
    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

  6. #6
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I believe it would be more of a correlation with A=informative (SF/NP) and possibly also motive focus (SP/NF), and C=cooperative (SJ/NF).
    In that case you should study big5 bit more or forget that keirsey(orwhatever) stuff
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  7. #7
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Or, maybe they should have tried to do a correlation with Keirsey's theory (and Interaction Styles). Then we'd know for sure whether they fit.
    Still, Agreeableness at least (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness) does for the most part fit what Keirsey identified as directive/informative. It fits T/F to some extent, because for S's, T/F and D/Inf do match. For N's, T/F is connected with structure/motive. Both are forms of people vs task focus, and that clearly is what Agreeableness is about. J/P would also fit, in a reverse fashion.
    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

  8. #8
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Idealatious View Post
    The FFM is like the MBTI, except more scientific, backed up by hereditary tests and factor analysis and all that good stuff, and except for the tiny fact that it inevitably ends up labeling one end of the 5 scales as "good" and one end as "bad."

    And it kind of annoys me.
    .
    .
    .
    I agree with a lot of what you said here. Sometimes it seems like the Big Five has been rather dumbed down in recent years. I read a rather better description of the FFM traits in an old book about psychology, which removes much of what irks you. Throwing my mind back many years, I recall that it defined extroversion as just "desire for social interaction", which is far more neutral. Neurotism was defined as self-inhibiting behaviour, or the tendancy to be concerned about things. By that measure, extremely low neuroticism was dangerous, because it ment the person never worried about anything. Not even driving at 120 mph, at night, in the rain, with one head light broken, on a busy road. High agreeableness could be seen as a problem because it makes the person easy to push around. It is often in your own best interests to tell someone to shove it up their ass.The highly continenous are are perfectionists to the point of impracticality, and potentially rather obsessive as well. The highly open are uncontroled and impulsive, prepared to do anything from crystal meths through to canibalism.

    It seemed like a much more useful approach to the subject than that which I often see today.
    Don't make whine out of sour grapes.

  9. #9
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Which of these lists of traits applies most to you or your subject:
    awesome, brilliant, virtuous, attractive, muscular, perfect
    stupid, unobservant, whiny, clueless, evil
    Yeah. Most depictions I've seen of the Big Five traits seem to be a tad bit lopsided. Which seems a tad bit dangerous if it's to be used for any sort of scientific investigation, introspection, self-discovery, or.. well, in any application where a bit of objectivity would help. Overall, a more balanced approach to a description of the traits would be better as a basis for inquiry.

    The most recent example I've come across of this is in Multiplicity, which actually posits that *gasp* people behave differently in different circumstances. It's a great read with a lot of insightful commentary, but its treatment of the Big Five sort of ruins the whole second half for me.

    Contrast all of this to SignalPatterns, which does a pretty good job of balancing trait descriptions. It may not be as scientific, but its approach to what it's trying to do is much more useful because of its balance.

    I'll have to admit that I'm not entirely sure of the nitty-gritty behind how the Big Five tends to be used in scientific research. I've read up on studies that use it, and I have colleagues who have used it extensively, but I've never used it in research myself.


Similar Threads

  1. [Big Five] Does the Five Factor Model inherently define a "good" personality?
    By ygolo in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 08-03-2015, 09:50 PM
  2. Five Factor Model (FFM) Personality Quiz
    By Mal12345 in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-13-2014, 11:33 AM
  3. Big Five, Small Six, and Great Three factors of a personality
    By figsfiggyfigs in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-13-2013, 04:51 PM
  4. [NF] NFs, what is your value judgment on this
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 09:44 PM
  5. Honestly changing your trait scores for Five Factor Model
    By ygolo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-01-2007, 09:49 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