User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Big 5 Vs. MBTI

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lily flower View Post
    I prefer MBTI, since I have known about it longer. The 5 model is probably better, since it is more scientific, but I think 5 traits is too many to make them easy to identify. You can't say - there's an INFJ like you can with the MBTI.
    Agreed. There is almost always one X in someone's type, maybe two. It's also not as useful as MBTI regarding matters of life outside of the business/employment world. Additionally, things like intertype dynamics are lacking. You may be a stubborn rluEn, but what about your interactions with others?
    Thinkist: not optimist nor pessimist. I am primarily competent in the enneagram.
    SX 9w1, SP 5w6, SP 3w4 | Split with the first two
    Ti-Se-Si-Ni-Te-Fi-Ne-Fe. I'm always questioning this, particularly the Si.
    Big 5/Global5/SLOAN: RCUEX

  2. #12
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The MBTI is far more theoretical in nature, and more based on qualitative analysis. The 5 factor model came out of heaps and heaps of data mining, it is effectively based on quantitative analysis.

    That being said, I would sooner vouch for the 5 factor model. It has received much more scientific validation, and if it should appear that the MBTI is good for being much more predictive than the Big 5, keep in mind that the MBTI's predictions are probably wrong.
    It is interesting, given for example the response to this thread, that people are not particularly interested in Big 5 on the forum. I wonder why that is.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  3. #13
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thinkist View Post
    Agreed. There is almost always one X in someone's type, maybe two.
    This is because the Big Five is a trait-based theory and isn't intended to categorize people in terms of types. SLOAN is one way to do so; however, so is identifying one's primary trait (e.g. we can categorize people as 'Primary Open' or 'Primary Conscientious').

    It's also not as useful as MBTI regarding matters of life outside of the business/employment world. Additionally, things like intertype dynamics are lacking. You may be a stubborn rluEn, but what about your interactions with others?
    That's the thing with Big Five--most of the studies and observations (e.g. intertype relationships) made using the tool will be empirical (and disseminated via research articles); they will not be part of the tool as is the case with MBTI, Socionics, or other systems. Studying the Big Five takes a completely different approach than studying, say, MBTI.

    You got me curiously digging into studies that show how people that exhibit different Big Five traits interact--a cursory glance into the research doesn't show me a whole fat lot, but I'm sure that there are studies out there. I'd love to come across one and share it.

    I'd venture to say that a Big Five type's interactions will completely depend upon context. In some matters, differing levels of Conscientiousness, for example, just won't matter; in others, it will. I would also venture to say that, in general, "like understands like."

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    It is interesting, given for example the response to this thread, that people are not particularly interested in Big 5 on the forum. I wonder why that is.
    My guess would be that it's because Big Five lacks the theoretical depth of MBTI. So, to discuss Big Five at any length, one must discuss its applications--but forums don't seem to be the best place to discuss applications.

  4. #14
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Here's a relevant thing. A "Facebook score" as a predictor of job success that appears to use Big Five as a basis:
    Conscientiousness: This is someone who appears to be well organized and hard-working, and that’s reflected in the way they set up their Facebook page. Maybe there are a lot of detailed posts and profile, or photos of the person working hard at something.

    Emotional stability: You seem to be someone who looks at the glass as half full, and seem able to handle stress. That means your page is lacking lots of negative and down in the dumps type posts; and you’re not overly emotional in images or in what you write.

    Agreeableness: This is all about someone who’s able to get along and doesn’t engage in Facebook conflicts, especially heated debates with friends.

    Extraversion: Here’s where lots of Facebook friends come in handy because lots of friends is a predictor of extraversion. Also, photos of you in social situations with lots of people are a good thing, compared to pictures of you alone on your couch.

    Openness: Travel and intellect play into this category. If you appear open to different experiences and viewpoints, then you’re viewed as open. If you’re posting stuff about classic literature you’ll probably score higher than if you’re dishing about the latest trashy novel. And photos of international travel are also a big plus.

    Based on this research, scoring high in all these categories means you’re more likely to be an ideal employee. That kind of predictor would probably make any hiring manager salivate, especially in today’s tough job market where they have to weed through thousands of applicants.
    Regarding the ethical implications of this:
    Kluemper is not advocating that HR use his groundbreaking social-media research just yet. “This is one study and the sample size is not that large,” he explained. “A lot more studies need to be done.”

    But, he admitted some ill-advised HR folks may try and hang their hats on this one study, and that worries him because using such personality tests could be on sketchy legal grounds.
    The fact that this is on "sketchy legal grounds" is likely the only thing that would prevent employers from taking this study and rolling with it.

  5. #15
    Fight For Freedom FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    691

    Default

    First off, hardly anyone is going to be honest on a personality survey a company they're trying to work for hands to them or requires them to take after filling out an app. Second, being high in all the big five traits is not always the ideal employee. For American sales people it is actually high extroversion and conscientiousness and low neuroticism and agreeableness. Also, this means not very high in the first two or very low in the next two. Openness doesn't matter as much, but sometimes might come into play when selling really complex stuff. You basically want salespeople who are outgoing, goal-directed, calm, resilient, and selfish (making a sale for my own benefit is more important than this being the best product and best deal for the customer). One of the best salesmen where I work was like, "Eventually you get to the point where you're like, 'I don't care. I'm gonna get this bitch.' " That was in reference for getting people to sign up for what I call a magazine scam. I refuse to do it because I see it as greedy and immoral. They're just hoping people will forget to cancel so they can charge them $50 for magazines they don't really want. When that does happen, people get pissed off at us and our company.

    The same traits above are what is desirable in managers. The openness trait is best high for managers who need to bring about changes and reforms. Low openness is good for maintenance managers who just need to keep something going that's already going good. Actually, sometimes people can manage just as well or even better with high agreeableness. I used to work somewhere with this manager that everybody thought was such a nice guy. If he asked most people to do something, they're probably going to do it just because he's so damn nice and wouldn't want to challenge him.

    Depending on other jobs, the ideal employee profile changes. When it comes to starting level retail jobs, you usually just have to work with whoever you can get that doesn't have a questionable history and also has the right availability.

  6. #16
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFF View Post
    First off, hardly anyone is going to be honest on a personality survey a company they're trying to work for hands to them or requires them to take after filling out an app.
    I imagine that the questions have to be subtle in order to get at the real truth, because, otherwise, the 'right' answer is too easy to spot. I mean, questions like..
    I would describe myself as neurotic. [ ] Y [X] N
    I am hard-working and notice details. [X] Y [ ] N
    ..wouldn't exactly get at the truth, especially when a job is on the line. Even still, someone could just as easily convince themselves using a train of thought akin to, "Well, I can see where I could potentially not be described as neurotic. That means that I can legitimately mark 'N'! Cool, this means that I'm not a liar, too! That means that I'm agreeable. Sweet, I'm totally acin' this thing."

    No idea how this is typically handled on self-report personality assessments, but I'd like to find out.

    It seems that this Facebook method gets around much of this bias by allowing other people to assess someone's Big Five scores. From the article itself:
    Self-ratings may incorporate less observable information about motives, intentions, feelings, and past behaviors (Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1994), whereas other ratings stem from observed target behaviors or trace artifacts associated with these behaviors. Researchers have argued that ratings gener- ated by having others assess observed behavior may be more predictive of future behaviors (e.g., job performance, academic performance) than are self-assessments of personality (Hogan, 1991;Motowidlo et al., 1996;Mount et al., 1994; Small & Diefendorff, 2006).
    Interestingly, according to Table 1 in the article, self-report scores aren't so far off from 'other-report' scores.

    Second, being high in all the big five traits is not always the ideal employee. For American sales people it is actually high extroversion and conscientiousness and low neuroticism and agreeableness. Also, this means not very high in the first two or very low in the next two. Openness doesn't matter as much, but sometimes might come into play when selling really complex stuff. You basically want salespeople who are outgoing, goal-directed, calm, resilient, and selfish (making a sale for my own benefit is more important than this being the best product and best deal for the customer). One of the best salesmen where I work was like, "Eventually you get to the point where you're like, 'I don't care. I'm gonna get this bitch.' " That was in reference for getting people to sign up for what I call a magazine scam. I refuse to do it because I see it as greedy and immoral. They're just hoping people will forget to cancel so they can charge them $50 for magazines they don't really want. When that does happen, people get pissed off at us and our company.

    The same traits above are what is desirable in managers. The openness trait is best high for managers who need to bring about changes and reforms. Low openness is good for maintenance managers who just need to keep something going that's already going good. Actually, sometimes people can manage just as well or even better with high agreeableness. I used to work somewhere with this manager that everybody thought was such a nice guy. If he asked most people to do something, they're probably going to do it just because he's so damn nice and wouldn't want to challenge him.

    Depending on other jobs, the ideal employee profile changes. When it comes to starting level retail jobs, you usually just have to work with whoever you can get that doesn't have a questionable history and also has the right availability.
    Interesting notes

    Yup, this is what got me curious to seek out the original article. I thought it was well-known that, for example, openness makes for less 'effective' police officers (and also, all of your examples). The article doesn't seem to address the issue of which industries the test subjects were employed in or otherwise tested against.


    In any case, I'm not sure how to regard "How to impress employers on facebook" other than.. kind of sickening.

  7. #17
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    The big 5 is essentially descriptive - it makes no attempt to explain the traits that it assigns to people. As such, it is a short hand way of describing a person in very board terms. It's alright, as far as it goes, but it pays to remember the limits of system, such as realising that knowing someone has very low neurotisism does not distinguish between a compulsive risk taker and a couch potato who sits on his ass all day and watches the world rot around him.

    MBTI attempts to explain things. In my opinion it fails. I regard it was over simplified and generally misguided. Function theory is much better, but as with the big 5 it is still worth bearing in mind that knowing sxomeones type does not specify exactly what that person is like. Each type allows for huge variation. That is why you can fit 7 billion people into just 16 types.

    If I was to chose a point where it becomes immoral, I would say it comes when you forget that that and start using the system to confirm your prejudges and build up your own sense of superiority by constructing the idea that your group is superior to everyone elses. You can see it a lot - it's almost like a modern form of racism, like Hitlers believe in the superiority of the Aryan people. It's just that rather than measuring skull shape and colouration they use psychometric profiling instead. Even if that doesn't count as immoral, it is still stupid, as it blinds you to the reality of the world.
    Don't make whine out of sour grapes.

  8. #18
    Junior Member Hemd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    NFPI
    Posts
    16

    Default

    I think many here don't know, but the MBTI and Big Five are actually pretty similar in what they are measuring:

    Obviously Extraversion in B5 is I-E in MBTI and Openness fits pretty close to S-N. Those two have shown very high correlations in studies.
    Agreeableness fits T-F and Conscientousness P-J. Altough these two don't have such high overlap than Extraversion and Openness have with the MBTI dimensions, they are still significantly high.

    You can read the sources of this it here for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-B...cator#Big_Five

    So from scientific perspective (where the Big Five are the standard), the MBTI does measure some valid personality dimensions, but has muddied the water here and there with certain aspects that don' fit with the Big Five or similar personality measures.

    Bear in mind that this means some scientific support for the personality dimensions Mbti measures, but none for the existence of distinct types or the Jungian functions. These two concepts are widely rejected in science and are considered as bunk. See the Wikipedia link for the study of Costa and McCrae for sources which confirm this.
    Typologie auf deutsch: Typentest Persönlichkeitstest

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    SEE
    Posts
    69

    Default

    what the fuck is Big 5 and DISC?

    I prefer to stick to the basics:
    MBTI mixed with Enneagram mixed with Socionics.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-16-2013, 05:53 PM
  2. Big five and MBTI
    By Rex in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 01:57 PM
  3. Big 5 and MBTI type
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 10-11-2010, 10:14 AM
  4. Type of learner vs. MBTI Type
    By NewEra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 01:00 AM
  5. Socionics vs MBTI
    By Azseroffs in forum Socionics
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 04-10-2009, 01:37 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