• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

_

five sounds

MyPeeSmellsLikeCoffee247
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
5,393
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
729
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Okay, I didn't want to take out a pen so I looked it up online and took it there. Can you use this or should I do something different? Sorry :/

Openness to Experience/Intellect (Your percentile: 84)

Conscientiousness (Your percentile: 10)

Extraversion (Your percentile: 70)

Agreeableness (Your percentile: 69)

Neuroticism (Your percentile: 49)
 

five sounds

MyPeeSmellsLikeCoffee247
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
5,393
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
729
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
1. [4] Is talkative
2. [2] Tends to find fault with others
3. [3] Does a thorough job
4. [2] Is depressed, blue
5. [4] Is original, comes up with new ideas
6. [2] Is reserved
7. [4] Is helpful and unselfish with others
8. [4] Can be somewhat careless
9. [3] Is relaxed, handles stress well
10. [5] Is curious about many different things
11. [4] Is full of energy
12. [1] Starts quarrels with others
13. [4] Is a reliable worker
14. [3] Can be tense
15. [4] Is ingenious, a deep thinker
16. [4] Generates a lot of enthusiasm
17. [5] Has a forgiving nature
18. [4] Tends to be disorganized
19. [3] Worries a lot
20. [4] Has an active imagination
21. [2] Tends to be quiet
22. [4] Is generally trusting
23. [3] Tends to be lazy
24. [3] Is emotionally stable, not easily upset
25. [4] Is inventive
26. [2] Has an assertive personality
27. [3] Can be cold and aloof
28. [2] Perseveres until the task is finished
29. [3] Can be moody
30. [5] Values artistic, aesthetic experiences
31. [2] Is sometimes shy, inhibited
32. [4] Is considerate and kind to almost everyone
33. [2] Does things efficiently
34. [3] Remains calm in tense situations
35. [2] Prefers work that is routine
36. [4] Is outgoing, sociable
37. [2] Is sometimes rude to others
38. [2] Makes plans and follows through with them
39. [3] Gets nervous easily
40. [5] Likes to reflect, play with ideas
41. [1] Has few artistic interests
42. [3] Likes to cooperate with others
43. [4] Is easily distracted
44. [4] Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature

ok, i didn't know what reverse scoring meant, so i'm just gonna post this for now. as i'm re-doing this and still doing it in a long, dumb way, i'm laughing at the "does things efficiently". Maybe 2 was generous, hahah!

EDIT: I'm a strong extrovert
I have a slight iNtroversion preference
I have a slight Feeling preference
I have a strong Perceiving preference
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Here are my scores:

Extroversion: 18 / 8 = 2.25
Agreeableness: 31 / 9 = 3.44
Conscientiousness: 23 / 9 = 2.56
Neuroticism: 22 / 8 = 2.75
Openness: 48 / 10 = 4.8

Women
E/I = .08*N - .38*E - .04*O - .03*A - .02*C = .22 - .855 - .192 - .1032 - .0512 = -0.9814
S/N = .16*N + .09*E + .41*O - .01*A - .04*C = .44 + .2025 + 1.968 - .0344 - .1024 = +2.4737
T/F = .15*N - .01*E - .06*O + .46*A - .39*C = .4125 - .0225 - .288 + 1.5824 - .9984 = +0.6860
J/P = .12*N + .00*E + .18*O + .11*A - .55*C = .33 + 0 + .864 + .3784 - 1.408 = +0.1644


As far as my preferences actually go, it's:

Average Introvert (amicable)
Very high iNtuitive
Average Thinking w/ some developed F-style traits
Solid Perceiver

If I listed the four functions in order of typical scoring, it would be NPIT.

The Agreeableness score is interesting, it scales here a lot into T/F. I have issues with some of the questions (such as "sometimes is rude to others") if an attempt is made to convert them to MBTI, because interestingly I think think function type matters and you're going to find Fi types who are more rude and Fe who are less rude, and then you get your T types in the middle area and then ranging into rude... but why isn't someone rude or why are they rude? The motivation would reflect more on preference than this kind of broad observational point. Agreeableness seems to deal more with surface level behavior, not preference. I guess the correlation value is supposed to cover this, though.
 

Honor

girl with a pretty smile
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
1,580
MBTI Type
?
Instinctual Variant
so
I recently mentioned in another thread that it should be possible to compute your MBTI score from your Big 5 score based on published Big 5 / MBTI correlations, which are remarkably high. This may be useful for those who aren't sure about their MBTI type and would like to try to get at it from a different angle. In this thread I will provide a legal version of the Big 5, and will try to work out how to convert the Big 5 score to your MBTI score in a reasonable way. Figuring out the best way to do the conversion is a work in progress. Once I / we are satisfied with the method, I will implement a javascript version that scores it for you - automagic MBTI via Big 5. Also, I used the following references to make this happen:

  • McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality.
  • Oliver, J., Naumann, L. & Soto, C. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big Five Trait Taxonomy. In Handbook of Personality, 3rd ed.


Step 1: Take the Big 5





Step 2: Score the Big 5

Do not read this section before taking the Big 5!





Step 3: Convert Big 5 to MBTI



For my first attempt I propose the most obvious thing - each MBTI preference is a linear combination of the Big 5 Factor scores. A score below 0 is either E, S, T or J, while a score above 0 is either I, N, F or P. I have not thought about how to interpret the magnitudes yet, although it should be possible. It would be nice to use only the significant correlations, but in order to make this work we need them all (for now). So, perform the following calculation:

HTML:
Men
      E/I =  .05*N - .34*E + .15*O + .10*A + .17*C
      S/N =  .07*N + .06*E + .61*O - .27*A - .15*C
      T/F = -.11*N + .22*E + .01*O + .25*A - .16*C
      J/P = -.10*N + .11*E + .04*O - .10*A - .34*C
Women
      E/I =  .08*N - .38*E - .04*O - .03*A - .02*C
      S/N =  .16*N + .09*E + .41*O - .01*A - .04*C
      T/F =  .15*N - .01*E - .06*O + .46*A - .39*C
      J/P =  .12*N + .00*E + .18*O + .11*A - .55*C

If any brave souls who are sure of their type will now try this out, I'll be able to evaluate how much or little I messed this up.. ^_^
Mingularity, I try not to be disagreeable on this forum (ahem, high A score on the Big 5), but the algorithms make no sense. Think about it. If you have to factor in the Big 5's extroversion into someone's S/N score, that score is not a valid measure of S/N. You're saying you can figure out whether someone's S or N by taking 16% of a measure of their neuroticism, 9% of a measure of their extroversion, adding a large chunk of how open they are, and subtracting small figures based on how agreeable or conscientious they are...that gives you a reliable measurement of sensing or intuition? I argue that if it does, then it's by chance, and not because those algorithms are valid.

So, basically, don't forget to figure out the statistical significance of your findings.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
There's no way I'm converting that entire list by hand and calculation. I'm just finding a random big 5 test on the internet and will edit with results.

Extraversion 2.5
27
Extraversion reflects how much you are oriented towards things outside yourself and derive satisfaction from interacting with other people.
Conscientiousness 4.2
83
Conscientiousness reflects how careful you are, both in respect to orginization and rules.
Neuroticism 2.7
37
Neuroticism is the tendancy to experince negative emotions.
Agreeableness 2.8
7
Agreeableness reflects how much you like and try please others.
Openness 4.5
71
Openness reflects how much you seek out new experinces.

Hm, I seem unusaully high on conscientiousness for an ITP.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
As McCrae and Costa long ago noted in that article the OP cited, the MBTI dimensions appear to be tapping into the same real underlying personality dimensions as four of the Big Five.

The best way to "convert" your Big Five type to your MBTI type is to simply assume that, e.g., if you're a Big Five introvert, you're an MBTI introvert. The small correlations with the other Big Five dimensions should be ignored.

The MBTI S/N and J/P dimensions have a mild correlation (probably from test messiness, IMHO), but that doesn't mean you should determine whether you're an MBTI S by way of a formula that takes both your S and J scores into account. And the same is true of the small, messy correlations between each MBTI dimension and the (mostly) non-corresponding Big Five dimensions.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
It would be helpful if you could directly reply to each point of my post above. I have taken a plethora of advanced statistics / modeling / machine learning courses.

The Big 5 is a high dimensional rotation of the MBTI. The questions were not designed to cleanly capture single MBTI dimensions. The most powerful way to explain the MBTI variance with the Big 5 variance is to use the entire model. The power of those "small" "messy" correlations, summed together, can outweigh the "significant" ones.

As just one example: Let's say a man tests Extraverted and Agreeable on the Big Five test and you want to determine his MBTI F preference by "converting" his Big Five type. You've taken a .22 "correlation" statistic (not exactly the right term, right?) between MBTI F and Big Five E and you're saying it justifies using the man's Big Five E score to give a positive boost to the man's Big Five Agreeable score — as compared to the result you'd get if you just straightforwardly used his Big Five Agreeable score to determine his MBTI F score.

Buuuut... by your reasoning, shouldn't the same .22 positive boost also apply to a conversion in the other direction — i.e., converting a man's MBTI F score to his Big Five Agreeable score? If so, isn't it obvious there's something wrong with using the correlation that way? If you give him a positive boost converting from Big Five Agreeable to MBTI F, and then take the resulting MBTI F score and convert it back to Big Five Agreeable using the same method, it won't get you back where you started, right? The more conversions you do back and forth, the higher and higher the man's Big Five Agreeable and MBTI F scores will go.

Also: Where do those correlational figures you're using come from? Are they from a study that used that 44-item Big Five Inventory you're using in this thread? When a subject takes two different Big Five tests, the scores don't typically match up to a degree that would justify using correlation statistics from one test and applying them to another — even if the way you were applying the correlations made sense in theory.

Finally: Can you point me to any respectable online source that supports your method of "converting" from one personality typology to another?
 

Honor

girl with a pretty smile
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
1,580
MBTI Type
?
Instinctual Variant
so
^ Significance levels are arbitrary. The correlations still carry information. The key question is about power, not significance. Keeping them in increases power because it keeps all the information around, which means we are using all the data from all the subjects.

The Big 5 is a high dimensional rotation of the MBTI - all variables do in fact correlate significantly. The question is how big of a sample would you need to achieve standard significance levels.
Dude, you missed the point of my post. :/ I wasn't arguing that Big 5 factors don't correlate with MBTI's factors. I was saying that if you're using factors like "extraversion" from the Big 5 to calculate S or N, your algorithm is inherently invalid. But it's okay, carry on.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Since you didn't reply to my points I'm going to restate one of them with respect to your last post.

The Big 5 questions were not designed to explain the MBTI variance. Language is high dimensional, thus, the Big 5 is a high dimensional rotation of the MBTI, and vice versa. The Big 5 is not the MBTI. It doesn't matter if the trait mappings don't appeal to your intuition. That's just how the model works!

The model I am using is called a linear combination aka regression model. I am implementing the javascript version right now, which should be done soon, after which I will do more work on the statistics (probably intermittently throughout the week).

I'm not the one who's failing to reply to relevant points, amigo.

Since you aren't willing to say where your correlation figures come from (and whether they even relate to the test you're using here), and you aren't willing to explain why your technique wouldn't goofily result in the same incremental boost to the type preferences (rather than the opposite boost) when you're going in the opposite direction, and you aren't willing to cite any source for the applicability of the conversion technique you're using to dimension scores from personality typologies — and no, those Wikipedia math links don't qualify — I suspect it's time for me and the other readers of this thread to conclude that the emperor has no clothes.
 
G

garbage

Guest
I haven't delved into the specific stats or sources, but I have bothered to use the equations.

Scores of:
N 2
E 70
O 95
A 93
C 92

from another test (please don't kill me)

Yield:
EI 15.49 I
SN 23.38 N
TF 24.66 F
JP -29.28 J

Works well enough in this case. edit: I'd be interested to hear more about turning correlations into coefficients, how (and if) statistical significance comes into play, and so on.
Dude, you missed the point of my post. :/ I wasn't arguing that Big 5 factors don't correlate with MBTI's factors. I was saying that if you're using factors like "extraversion" from the Big 5 to calculate S or N, your algorithm is inherently invalid. But it's okay, carry on.
It's not a flaw in the algorithm; it's all up in the stats.

Suppose we have some typology systems--perhaps Grant's Temperament System (GTS) and a Tinkerbell Classification (TC). GTS has the the factors Extraversion, Friendship, and Orderliness. TC has Extraversion, Emotion, Caffeine Intake, and Chicken Consumption.

Suppose also that we've had a bunch of people who've taken both the GTS and TC.

Data could show that those who have scored as Extraverts on the GTS have also tended to score as Extraverts on the TC scale. There's no stopping the data from showing also that Extraverts on the GTS (perhaps slightly) tend to score high on the TC's "Caffeine Intake" factor.

(Hell, the data could also show that Extraverts on the GTS tend to score as hardcore "Chicken Consumers" on the GTS as well. This would mean that the GTS has factors that aren't quite independent from one another, which is not a good thing.)
 
Last edited:

Honor

girl with a pretty smile
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
1,580
MBTI Type
?
Instinctual Variant
so
I haven't delved into the specific stats or sources, but I have bothered to use the equations.

Scores of:
N 2
E 70
O 95
A 93
C 92

from another test (please don't kill me)

Yield:
EI 15.49 I
SN 23.38 N
TF 24.66 F
JP -29.28 J

Works well enough in this case.

I'll have to mull over how the legitimacy of using correlations to derive equations and so on, but nothing too troublesome comes to mind off the top of my head.

It's not a flaw in the algorithm; it's all up in the stats.

Suppose we have some typology systems--perhaps Grant's Temperament System (GTS) and a Tinkerbell Classification (TC). Suppose also that we've had a bunch of people who've taken both the GTS and TC.

Data could show that those who have scored as Extraverts on the GTS have also tended to score as Extraverts on the TC scale. There's no stopping the data from showing also that Extraverts on the GTS (perhaps slightly) tend to score high on the TC's "Caffeine Intake" factor.

(Hell, the data could also show that Extraverts on the GTS tend to score as "Friendlies" on the GTS as well. This would mean that the GTS has factors that aren't quite independent from one another, which is not a good thing.)
I thought we were all operating under the assumption that scales like extraversion/introversion and sensing/intuiting are discrete, which I believe they are. If we're not all operating under that assumption - and apparently we're not, then it's a whole different story.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
The test I'm using here was designed to explain as much of the variance in the original Big 5 as possible, given the number of questions. It's also free for non-commercial use.

Why don't you lend a hand and try to make it actually work?

Um, yeah, and, as you know, those correlation statistics were for a 500-person study involving McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI test and, as you also know (I assume), there's really no reason to think that a study involving the BFI test you're using would end up matching those statistics very closely. And in any event, McCrae & Costa have never (to my knowledge) suggested that it made sense to "convert" Big Five types to MBTI types using anything like the method you're using — and I suspect nobody else respectable has either, but feel free to surprise me with a citation or two.

As for "lending a hand" and "mak[ing] it actually work," I already offered you my constructive solution, which was that you should "convert" Big Five to MBTI by means of the simple technique of matching Big Five Extraversion to MBTI E/I, Big Five Openness to MBTI S/N, Big Five Agreeableness to MBTI T/F and Big Five Conscientiousness to MBTI J/P.

Are those going to be perfect matches? No, sir, but that's not the point. The point is that, as [MENTION=16139]Honor[/MENTION] has also been trying to explain to you, you don't improve the conversion by trying to take the other dimensions into account in the way you're proposing. That's really not an appropriate use of those correlation statistics, and I can't help noting that you still haven't addressed my objection that your technique involves using those stats to give a same-directional boost to an affected dimension if you're converting in the opposite direction — which seems to me to mean (unless I'm missing something) that your conversion method must be fatally flawed.
 

Honor

girl with a pretty smile
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
1,580
MBTI Type
?
Instinctual Variant
so
Um, yeah, and, as you know, those correlation statistics were for a 500-person study involving McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI test and, as you also know (I assume), there's really no reason to think that a study involving the BFI test you're using would end up matching those statistics very closely. And in any event, McCrae & Costa have never (to my knowledge) suggested that it made sense to "convert" Big Five types to MBTI types using anything like the method you're using — and I suspect nobody else respectable has either, but feel free to surprise me with a citation or two.

As for "lending a hand" and "mak[ing] it actually work," I already offered you my constructive solution, which was that you should "convert" Big Five to MBTI by means of the simple technique of matching Big Five Extraversion to MBTI E/I, Big Five Openness to MBTI S/N, Big Five Agreeableness to MBTI T/F and Big Five Conscientiousness to MBTI J/P.

Are those going to be perfect matches? No, sir, but that's not the point. The point is that, as [MENTION=16139]Honor[/MENTION] has also been trying to explain to you, you don't improve the conversion by trying to take the other dimensions into account in the way you're proposing. That's really not an appropriate use of those correlation statistics, and I can't help noting that you still haven't addressed my objection that your technique involves using those stats to give a same-directional boost to an affected dimension if you're converting in the opposite direction — which seems to me to mean (unless I'm missing something) that your conversion method must be fatally flawed.
Thank you, reckful - what you wrote may be a clearer way of making the point. Thank God for INTJs.
 
G

garbage

Guest
I thought we were all operating under the assumption that scales like extraversion/introversion and sensing/intuiting are discrete, which I believe they are. If we're not all operating under that assumption - and apparently we're not, then it's a whole different story.
Under that assumption, you're pretty much right. Though, papers and such tend to view the factors as continuous scales ("scores") rather than dichotomies and calculate their correlations with those scores in mind.

(Also, it appears that what I'd said had already been said anyway. Teaches me to not read threads.)
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
You were saying?

As I explained, we want to use all the available information to explain as much variance in the MBTI scores as possible. The algorithm for doing so is still up in the air. Please do download the paper and try to work out how to do it, as it will save me time later on.

Do you honestly think that quote addresses my point? Yes, as I've already acknowledged, there are (relatively minor) correlations between the MBTI dimensions and what you might call the non-corresponding (for the most part) Big Five dimensions — just as there are (relatively minor) internal correlations among the MBTI dimensions (especially S/N and J/P) and (relatively minor) internal correlations among the Big Five factors and facets.

None of which justifies applying those secondary correlations as part of a Big-Five-to-MBTI conversion in the way you're doing. You're not "adding available information" in a way that's consistent with the nature of that information, and I've never heard of McCrae & Costa or any other respectable source using those kinds of secondary correlations in that way.

And you still haven't addressed the same-directional-boost-in-both-conversion-directions issue, and I assume that's because you realize something's fatally screwed up about your method but you're not willing to admit it.
 

Honor

girl with a pretty smile
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
1,580
MBTI Type
?
Instinctual Variant
so
[MENTION=16139]Honor[/MENTION]

Here are some MBTI (Form F - discontinued in 2012) intercorrelations. I got them from this paper:

Stricker, L. & Ross, J. (1963). Intercorrelations and reliability of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Scales. Psychology Reports.

* means p < .05, ** means p < .01

HTML:
High school students

       E-I  S-N     T-F     J-P
E-I         -.02   -.01    .04
S-N    .05          .00    .18**
T-F    .03   .07           .13*  
J-P    .03   .21**  .14**

University students

       E-I  S-N     T-F    J-P
E-I         .08    -.04    .14*
S-N   -.03          .07    .23**
T-F    .05 -.02            .09  
J-P    .13  .31**         -.05
...

you are still completely missing the point. if the data show correlations, which they may, it's a demonstration of the inherent bias in the test questions (i.e. the method of obtaining data is invalid). it doesn't make any sense for there to be correlations between the dichotomies because they are discrete, as far as i'm concerned. i'm not up for arguing about this anymore. if you don't get it, then you don't get it.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Here's a more recent article that specifically discusses that BFI test you're using and reports significantly lower discriminant correlations. As the authors explain:

John said:
Yes, as has been noted repeatedly, ... the Big Five dimensions ... are not strictly orthogonal, and scale intercorrelations of .26 are statistically significant. However, the size of these intercorrelations represents barely 10% shared variance, ... [some of which] may be explained in terms of self-enhancing biases in self-reports.
 
Last edited:

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION], here are your final scores in the new equations (the old ones are wrong). The new ones have a zero midpoint.

EI = .42*2.75 + .58*2.25 - .52*3.44 + .07*4.8 + .42*2.56 = 2.1
SN = -.36*2.75 + .03*2.25 - .14*3.44 + .17*4.8 - .16*2.56 = -1
TF = .12*2.75 + .13*2.25 - .21*3.44 - .12*4.8 + .05*2.56 = -.5
JP = .2*2.75 + .67*2.25 - .08*3.44 + .01*4.8 - .1*2.56 = 1.57

As you can see it classified you as ISTP (it also classified me as an ISTP).


Holy moly, mingularity. Neither McCrae & Costa (in the 1989 study) nor Costa, McCrae & Dye (in the 1991 study) found any significant correlation at all between Big Five Neuroticism and the MBTI S/N dimension. That is, the 1989 study specifically found no correlation between those two, and the 1991 study found no correlation between Big Five Neuroticism and Big Five Openness (the one that mainly corresponds to MBTI S/N).

And yet... somehow... you're telling us you took the stats from those two studies and arrived at a formula that makes someone's Big Five Neuroticism score the biggest factor (and by a wide margin) in calculating their MBTI S/N preference.

Even assuming your overall approach here makes any theoretical sense — which, for the reasons described in my earlier posts, I don't think it does — you've obviously botched the calculations.

Here's a hint for you as you try to figure out where you went wrong: [MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION]'s MBTI N-equivalent score (Big Five Openness) was her highest score on the Big Five test, and by a substantial margin. I'd say you can safely assume that any conversion formula that turns her into an MBTI S must still have some bugs to be worked out.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
The system is underdetermined (!). There are an infinite number of ways to shift the variance around while still resulting in an entirely valid mapping. Trying to use your intuition to understand the coefficients I found is pointless because the solver shifted the variance around willy nilly.

You can look at the Big 5 score and the resulting MBTI score. However, you can't look at the coefficients.

Also, I have not validated this model, nor tested it much, aside from the smoke test of it giving me the right score for my own type.

I find it difficult to believe you're not just blowing smoke at this point. The 1989 study you're using found that, for men, the correlation between Big Five Openness and S/N was huge (61 — the highest correlation in the entire table) and the correlation between Big Five Neuroticism and S/N was all but nonexistent (7). For women, the difference wasn't quite so dramatic, but the Openness-S/N correlation was 41 (the only statistically significant S/N correlation) and the Neuroticism-S/N correlation was 16.

And the 1991 study found virtually no correlation between Big Five Neuroticism and Big Five Openness.

So there's no way (without some kind of large-scale fuckup on your part) to get from that data to a formula where, to calculate someone's S/N score, you multiply their Neuroticism score by .36 — more than twice as high as any of the other four factors — and you only multiply their Openness score by .17.

You either made a careless mistake that you haven't yet woken up to (or aren't willing to admit to), or you truly don't know what you're doing with those numbers.
 
Top