User Tag List

View Poll Results: Does the Five Factor Model inherently define a "good" personality?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 61.11%
  • No

    6 33.33%
  • I don't want to pick yes or no.

    1 5.56%
First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 44

  1. #11
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Nevertheless, I am not sure what you are getting at with this comment.
    Sarcasm.

    What I am saying is that there are words that strike people as "good" (agreed not all people equally) and there are words that strike people as bad (again, not all people equally).
    I'm saying that the word "conscientiousness" could strike two people in opposite ways. Or any other word for that matter.

    The Big Five is used in things like job readiness predictors, psychological evaluations for doing team building, and so on.
    Job readiness predictor, eh? As someone who used to interview and hire, I ripped up their resume in front of their face to see how they would react. It provided many moments of amusement and revealed much about how a person thought. I wouldn't use any self-reporting instrument to hire anyone, but that's me.

    The fact remains, words have value judgement inherent in them.
    There doesn't have to be a single standard for the judging of those words.

    How is it that one person can look at working on straight commission as the opportunity of a lifetime; to make as much money as they want. But another views straight commission as a lack of security and panic sets in at the prospect of not having a consistent, weekly salary? It doesn't matter what we're talking about, people can look at one word or two words and judge them differently. How about "risk-taker"? Someone might judge that as "bad," another as "good."

    My main point is that, based on how the Big Five was constructed (built on words), an inherent normative bias has taken root, where the "good" words clustered around the "good" end of the factors that were chosen.
    Which Big Five words do you view as "good"?

  2. #12

    Default

    @Jaguar ,

    I think we are in agreement that different people can interpret words in different ways. What I am saying is that there are words on the whole that are on the whole regarded as good by most.

    IIRC, the words "outstanding", "impressive", "excellent", "high ranking" were all taken to be strongly correlated to the "positive valence" factor in the Big Seven, and less strongly correlated to "Extroversion" in the Big Five.

    I realize that "outstanding", "impressive", "excellent", etc. can be seen to have a bad connotation, but it will be a rare person who has that connotation. Nevertheless, these self-descriptor words tend to have positive correlation to the factor researchers call "Extroversion."

    I consider this a bias. I wanted to see if others agreed.

    Granted, I tilted the way I asked to get people to agree with me But I am not publishing this in any sort of academic journal, and I was trying to point out what I believe is a common sentiment towards the current trend in academic personality research.

    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

  3. #13
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Good personality according to who? (and yes, thats also my answer to your question) and no, big 5 doesent assert those things, i dont know what source you had for your information, but my sources say that its bad to be at any extreme of the poles as it tells about unbalanced personality and likely tied to some other psychological issues.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Good personality according to who? (and yes, thats also my answer to your question) and no, big 5 doesent assert those things, i dont know what source you had for your information, but my sources say that its bad to be at any extreme of the poles as it tells about unbalanced personality and likely tied to some other psychological issues.
    Of course Big Five sources won't say they assert the things I said. I was purposely being provocative, and voiced a sentiment shared by many, it seems. My point is a bias in these directions, not that being extreme in a particular pole is indeed good. The sarcasm in my first post didn't come across, apparently.

    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

  5. #15
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Does the Five Factor Model implicitly or explicitly define a "good" personality?

    My reading of the literature so far seems like there is an inherently normative language used even in academic research. That is language that makes clear that certain traits are more desirable than others.

    For instance, the Big Five asserts:
    1) Being Extroverted is better than being introverted. An introvert is a lesser being.
    2) Being Agreeable is better than being disagreeable. The disagreeable are lesser beings.
    3) Being Conscientious is better than being not conscientious. Those that aren't conscientious are lesser beings.
    4) Being calm is better than being Neurotic. Those who are Neurotic are lesser beings.
    5) Being Open is better than not being open. Those who are not open are lesser beings.

    I don't think it should come as a surprise that academic researchers who study personality are Extroverted, Agreeable, Conscientious, calm and Open. Self-serving is part of human nature after all.

    So what do you think, does the Five Factor model inherently define a "good" personality?

    Clarification: I am asking if you think the Five Factor model is inherently biased.
    Maybe not in terms of "lesser being" or judgement of worth, but I can certainly imagine that stance in human resource departments:
    1) Do we want a team player?
    2) Do we want someone pleasant to work with?
    3) Do we want someone with good work ethics?
    4) Do we want someone who can keep calm under pressure?
    5) Do we want someone who can learn new ways of doing things?

    I am not sure that makes it a faulty system though. Does a typology system have to be egalitarian in it's assumptions to be true? Yes, they are measuring qualities they find to be positive, you could also have a typology with a dimension of "competent at math" vs. "incompetent at math", those two sides might not be equal but they still work to describe people. To forcefully place another positive trait on the opposite of an existing one adds the additional assumption that the positive traits contradict.
    Last edited by Mane; 07-04-2014 at 04:06 PM.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Maybe not in terms of "lesser being" or judgement of worth, but I can certainly imagine that stance in human resource departments:
    1) Do we want a team player?
    2) Do we want someone pleasant to work with?
    3) Do we want someone with good work ethics?
    4) Do we want someone who can keep calm under pressure?
    5) Do we want someone who can learn new ways of doing things?

    I am not sure that makes it a faulty system though. Does a typology system have to be egalitarian in it's assumptions to be true? Yes, they are measuring qualities they find to be positive, you could also have a typology with a dimension of "competent at math" vs. "incompetent at math", those two sides might not be equal but they still work to describe people. To forcefully place another positive trait on the opposite of an existing one adds the additional assumption that the positive traits contradict.
    I am saying the use of normative words causes spurious correlations between descriptions considered positive that are not actually correlated in reality.

    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

  7. #17
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I am saying the use of normative words causes spurious correlations between descriptions considered positive that are not actually correlated in reality.
    So the use of the word "Conscientious" causes an incorrect correlation between the conscientious as a tested variable and conscientious as the virtue of diligence? Wouldn't that depends on the nature of the test? From my understanding, they are basically asking "are you a conscientious worker?" using circumstantial manifestations the trait would have. Is that incorrect? Or are you saying that there is no cause and affect between whether someone describes themselves as conscientious in a test and someone's actual conscientious nature?



    P.S.
    I picked to focus on the example of Conscientious because I don't think I am very conscientious, avoiding at leas one layer of personal bias on my part.

  8. #18
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    Do you want a metric that is neutral in terms of social desirability? Well, then you can't measure persons height. Tall people are liked better. You can't measure IQ. Would we have to re-factor these measures with other measures to achieve a neutral metric? I don't think most of the people would put up with such nonsense.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #19
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Does the Five Factor Model implicitly or explicitly define a "good" personality?

    My reading of the literature so far seems like there is an inherently normative language used even in academic research. That is language that makes clear that certain traits are more desirable than others.

    For instance, the Big Five asserts:
    1) Being Extroverted is better than being introverted. An introvert is a lesser being.
    2) Being Agreeable is better than being disagreeable. The disagreeable are lesser beings.
    3) Being Conscientious is better than being not conscientious. Those that aren't conscientious are lesser beings.
    4) Being calm is better than being Neurotic. Those who are Neurotic are lesser beings.
    5) Being Open is better than not being open. Those who are not open are lesser beings.

    I don't think it should come as a surprise that academic researchers who study personality are Extroverted, Agreeable, Conscientious, calm and Open. Self-serving is part of human nature after all.

    So what do you think, does the Five Factor model inherently define a "good" personality?

    Clarification: I am asking if you think the Five Factor model is inherently biased.
    You know, this idea of one end of the scale being better than the other in the five factor model is something I've been seeing more of recently. It wasn't mentioned at all in the earliest descriptions I read and in fact I think its bullshit... I don't think the model is inherently biased, but the way many people understand it is. I'd be willing to bet there are profesional psychologist out there banging their heads in frustration at the way the model gets reprosented these days. Both ends of all the scales and pros and cons. For example being extremely agreeable makes it hard to say no and thus an open target for every con artist and bully out there. Sometimes it's in your own best interest to tell someone to go fuck themselves.
    Don't make whine out of sour grapes.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    So the use of the word "Conscientious" causes an incorrect correlation between the conscientious as a tested variable and conscientious as the virtue of diligence? Wouldn't that depends on the nature of the test? From my understanding, they are basically asking "are you a conscientious worker?" using circumstantial manifestations the trait would have. Is that incorrect? Or are you saying that there is no cause and affect between whether someone describes themselves as conscientious in a test and someone's actual conscientious nature?



    P.S.
    I picked to focus on the example of Conscientious because I don't think I am very conscientious, avoiding at leas one layer of personal bias on my part.
    Well the bias can work both ways, I think. People with lower self-esteem may self-describe themselves so that negative value judgments are both associated with themselves.

    For instance, the words "thorough" and "quick" are usually both laden with positive value judgement. Those who are more self-assured are more likely to think of themselves as both despite perhaps not being that way in real life. However, those who think of themselves as less conscientious may see neither of those things as applying to themselves, despite the fact that they are indeed one of the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Santtu View Post
    Do you want a metric that is neutral in terms of social desirability? Well, then you can't measure persons height. Tall people are liked better. You can't measure IQ. Would we have to re-factor these measures with other measures to achieve a neutral metric? I don't think most of the people would put up with such nonsense.
    I think with a little imagination, the bias due to value judgments can be mitigated to some extent, without the result being "nonsense". There are personality systems that have a "Lie" scale, for instance. A way I thought of to attempt to mitigate this phenomenon, is to ask people if they thought it was good or bad to be the way a particular statement stated they were. Then we could see how self-esteem (or other esteem, if being done for someone else) affects the answers given.


    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    You know, this idea of one end of the scale being better than the other in the five factor model is something I've been seeing more of recently. It wasn't mentioned at all in the earliest descriptions I read and in fact I think its bullshit... I don't think the model is inherently biased, but the way many people understand it is. I'd be willing to bet there are profesional psychologist out there banging their heads in frustration at the way the model gets reprosented these days. Both ends of all the scales and pros and cons. For example being extremely agreeable makes it hard to say no and thus an open target for every con artist and bully out there. Sometimes it's in your own best interest to tell someone to go fuck themselves.
    Well, I've never know personality researchers to be a very self-critical or reflective bunch. So I don't think it's surprising that they wouldn't highlight the short comings of their own model. To be frank, the same is true for most scientists.

    The researchers themselves are measuring things like job performance and trying to correlate these to Big Five, and releasing results like "conscientious people are more likely to live longer, and be better at their jobs". So they have themselves to blame.

    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

Similar Threads

  1. Five Factor Model (FFM) Personality Quiz
    By Mal12345 in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-13-2014, 11:33 AM
  2. Five Factor Model: Value Judgments (?!?)
    By Idealatious in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-25-2011, 11:17 AM
  3. Where does the introverted/extraverted function difference show up?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 11:04 AM
  4. 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