Big 5 is more accurate than MBTI, and is favored by researchers

[Avocado]

Thus, I believe the focus on this site ought to shift more towards Big 5, though MBTI is still interesting.


My Big 5 has stayed pretty stable, with conscientiousness always being really low, openness and agreeableness staying very high, and my extroversion and neuroticism staying about around the mean of the general population. This was from several sources over some time. On the other hand, while N and P stay consistent on my MBTI, E/I and F/T flip a lot. That is just my affirmation.

 

[andresimon]

Thus, I believe the focus on this site ought to shift more towards Big 5, though MBTI is still interesting.


My Big 5 has stayed pretty stable, with conscientiousness always being really low, openness and agreeableness staying very high, and my extroversion and neuroticism staying about around the mean of the general population. This was from several sources over some time. On the other hand, while N and P stay consistent on my MBTI, E/I and F/T flip a lot. That is just my affirmation.

E/I and F/T don't flip a lot. MBTI is just harder to measure because it measures cognition not behavior.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I while back I had a similar thread. I find that Big 5 has some nice solutions when compared to MBTI. (which has its own beauties)


1. Neuroticism scale it very good add on in the system. Especially since this matters quite a bit in real life.
2. Openness scale may be much smarter divide than S/N.
3. There is no function order, that beyond first 2 functions has not real correlation with reality.
4. It think that Big 5 does not have a guide of "Who should date who".

 

[boomslang]

It's accepted because it's measurable on a scale and isn't dichotomised. It only measures, it doesn't provide much more insight than what can be intuitively gleaned from it.

 

[EcK]

Took the big 5 a few years ago. The results were correlated with test takers mbti scores. Based on which it told me i was entp.

I actually never scored anything but entp so as far as im concernedthe mbti is the most stable test o ve ever taken.

Changing your answers would mean changingself perception. I d assume anyone above 22 would know who they are by that point
Your behavior might change but your preference. Thats your personality.

 

[Olm the Water King]

Also, The Big Five is a boring system.

Life's boring. I'd be more cautious of a system that isn't than one that is.

 

[Bush]

I've made part of my living by toying around with the Big 5 and connecting it to other phenomena,conducting research, developing other topological systems for application in the real world, etc. That stuff is awesome, and seeing it in action is like seeing your grandchild learn to take steps for the first time.

I've floated the idea of a Big 5 subforum before. It didn't go over so well, and for good reason.

In and of itself, it's not so interesting.

"Yeah, man; there sure are five factors. Yep. There sure are."

The development of systems through e.g. factor analysis, using it in research, seeing what it can tell us.. that's interesting. It turns out to have good test-retest reliability. And so on.

I figured that anything we'd discuss about the Big 5 would be suitable for the Psychology subforum.

Life's boring.

This means that your idea of shifting the site toward Big 5 would mean deliberately making it boring.

 

[Forever]

Yeah I haven't really gotten much out of Big 5. It's straightforward, promotes little discussion. And yeah it is boring.

Life's boring.

I'm sorry.

 

[Avocado]

Yeah I haven't really gotten much out of Big 5. It's straightforward, promotes little discussion. And yeah it is boring.


I'm sorry.

Boring, but accurate.

 

[DaftGuru]

What's wrong with boring if it's accurate? Sometimes it's not a good idea to make everything needlessly complicated. My big five has also always been very stable and obvious, whereas my MBTI has not.

 

[Forever]

Boring, but accurate.

Hmm, Big 5 is more with behavior.. making it more appealing for you being an Ne user but not everyone is not an Ne user here.

 

[miss fortune]

I really do prefer the openness scale over sensing and intuitive as far as measures go... yeah, I do like to taste things and touch things, but I'm also very open to new ideas

the fact that it is a sliding scale as opposed to a dichotomy also has some appeal, since I usually feel that most things do fall into a gray area instead of being one extreme or another. I know that technically MBTI can be looked at that way as well, but when you start talking about types all of that "there might be things that fall into the middle" part goes right out the window.

my scores on that have been relatively stable over the years, which is more than I can say about any other test... which would kind of indicate, to me anyway, that it is a more reliable measure of overall personality as opposed to fluctuating moods and tendencies picked up for the sake of expediency or convenience for the time.

 

[tkae.]

To say that something is preferred by researchers and is more empirically "accurate" really doesn't mean much. It means it has more observable and measurable characteristics, which is NOT the end all be all of psychology. That's a very behaviorism-centric argument and is a fallacy.

So of course researchers prefer it. They can actually study it, unlike MBTI which is derivative of a psychodynamic theory (which means that we have an entire half of ourselves that's completely unobservable and which requires the therapeutic process to uncover). Researchers are largely offended by the idea of a theory that posits something can't be tested and observed. It's why there isn't a long list of psychodynamic researchers, but why behaviorist psychologists are almost always researchers.

This (along with substantial politics) is a large reason why behaviorism, cognitive behaviorism, and biological psychology have come to dominate the therapeutic landscape: they're observable and testable. However, humanistic and psychodynamic therapies are catching up in outcome studies since insurance companies are requiring that they produce something. They're just as valid, they're just harder to test so people haven't bothered.

Tl;dr just because something is observable and testable doesn't mean it's superior. Phobias are easier to observe than delusions. Does that mean we should be satisfied with diagnosing delusions as phobias? Should we dictate our diagnoses based on observable behaviors rather than psychological elements? Behaviorists thought so. Behaviorists also made a small child scared of Santa Claus, gave children stutters for shits and giggles, and ran bootleg Abu Ghraibs.

MBTI supposes that aspects of our personality aren't observable, and therefor aren't testable. It's expected that empirical science wouldn't support it, just like experiments don't support a wide array of things in psychology we know as fact.

 

[Chrysanthe]

Yes Jungian Typology is way more interesting to study, regardless of its "accuracy". It shows the potential that can be manifested through all 8 functions and what you can become rather than merely judging you by your behaviour, which I learn nothing from really.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Big 5 doesn't indicate anything. It just tells you what you already told it. It is like an echo. "I am open to new stuff" --> Big 5: "You are open to new stuff."

 

[Avocado]

Yeah, I get it. At the same time, an idea is good so long as it entertains me.

 

[BlackDog]

Big 5 doesn't indicate anything. It just tells you what you already told it. It is like an echo. "I am open to new stuff" --> Big 5: "You are open to new stuff."

Exactly, to me this is why it's not very valuable. It's just a reflection. if you're at all self aware, you know all that stuff already.

 

[briochick]

The big five personality test troubles me because employers are prone to using it, particularly on online applications. I'm troubled because I believe it would be natural to ween out anyone who scored high or moderately high on neuroticism (which correlates to being reactive, prone to depression, having a low self esteem, as well as any emotional or psychological struggles), or low or moderately low on conscientiousness or agreeableness (which can indicate that a person is "defiant," or can reveal adhd or dyslexia or trauma), or extroversion (which can indicate that a person is friendly and gregarious, essentially pinning introverts with the reverse labels). Essentially, the test could very easily be used in most jobs to select only from a very limited slice of the population as "ideally hirable," and reject a large swath (anyone who doesn't have a compliant outgoing hard-working gregarious thoughtful sweet self-perception/self-expression), a trend that is obvious in the mass of entry level job positions looking for 5 years experience or all your licenses (which, for many, is nearly the same thing).
Additionally, someone's test-scores do not correlate to actual behavior, and perception of any person varies widly based on who's perceiving them. eg: I had an employer who was incensed by my tendency to be five minutes late to work (I have ADHD, timeliness is a constant challenge) and would become angry if I exhibited nervous behaviors around her (which I had a tendency to do given I'm highly self-critical and she was highly critical of me). She would have scored me very low on conscientiousness and agreeableness and high on neuroticism. She probably would have scored me high on openness and high on extroversion. Now, contrast that with my next employer, who didn't care if I was 5 minutes late, or 10, getting there before the clients and being prepared was all that mattered to him. He knew I tended to be self-critical so in response he was encouraging. He saw me as very empathetic and very accommodating. He would have scored me moderately on neuroticism, high on conscientiousness and agreeableness, moderate on extroversion, and high on openness. If both of them had seen my actual test scores (moderately high on neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, moderate on extroversion, and moderately low on conscientiousness they would perceive that person very differently, and would not perceive me in person like they would my score). To finish my anecdote, my fiance scored fairly low on conscientiousness, and extroversion. He is an INTP, and one of the the most conscientious people I know. He thinks of me and others, he tries to accommodate, he is polite, he is loving and affectionate with those he's close to, he is rarely rude, rarely aggressive in any way, and he is quick to apologize. I love him to bits. He's also a hard worker, straight forward, very logical, doesn't care about other people's drama, and generally does his own thing. The Big 5 may be reliable in regards to his self-image but it doesn't give an accurate picture of him.

Thoughts?

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Big 5 doesn't indicate anything. It just tells you what you already told it. It is like an echo. "I am open to new stuff" --> Big 5: "You are open to new stuff."

That's what all the personality tests do; MBTI: "you make decisions with your heart" - You're a feeler, or "you like meeeting new people"-extrovert. Tests actually can't guess who you are unless you tell them.

 

[OrangeAppled]

That's what all the personality tests do; MBTI: "you make decisions with your heart" - You're a feeler, or "you like meeeting new people"-extrovert. Tests actually can't guess who you are unless you tell them.

The 4 letters indicate something else - your ego aka "dominant function". You don't tell it that you, say, have a preference for Fi over Ne, but it combines all your answers to indicate it (if you are INFP).