Psychological distance is about the best way I've seen it described. From that distance comes valuation of what's good and bad, who to trust and who not to, awareness in interpersonal relationships, and so on.
Originally Posted by valaki
MBTI could learn a thing or two from that definition.
It's not about predetermining the number of traits in a typology; the number of traits should be determined by how many are needed to describe the system. For example, NEO-PI has three, and it considers those three to be comprehensive. NEO-PI-R (a revised NEO-PI) expands the picture to five--which happen to be the same five that the Big Five captures.
I see what you mean but I don't think it's a good idea to pre-determine number of factors in this way.
If there were a sixth or seventh, they should be captured as well.
I'm not so sure about that one. It ties into the notion that the number of traits should emerge from the study of personality--the Big Five does indeed view the five traits to be comprehensive.
Btw... Big Five theory actually isn't about just 5 traits, it's just the five ones at the top of all analysed personality traits structured in a way.
Today, many researchers believe that [there] are five core personality traits. Evidence of this theory has been growing over the past 50 years, beginning with the research of D. W. Fiske (1949) and later expanded upon by other researchers including Norman (1967), Smith (1967), Goldberg (1981), and McCrae & Costa (1987).
There are, however, sub-traits of those five--e.g. Gregariousness as a sub-trait of Extroversion.
It certainly does. The potential for intercorrelations is also a criticism of the Big Five (though more study would have to be done to determine whether there are intercorrelations and, if so, to refine the system--and perhaps refining the system would lead to a sixth or seventh trait).
As for the issue of correlations between factors, MBTI has that issue. Maybe the others too.
I wish I could take a picture of Naranjo's circle diagram to illustrate, but that circle shows disorders as a continuum. If too many disorders were grouped into one type (say, if type 8 included everything from moping around to hyperarousal to alienation to vanity), then it'd be better and more descriptive to split that type up.
You could still add more types without changing the currently existing integration/disintegration lines, just make a new group of the new types... like 3-6-9 is a separate group from the other 6 types.
What did you mean about subdividing the circle in ways that would make sense?