The Big Five Meets Cognitive Functions

[FFF]

It all started with an idea, and being that I'm an INTP, I'm not a stranger to ideas. Anyway, the idea was that I could clarify the 8 MBTI functions (Ne/Ni/Se/Si/Fe/Te/Fi/Ti) by using the Big Five in a sort of matching pairs kind of fashion.

The Big Five traits are: Extroversion (E/I), Neuroticism (no correlation shown, but often mistaken for F/T and J/P), Openness (N/S), Agreeableness (F/T), and Conscientiousness (J/P). The parentheses show the best MBTI comparison for each.

That would mean that for each function things would match up as follows:

Ne = extroversion + openness
Ni = introversion + openness

Se = extroversion + low openness
Si = introversion + low openness

Fe = extroversion + agreeableness
Fi = introversion + agreeableness

Te = extroversion + unagreeableness
Ti = introversion + unagreeableness

The Big Five theory presents 6 sub-traits for each of the five main traits. That led me to conclude I should take the formula above and match up the pairs of sub-traits associated with each of 2 traits involved for a whopping total of 36 pairs associated with each function. That's when it became obvious that this is complicated, but I pressed on anyway only to find more complications. :workout:

I started with Ne (imagine ENTPs and ENFPs at work here) and began considering what kind of thinking would result from each sub-trait pair. The first sub-trait of extroversion is dubbed "friendliness," and it represents how likely you are to socialize with individuals. The first sub-trait of openness is dubbed "imagination," and it is your tendency to engage in fantasy/unrealistic thinking. This spawned the question, "Which one is acting upon which?" Does being friendly and imaginative mean you're more likely to share your imaginations with people, does it mean you're more likely to imagine being with people in unrealistic ways, or does it mean both? If the answer is both, then that would double the possibilities for each pair and make this insanely more complicated.

Another problem was that some pairings don't seem to make much sense such as "activity level" and "emotionality." Activity level (E) involves how busy you like to be, how much stuff you like to do. Emotionality (N) reflects a sort of openness about emotions and easy access to them. It's hard to make much sense out of this. Do ENTPs and ENFPs have a tendency to consider their emotions frequently as a sort of activity? The reverse, how emotionality acts on activity level leaves me with a complete blank.

A final problem I realized is that it seems sometimes pairs of sub-traits from one trait can act together either without another trait or with one or more sub-traits from another trait, thus completely destroying my neat little pairings of sub-traits.

So, in conclusion, the idea turned out to be a massive fail due to becoming too complicated and sometimes not making sense. It only served to show how truly complex the human experience is and that it cannot be easily defined and categorized. Now it probably won't be long before I go back into hiding inside the deep, dark confines of other parts of the internet.

 

[garbage]

This table that I always link to might be of some help, too.. experimental data is always good!

Unfortunately, yeah. You're gonna probably find something like this:

So, in conclusion, the idea turned out to be a massive fail due to becoming too complicated and sometimes not making sense. It only served to show how truly complex the human experience is and that it cannot be easily defined and categorized. Now it probably won't be long before I go back into hiding inside the deep, dark confines of other parts of the internet.

At least there's a decently clear correlation between Big 5 and dichotomies, right?

 

[FFF]

This table that I always link to might be of some help, too.. experimental data is always good!

Unfortunately, yeah. You're gonna probably find something like this:





At least there's a decently clear correlation between Big 5 and dichotomies, right?

Yeah, I sort of just replace MBTI dichotomies with Big Five traits since the Big Five data is defined more clearly. When I do that I notice things like specifically how in a lot of ways I'm N, but in some ways I can be in the middle of N/S and in a few ways a lot like an S type.

I have noticed around here that people tend to think J's are rude and impatient, when really that has more to do with a lack of agreeableness. People think F types are ruled by emotions, when actually extroversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness tend to make their different, significant contributions to the emotions. On the other hand they think T's are logical and emotionless, which would be introversion, low neuroticism, and low agreeableness. When those don't line up, such as with me, it can be pretty tricky trying to pin someone as a T or an F. I score high in agreeableness, yet I find I have much more in common with INTPs than with INFPs due to low extroversion and low neuroticism causing me to be very unemotional.

 

[Andy]

I never liked the way people try to correlate S-N with openness. They always seem to ignore the uneven distribution of types. You know, there are about twice as many SJs as SPs, so the results are skewed to show SJ relationships, rather than SP. Similarly, the majority of Ns are NPs, rather than NJs.

As I understand it, openness refers to a willingness to participate in new experiences. Being cautious, SJs will often score low on this trait. NPs often go looking for new experiences and will score high. But what about SPs and NJs? SPs are Se users, which generates a desire to physically experience things. I think a lot of SP would score high on openness, especially as it relates to the physical world. NJs, on the hand, spend a lot of time in their heads, and have tertiary or inferior Se, making them slower to explore new sensations. When I take big five tests, I often come out as having low openness, depending on the questions they ask. I have little interest in most forms of art, for example, because with my inferior Se I'm oblivious to it for the most part! Ask me too many questions about physical openness, rather than openness to ideas, and I will score low.

 

[Eric B]

I've always suggested that Agreeableness is directing/informing, and perhaps structure/motive, both of which are connected with both T/F and J/P (depending on S/N preference).

Conscientiousness from the name sounds like Keirsey's Cooperative/pragmatic (which are also tied to T/F and J/P).

 

[Venom]

I've always suggested that Agreeableness is directing/informing, and perhaps structure/motive, both of which are connected with both T/F and J/P (depending on S/N preference).

Conscientiousness from the name sounds like Keirsey's Cooperative/pragmatic (which are also tied to T/F and J/P).

totally agree. I know that I'm F, and yet I score lower on agreeableness because I'm more choleric and directing in nature...