• 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.

MBTI & FFM correlations?

marm

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
134
MBTI Type
INFP
I'm interested in correlations between the MBTI and the FFM, but my expertise on the technical details is severely limited. The correlations were brought up in the thread 'Variations within Types'. Some claim that the FFM trait of Neuroticism is missing and so maybe this could be a further distinction made. But others claim that it isn't missing. I'm also interested in the sub-traits of both systems, and how they relate to all of this. There are critics of both MBTI and FFM, and I'm trying to sort out what is valid and useful.

What do you think of the following information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Factor_Model

"One common criticism is that the Big Five do not explain all of human personality. Some psychologists have dissented from the model precisely because they feel it neglects other domains of personality, such as Religiosity, Manipulativeness/Machiavellianism, Honesty, Thriftiness, Conservativeness, Masculinity/Femininity, Snobbishness, Sense of humour, Identity, Self-concept, and Motivation. Correlations have been found between some of these variables and the Big Five, such as the inverse relationship between political conservatism and Openness (see McCrae, 1996), although variation in these traits is not entirely explained by the Five Factors themselves. McAdams (1995) has called the Big Five a "psychology of the stranger," because they refer to traits that are relatively easy to observe in a stranger; other aspects of personality that are more privately held or more context-dependent are excluded from the Big Five.

In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Negative correlations often appear between Neuroticism and Extraversion, for instance, indicating that those who are more prone to experiencing negative emotions tend to be less talkative and outgoing. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions. This is particularly important when the goal of a study is to provide a comprehensive description of personality with as few variables as possible. There have been arguments against the close mindedness of this study particularly over how you cannot interpret humans emotions and fellings into words."

http://www.typologycentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=80&d=1178147405

"Our results indicated that by including responses to a number of previously unused “research” items, the MBTI can indeed be scored to produce
measures of all of the Big Five constructs:"

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j5gonsowski.html

"FFM neuroticism is the first FFM trait I will map the MBTI to since this is the FFM trait that McCrae & Costa (1989) claim can not be represented by an MBTI trait. The MBTI equivalent of neuroticism is the three factor trait NFJ. NFJs include the heavily burdened by world problems cult leaders, social activists and idealistic academicians. The MBTI three factor trait STP is inversely related to neuroticism. STPs include the unflappable airline pilot, sharpshooter and surgeon."

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/gonsowski.html

"McCrae and Costa (1989) in comparing the MBTI to the FFM had several complaints about the MBTI and the Jungian theory upon which the MBTI is based. One complaint is that the MBTI does not expand enough on the meaning of its scales while the FFM offers lots of key words to go with each scale. Keirsey gives very detailed descriptions for the 16 possible combinations using the anchors of the four MBTI scales. These descriptions are much better than just a list of traits."
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
http://testdex.com/Global5-SLOAN_Manual.pdf

You will see the speculated correlations on page 36.

Before we start talking about this, MBTI supposedly looks at temperament, the make up of our innate psyche which is distinct from personality and can not change. Yet the FFM can change.

As far as I am concerned there is a strong correlation between I and Reserved.

F and Acccomodating

N and Open


J and structured(especially SJ)

Not much of a connection with Calm or Limbic.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
The way I see it, FFM accepts its limitations by design... that is, it's a trait theory built from what they observed. They know there are other factors, but there is no perfect model... these are the strongest and some limits need to be imposed to keep it functional. It is, after all, an instrument to correlate to other behaviour, not something to explain the inner workings of the mind (which type tends to attempt to do)

The correlations between the main five traits tends to be very weak relative to the subtraits... And some of those traits they talk about have been rolled into minor subtraits (ie: ethnocentric behaviour/conservatism/political liberalism in openness.)

However, neuroticism is missing from MBTI. I don't see that as a current argument. MBTI even added that measurement for research after doing their own factor analysis. It is very weakly correlated to T/F...

As far as subtraits go, consider that the two theories only connect at the trait level. FFM has no type theory to go with it - their sub-traits are built upon the original research whereas MBTI had them evolve from type theory, then performing factor analysis within that framework. They are fundamentally different - the reason they cross is simply because Jung and the whole MB gang were very intuitively accurate in observing people...

The correlation between the major traits ranges from moderate to strong. Certain key differences exist in the T/F divide, especially considering the original (unsure how much it exists now) bimodal distribution that MBTI uses (also a type influence).

Within OCEAN, the correlations are;

N/S = O+ / O- (Openness, originality)
J/P = C+ / C- (Concientousness)
E/I = E+ / E- (Extroversion, sometimes Surgency)
T/F = A- / A+ (Agreeableness)
?/? = N+ / N- (Neuroticism/Emotional Stability/Politically correct term)

In terms of strength of correlations, I believe it is O and E is considered to be about 0.7, A and C at 0.40 and N at about .10. The variance for O and E is from 0.5 to 0.7 I think (empahsis on the higher range), and A and C at about 0.3-0.4. From memory, but roughly that.
 

marm

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
134
MBTI Type
INFP
http://testdex.com/Global5-SLOAN_Manual.pdf

You will see the speculated correlations on page 36.

I thought this particularly interesting:

"The biggest problem I have with the MBTI is the T/F (Thinking/Feeling) trait. It combines elements of Accommodation, Intellect, and Emotional Stability (with the strongest correlation being Accommodation). The problem is, based on actual personality research, these three traits don’t correlate at all so they have no business being measured together in one trait."

Before we start talking about this, MBTI supposedly looks at temperament, the make up of our innate psyche which is distinct from personality and can not change. Yet the FFM can change.

This seems related to the view of the Big Five as a "psychology of the stranger" because of it taking a more external perspective.

As far as I am concerned there is a strong correlation between I and Reserved.

F and Acccomodating

N and Open


J and structured(especially SJ)

Not much of a connection with Calm or Limbic.

Would you mind giving specific details about these correlations? Do these correlations help to clarify your understanding of MBTI?

The way I see it, FFM accepts its limitations by design... that is, it's a trait theory built from what they observed. They know there are other factors, but there is no perfect model... these are the strongest and some limits need to be imposed to keep it functional. It is, after all, an instrument to correlate to other behaviour, not something to explain the inner workings of the mind (which type tends to attempt to do)

The correlations between the main five traits tends to be very weak relative to the subtraits... And some of those traits they talk about have been rolled into minor subtraits (ie: ethnocentric behaviour/conservatism/political liberalism in openness.)

I agree that FFM has no explicit theory, but I'm trying to figure out what might be the implicit assumptions. Extraversion includes positive emotions in its definition, but the said positive emotions are defined as an Extravert would express them. Neuroticism includes negative emotions rather than merely emotional intensity and fluctuation. Extraverts can express negative emotions; and positive emotions can be intense and fluctuate. These traits are measuring according to how they define what they measure. And they're not perfectly orthogonal. What's do you think about this?

However, neuroticism is missing from MBTI. I don't see that as a current argument. MBTI even added that measurement for research after doing their own factor analysis. It is very weakly correlated to T/F...

So, it doesn't make sense to associate it with NFJ? Do you disagree with all of Gonsowski's correlations?

As far as subtraits go, consider that the two theories only connect at the trait level. FFM has no type theory to go with it - their sub-traits are built upon the original research whereas MBTI had them evolve from type theory, then performing factor analysis within that framework. They are fundamentally different - the reason they cross is simply because Jung and the whole MB gang were very intuitively accurate in observing people...

Do you think its not overly useful to rely too strongly on such correlations? Or do you think we just can't validly theorize about the correlations?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I am not sure if this helps me understand MBTI better, I'd say the other way around is the case.

Irs clear to me that Js tend to be organized and now I know what to think of when I envision the big 5 Structured.

I know that Fs tend to be empathetical and more concerned with people than Ts, so than I know what else to envision when I think of the Big 5 Accomodating.

And finally I know that Es tend to be more externally focused and how they handle in general, and then I know of something else to associate the Big 5 'Social'.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
I am not sure if this helps me understand MBTI better, I'd say the other way around is the case.
They're separate scales, and really the Big 5 has many more studied correlations with the world than the MBTI. The MBTI is more theory based and of more limited use.

The Big 5 came after MBTI, I believe. It was based on a large number of studies where many people were given a couple thousand descriptive words, and were asked to choose which ones best described a close friend or family member (and the family member also self-assessed).

There were certain adjectives that "clumped." That is, people who were "creative" were also "open minded" were also "curious" were often also "adventurous."

Depending on who was running the study, they found these clumps boiled down to as many as 16 and as few as 3 main characteristics. However, the usual happy medium is 5.

Keep in mind these traits are double-edged swords, and there are upsides and downsides to each. An overview:

So, while there are SOME overlapping concepts, even the Extraversion scale isn't quite the same Extraversion. For instance, I am much more extraverted (although still an introvert) on the big 5 scale because the big 5's concept of extraversion includes assertiveness-- "extraversion" is pretty much defined as "characteristics that show willingness to interact with the world."

Agreeableness isn't all that similar to Feeling. I'd imagine the average ENTP is a great deal more agreeable than any introverted feeler. It's pretty much how charming you are, how able you are to get your way and still be liked. This is one of the traits most correlated with success, in romantic partnership and in finance.

Neuroticism is basically how prone to depression, anxiety, negative feelings, and quick temper you are. Interestingly, the only correlation is that extraverts are, on average, less neurotic than introverts. Neurotic people, as a plus, tend to do slightly better than their calmer brethren when it comes to finances and schooling. They don't trust the world to take care of them, so they get extra education, save more money, and work harder just to be safe. They also tend to have slightly higher IQs, probably as a result of that schooling.

Openness to experience is actually pretty strongly correlated to Ns, and especially N_Ps. SPs display it more than SJs, but it's still not an overwhelming trait. Openness to experience has to do with how willing you are to deal with unexpected or bizarre ideas, and to self-reflection, but not much at all to do with physical thrill-seeking. Being closed to experience makes you more down-to-earth and practical, and slightly more detail-oriented. Being closed to experience is pretty SJ, and especially STJ.

Conscientiousness is correlated some with P vs J. While it's correct to say criminals aren't generally conscientious, it's wrong to say the not conscientious are all criminals. Rather, a lack of conscientious means that, if a person thinks a rule is stupid, they're not going to follow it. conscientious people tend to see deadlines as hard and mandatory, a non-conscientious person is more flexible. Iconoclasm is not a conscientious trait.
---

I think it'd be fun to write personalized profiles for all the possible combinations. How the traits interact can make an interesting portrait.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
They're separate scales, and really the Big 5 has many more studied correlations with the world than the MBTI. The MBTI is more theory based and of more limited use.

The Big 5 came after MBTI, I believe. It was based on a large number of studies where many people were given a couple thousand descriptive words, and were asked to choose which ones best described a close friend or family member (and the family member also self-assessed).

There were certain adjectives that "clumped." That is, people who were "creative" were also "open minded" were also "curious" were often also "adventurous."

Depending on who was running the study, they found these clumps boiled down to as many as 16 and as few as 3 main characteristics. However, the usual happy medium is 5.

Keep in mind these traits are double-edged swords, and there are upsides and downsides to each. An overview:

So, while there are SOME overlapping concepts, even the Extraversion scale isn't quite the same Extraversion. For instance, I am much more extraverted (although still an introvert) on the big 5 scale because the big 5's concept of extraversion includes assertiveness-- "extraversion" is pretty much defined as "characteristics that show willingness to interact with the world."

Agreeableness isn't all that similar to Feeling. I'd imagine the average ENTP is a great deal more agreeable than any introverted feeler. It's pretty much how charming you are, how able you are to get your way and still be liked. This is one of the traits most correlated with success, in romantic partnership and in finance.

Neuroticism is basically how prone to depression, anxiety, negative feelings, and quick temper you are. Interestingly, the only correlation is that extraverts are, on average, less neurotic than introverts. Neurotic people, as a plus, tend to do slightly better than their calmer brethren when it comes to finances and schooling. They don't trust the world to take care of them, so they get extra education, save more money, and work harder just to be safe. They also tend to have slightly higher IQs, probably as a result of that schooling.

Openness to experience is actually pretty strongly correlated to Ns, and especially N_Ps. SPs display it more than SJs, but it's still not an overwhelming trait. Openness to experience has to do with how willing you are to deal with unexpected or bizarre ideas, and to self-reflection, but not much at all to do with physical thrill-seeking. Being closed to experience makes you more down-to-earth and practical, and slightly more detail-oriented. Being closed to experience is pretty SJ, and especially STJ.

Conscientiousness is correlated some with P vs J. While it's correct to say criminals aren't generally conscientious, it's wrong to say the not conscientious are all criminals. Rather, a lack of conscientious means that, if a person thinks a rule is stupid, they're not going to follow it. conscientious people tend to see deadlines as hard and mandatory, a non-conscientious person is more flexible. Iconoclasm is not a conscientious trait.
---

I think it'd be fun to write personalized profiles for all the possible combinations. How the traits interact can make an interesting portrait.

We then would have to more clearly define those Big 5 terms.

The way you're using the word agreeable in that sense implies being agreeable in a superficial sense of the word. I'd hope it would mean more than that, maybe something along the lines of how deeply one is concerned for others. Than again agreeable is probably not the most fittiing word. Perhaps congenial would serve better here.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
As far as I know, "agreeable" just means "likeable." More constructive in conflict, more willing to make constructive concession, generally more cheerful sort of thing. I don't know if they're genuinely more concerned with others, but they might e percieved that way.

As for the word, you'd have to take it up with researchers. Just like qualitative and quantitative might be better terms for "feeling" and "thinking," the terminology's already set. It's its own concept.

I'd have to do more study into how they're defined. It is an entirely research-driven typology system, and actually pretty exhaustively documented and defined already. I'd just have to make my language more precise.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
As far as I know, "agreeable" just means "likeable." More constructive in conflict, more willing to make constructive concession, generally more cheerful sort of thing. I don't know if they're genuinely more concerned with others, but they might e percieved that way.

As for the word, you'd have to take it up with researchers. Just like qualitative and quantitative might be better terms for "feeling" and "thinking," the terminology's already set. It's its own concept.

I'd have to do more study into how they're defined. It is an entirely research-driven typology system, and actually pretty exhaustively documented and defined already. I'd just have to make my language more precise.


In this case the used car salesman would have a monopoly on this.

ESTPs by far would rank the highest.

But then again, maybe we should define likable people that we can expect to like after having gotten to know well, not those who just appear congenial at first.
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
It's funny, but I know there are studies wherein assessments made of acquaintances, or even strangers one has been allowed to observe a short time, tend to match assessment by people who know one another well. Whether this is because judgments are made quickly or because quick judgments are correct, I couldn't tell you.

In any case, if you felt a man was genuinely friendly and interested in you for half an hour, having just met him, you'd probably think the same of him knowing him for years.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
In any case, if you felt a man was genuinely friendly and interested in you for half an hour, having just met him, you'd probably think the same of him knowing him for years.

Are you sure?

Cant the used car salesman do exactly that? Make you feel like they are genuinely interested in you and appear kind, when in reality they may be neither kind nor genuinely interested in you?

It seems to me that IFs tend to have more human qualities than ETs.


INFxs more than ExTPs
 

meshou

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
238
MBTI Type
INXP
No, some of the best salesmen believe they're providing a service, and enjoy doing so. The stereotypical used car salesman isn't actually all that agreeable, and doesn't really fool anyone. And in fact, he's a used car salesman. They aren't characterised as being good at being agreeable.

It's more likely a person who scores high on agreeableness is going to be a great deal better off in the world than a used car dealer.

Tom Hanks is immensely agreeable, for example. Used car salesman I'd acutally characterise as somewhat disagreeable.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
No, some of the best salesmen believe they're providing a service, and enjoy doing so. The stereotypical used car salesman isn't actually all that agreeable, and doesn't really fool anyone. And in fact, he's a used car salesman. They aren't characterised as being good at being agreeable.

It's more likely a person who scores high on agreeableness is going to be a great deal better off in the world than a used car dealer.

Tom Hanks is immensely agreeable, for example. Used car salesman I'd acutally characterise as somewhat disagreeable.


I see, so the agreeable people are the ones who actually do have a lot of human qualities.

Well in the sense that you've alluded to the ENTP being agreeable, it seems like we have them along the same lines as the used car salesmen.

Seems to me though, in that sense of the word, ENTPs wouldnt be more agreeable than INFs.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I agree that FFM has no explicit theory, but I'm trying to figure out what might be the implicit assumptions. Extraversion includes positive emotions in its definition, but the said positive emotions are defined as an Extravert would express them. Neuroticism includes negative emotions rather than merely emotional intensity and fluctuation. Extraverts can express negative emotions; and positive emotions can be intense and fluctuate. These traits are measuring according to how they define what they measure. And they're not perfectly orthogonal. What's do you think about this?

I'm not sure this is entirely valid... well, let me rephrase that - what FFM picked up is from the ground up. These are the terms that people grouped together naturally. What it means, what it implies... that is worthwhile debating, but the traits and sub-traits they picked have undergone incredible validation. These types of systems are very unpopular and the resistance against them is huge. I wouldn't say they are beyond reproach - that'd be contrary to what I believe - but it's shortcomings are extremely well documented... and yet it remains the main 'personality' tool. Regardless of it's faults, every system that it has been compared against tends to have more issues. Hence the defacto standard! All tools seem to natural progress towards the FFM, including the practical side of MBTI. Generalized traits with the 16PF, and so on...

So, yes - they are measuring according to how it was defined, but it wasn't arbitrary. MBTI uses arbitrary (Jung and MB's group both defined them themselves) descriptions to resolve type; FFM took hundreds of terms while developing the theory and removed those that weren't useful. Is it complete? No - but it is by design. The ones that remained all grouped into main categories... and those main categories aren't "terms" on their own - extraversion is a collection of sub-traits that are made up of descriptive words. IOW, those words are extraversion, they are surgency, etc. The test measures it solely to predict behavior - the combined scores are then tested against behavior.

In the sense that they are not orthogonal, FFM didn't attempt to force any model upon their results, therefore the results are completely open ended. I'm assuming you are talking about symmetry with MBTI, correct me if I'm wrong... but MBTI is perfectly symmetrical by design. There can be no real congruence between a 5FFM factor analysis and a 4 type theory... they just aren't the same. Within those limits, the correlations are surprisingly strong. It *can* be forced, but the question is if it should. The end result for perfect congruence is to refactor MBTI 4 and FFM 5 to come up with the 20 underlying dominant correlations and remap them. That would break FFM... as well as MBTI type theory.

However, you are correct that they don't overlap so perfectly. In short, no, they cannot be interchanged - at least, T/F and J/P cannot, even at the practical level. If you take a look at the 5 words used to describe F (Empathetic, Compassionate, Accommodating, Accepting, Tender) compared to A (Centacs)(Service, Agreement, Deference, Reserve, Reticence), there is a huge gap... An example of how E in MBTI leads to A in FFM is the "Reserve" measurement. And yes, there are other fairly strong correlations, if you attempt to view it with perfect symmetry - P and Openness being one of them. In MBTI, NP is highly open (FWIW, I test highly NP and I rank extreme in openness), where as NJ tends to rank much lower in openness as a result (GF tests moderate N, and only neutral O). Again, in the practical sense, it works.

That doesn't change the strength of the correlation between N and O however, which is the strongest of the bunch. If you compare the impact between P and N, N wins out dramatically.

So, it doesn't make sense to associate it with NFJ? Do you disagree with all of Gonsowski's correlations?

No, I don't disagree... Well, I do in a lot of cases, but even where I don't, I still don't see it as relevant. If you require three of four traits (independent traits), you are linking 15 sub traits in order to come up with a correlation to one main trait (4 subtraits). Even small variances in how people define words, descriptions... never mind the lack of direct comparison... can add up to incredible amounts of implied correlations. It also means the variance is gigantic. This is on top of having N being slightly to negatively correlated with neuroticism, and never mind that the strongest correlation to neuroticism is actually extroversion. I don't see any validation in his work that would convince me that that the 15 subtraits/3 main traits could be refactored into 4 traits (especially considering the contrary evidence that EsTJ would be highest indicative of neuroticism, in terms of independent correlations!) to come up with the trait of neuroticism.

This is on top of what I consider the best golden standard in trying to figure out how well things correlate - the questionnaire trait questions. You can see a comparison here (PDF Warning)

It just doesn't match up.

To cover my bias, however... a small part of me finds his style extremely difficult to read, which doesn't help... he's an engineer and he writes like one... and I just can't read his stuff naturally enough to feel comfortable with it. I feel like he assumes his stance is correct, but never actually says *why* it is correct. It's just a whole lot of 'obvious' conclusions strung together (mostly referring to his NFJ mapping). In the end, I just feel like he is lacking proper methodology to make these conclusions and then can't validate them since it's not his field (not a personal attack, but he has no real way of getting a sample group together, ensuring controls, etc.) This makes his results, even if I assume the data is correct, tough to give credit to.

Do you think its not overly useful to rely too strongly on such correlations? Or do you think we just can't validly theorize about the correlations?

I think it is useful to understand both systems.

However, in the end, you have to pick what works for you. SW, as can be seen, prefers raw theory over practical use. I prefer practical use. As a result, I tend to lean towards that which is more predictive and has been shown to correlate the most accurately to behavioral issues. In the first, MBTI is the better choice - it's pure theory only starting to apply more rigid controls... and in the second, FFM is the better choice - it's pure pragmaticism and is only starting to develop the theory.

They're separate scales, and really the Big 5 has many more studied correlations with the world than the MBTI. The MBTI is more theory based and of more limited use.

This post was extremely well put... it covers the FFM approach very well.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's funny, but I know there are studies wherein assessments made of acquaintances, or even strangers one has been allowed to observe a short time, tend to match assessment by people who know one another well. Whether this is because judgments are made quickly or because quick judgments are correct, I couldn't tell you.

Yes, I think I remember one where they showed students a few seconds of a professor that would or could be taking classes with and rate them, then had them rate them later after having experienced a semester with them. (Or something similar to this.)

And the snap judgment for many of them actually synced up with the long term assessment.

(I'm not sure how they blocked out for self-fulfilled prophecy and the like.)

In any case, if you felt a man was genuinely friendly and interested in you for half an hour, having just met him, you'd probably think the same of him knowing him for years.

[Quick derail for some funny experiences with used car salesmen.

One was a fat moustached cigar-smoking slob who just felt like a ... used car salesman. I'm pretty sure he was that slimy. (He even farted a few times as we walked around the lot.)

Another one just came off as untrustworthy, and later on we ended up not buying a car there because they seemed to be shifting numbers around and trying to push us into a particular contract for no good reason.

The third one I can recall was refreshing: He was a genuinely friendly guy and wanted to sell us a car so he had a routine down, we KNEW he wanted to sell us the car and was going through a routine, and HE knew that WE knew that he was going through the standard routine... and we even joked about the routine for the 30-60 minutes we spent with him. The casual honesty of the whole experience was enough for us to buy the car. And it was a good buy, and we ended up buying another car at the same spot a few years later ... turns out they have the best customer service in the local area.

I just found this last one the most intriguing, due to the "social game" aspects...]
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't think anyone has mentioned here that the MBTI's Type Differentiation Indicator (TDI) introduces the new scale of Comfort-Discomfort, which is supposed to represent Neuroticism. Apparently, from what I was told, some of the traits making up C-D were apart of one of the other scales at least on the Expanded Analysis of Step II), but were suppressed by Myers-Briggs because they had negative connotations that they were afraid would demoralize people who took the indicator (make them think there was "something wrong" with them). Yet now with FFM competing, the TDI decided to add the factor.

Also, while Agreeableness is always associated with T/F, and Conscientiousness with J/P, they would seem to be a more direct match to Keirsey's "Role Informative/Directive" and "cooperative/Pragmatic". Those dichotomies both are associated with both T/F and J/P. For Sensors, F's are informative, and T's are directive. For iNtutitors, P is informative and J is directive. For sensors, P is pragmatic and J is cooperative. For iNtuitors, F is cooperative and T is pragmatic.
I wonder why they have never looked at those factors.
 

musicheck

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
61
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
I'm not sure if this is implicit in this discussion, but the traits in the five factor model aren't defined the same way MBTI is. What the ffm people did was write a multiple choice test without deciding what traits they would measure, decide that they wanted five traits, and then mathematically group the multiple choice questions in the way that accounted for the most variance in data from the initial survey answers to their test. Thus, it doesn't really make much sense to delve deeply into the meaning of the words used to describe these five traits- they're merely descriptions that the psychologists subjectively decided later on describe the factors that were initially defined only by math. The fact that MBTI traits were chosen a priori instead of defined by factor analysis of survey data is one critique sometimes used to say that it is less scientific than ffm.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
How significant this thread would be resurrected now. This morning, on AOL News, they have this story:

Good News
For Grumps

Disagreeable Attitude Won't Bring On Death Any Earlier: Traits for Long Life
and it's about the Five Factors:

Personality And Longevity - AOL Health

It claims that low Agreeableness is not as bad as we would think, but that it is high Neuroticism that is harmful.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
How significant this thread would be resurrected now. This morning, on AOL News, they have this story:

Good News
For Grumps

Disagreeable Attitude Won't Bring On Death Any Earlier: Traits for Long Life
and it's about the Five Factors:

Personality And Longevity - AOL Health

It claims that low Agreeableness is not as bad as we would think, but that it is high Neuroticism that is harmful.

OK so that means that

extroversion :yay:
openness :yay:
conscientiousness :yay:
agreeableness :coffee:
neuroticism :steam:

ENxJ!!!! :static:
 
Top