_

[Totenkindly]

Do you mind taking this 11 item version and trying those scores? http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/pdfs/BFI-10.doc

I don't mind taking it, but I don't have time to run the complicated equations. So here's the data, if you want to use it. Btw, it's the BFI-10 ... 10 questions.

1. 4
2. 3
3. 4
4. 4
5. 1
6. 3
7. 3
8. 2
9. 3
10. 5

E = 2 + 3 = 5
A = 3 + 3 = 6
C = 2 + 2 = 4
N = 2 + 3 =5
O = 5 + 5 = 10

And yes, considering N is the trait that has always been the most obvious and least in question, I'm kind of laughing at coming up as an S. That's... funny.

 

[reckful]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION], you are a pleasant little contradiction, aren't you?

How about a bit of meta perspective: earlier in this thread you claimed there was a "fatal" flaw in my methodology. Now you demonstrate a willingness to move on from that point, but there is just as much confidence in your tone as before. Why, it appears as if you have unlimited confidence in your doomsday scenarios no matter how frequently they fail to turn out to be true.

Moving forward, if you don't reply directly to the content of my posts, I'm not going to bother replying to yours. That's not a conversation. It's people speaking past eachother.

More smoke. Integrity much?

Your first paragraph implies that I said something earlier in the thread with "confidence" in my "tone" that I'm now acknowledging was wrong. But, on the contrary, in my second-to-last post I emphasized that my specific criticisms of your botched formulas were "assuming your overall approach here makes any theoretical sense — which, for the reasons described in my earlier posts, I don't think it does."

We're not "speaking past each other," mingularity. You're either being amazingly obtuse or annoyingly disingenuous or a charming mix of the two.

I've inarguably "replied directly to the content" of the post with your latest formula. And you have yet to explain how the 1989 and 1991 data you're citing could possibly lead to a formula in which the most important Big Five component for determining whether someone's an MBTI S or N is their Neuroticism score.

 

[INTP]

You cant make the distinction between T and F for men based on those correlations. Or there is some correlation, but not enough to be anything significant. S/N scale correlates with both openness and agreeableness. Agreeableness correlates with different things on men and women. All these things are enough to not be able to get full type for other than some females who score some exact numbers(and even then there is just statistical correlation, which might not fit to that person).

But what you can do to get both big 5 and MBTI scores is to use johari/nohari thing and calculate the scores for both MBTI and big 5 from those scores. It wont be as accurate as good(new official) MBTI or big 5 tests, but i read some study a while ago that its possible to get reasonably good accuracy using johari/nohari(i dont remember if the adjectives were selected for this task or if they just used some regular adjectives used in johari/nohari normally) to get scores for both tests.