[Big Five] Does the Five Factor Model inherently define a "good" personality?

[ygolo]

Does the Five Factor Model implicitly or explicitly define a "good" personality?

My reading of the literature so far seems like there is an inherently normative language used even in academic research. That is language that makes clear that certain traits are more desirable than others.

For instance, the Big Five asserts:
1) Being Extroverted is better than being introverted. An introvert is a lesser being.
2) Being Agreeable is better than being disagreeable. The disagreeable are lesser beings.
3) Being Conscientious is better than being not conscientious. Those that aren't conscientious are lesser beings.
4) Being calm is better than being Neurotic. Those who are Neurotic are lesser beings.
5) Being Open is better than not being open. Those who are not open are lesser beings.

I don't think it should come as a surprise that academic researchers who study personality are Extroverted, Agreeable, Conscientious, calm and Open. Self-serving is part of human nature after all.

So what do you think, does the Five Factor model inherently define a "good" personality?

Clarification: I am asking if you think the Five Factor model is inherently biased.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I think the five-factor model was found out by multidimensional analysis of some psychometric data. The labels given to significant vectors in that multivariate data are just labels. I do think many of those labels are preferred one way or the other by the researchers. I agree that the interpretation you found is accurate in that extroversion is preferred over introversion, etc. Personally, it's not stopping me from preferring "disagreeable" style thinking over the more well-liked agreeable style.

In part, the researcher's preference is probably a reflection of the situation in real world. Not being neurotic gives some advantages. Maybe they've just found the most popular formula for being great at what you do? I find it easy to believe that there are more opportunities for an agreeable person to succeed as there is for someone disagreeable. Not all careers benefit from agreeability though. Critical thinking is good for sciences. Expressing discontent is regularly required in law enforcement and security.

So what I think is that the researchers have found the most usual formula for a successfull personality, but that formula is not the only formula for success. In other words, I do not think that the Five factor model is biased in any critical way.

 

[Jaguar]

I don't look at it that way, ygolo. (But then I don't think in terms of "good" and "bad" personalities.) Frankly, I see being disagreeable as a plus - it works for me.

 

[Such Irony]

Does the Five Factor Model implicitly or explicitly define a "good" personality?

My reading of the literature so far seems like there is an inherently normative language used even in academic research. That is language that makes clear that certain traits are more desirable than others.

For instance, the Big Five asserts:
1) Being Extroverted is better than being introverted. An introvert is a lesser being.
2) Being Agreeable is better than being disagreeable. The disagreeable are lesser beings.
3) Being Conscientious is better than being not conscientious. Those that aren't conscientious are lesser beings.
4) Being calm is better than being Neurotic. Those who are Neurotic are lesser beings.
5) Being Open is better than not being open. Those who are not open are lesser beings.

I don't think it should come as a surprise that academic researchers who study personality are Extroverted, Agreeable, Conscientious, calm and Open. Self-serving is part of human nature after all.

So what do you think, does the Five Factor model inherently define a "good" personality?

Clarification: I am asking if you think the Five Factor model is inherently biased.

Yes, I think its biased for the reasons you give. Largely why I'm not a huge fan of that personality system.

 

[Such Irony]

I think the five-factor model was found out by multidimensional analysis of some psychometric data. The labels given to significant vectors in that multivariate data are just labels. I do think many of those labels are preferred one way or the other by the researchers. I agree that the interpretation you found is accurate in that extroversion is preferred over introversion, etc. Personally, it's not stopping me from preferring "disagreeable" style thinking over the more well-liked agreeable style.

In part, the researcher's preference is probably a reflection of the situation in real world. Not being neurotic gives some advantages. Maybe they've just found the most popular formula for being great at what you do? I find it easy to believe that there are more opportunities for an agreeable person to succeed as there is for someone disagreeable. Not all careers benefit from agreeability though. Critical thinking is good for sciences. Expressing discontent is regularly required in law enforcement and security.

So what I think is that the researchers have found the most usual formula for a successfull personality, but that formula is not the only formula for success. In other words, I do not think that the Five factor model is biased in any critical way.

In the real world, extraversion and conscientiousness are also beneficial, especially in the workplace. There can be instances where introversion can be a benefit- in situations where you work alone for long periods of time. Low conscientiousness can benefit when in work situations that are less structured, that require more flexibility. But by and large, extraversion and conscientious seem the desired way to be. Same with agreeableness and not being neurotic.

Are there benefits to being highly neurotic? Not too many that I can think of. About all I can think of is that in some situations, anxiety about doing well can be a motivator- but that's neurotic in moderation. I have trouble thinking about how a high degree of neuroticism could be beneficial.

Regarding openness to experience, it's generally a good trait to have but there are some jobs where high openness would not be ideal. Something highly repetitive with a high degree bureaucracy for example.

 

[Jaguar]

It's ygolo who made it appear biased:

An introvert is a lesser being.
The disagreeable are lesser beings.
Those that aren't conscientious are lesser beings.
Those who are Neurotic are lesser beings.
Those who are not open are lesser beings.

Those are not comments published by Costa and McCrae.

 

[ygolo]

I think the five-factor model was found out by multidimensional analysis of some psychometric data. The labels given to significant vectors in that multivariate data are just labels. I do think many of those labels are preferred one way or the other by the researchers. I agree that the interpretation you found is accurate in that extroversion is preferred over introversion, etc. Personally, it's not stopping me from preferring "disagreeable" style thinking over the more well-liked agreeable style.

In part, the researcher's preference is probably a reflection of the situation in real world. Not being neurotic gives some advantages. Maybe they've just found the most popular formula for being great at what you do? I find it easy to believe that there are more opportunities for an agreeable person to succeed as there is for someone disagreeable. Not all careers benefit from agreeability though. Critical thinking is good for sciences. Expressing discontent is regularly required in law enforcement and security.

So what I think is that the researchers have found the most usual formula for a successfull personality, but that formula is not the only formula for success. In other words, I do not think that the Five factor model is biased in any critical way.

They did factor analysis on a bunch of descriptive words. If you don't believe a bias can be baked into "pure statistical analysis" you've missed the whole Frequentist vs. Bayesian debate.

Update: Bayesian's won. It is essentially the statistical equivalent of what philosophers already knew-- even with valid logic, the argument can be based on faulty premises.

The main faulty premise in the Big Five, I believe, is the Lexical Hypothesis. Here we believe that descriptions of other people are indicators of reality itself. But many (if not most) of the words used in the lexicon have "normative" content in that they posses within them value judgments.

The words "bullheaded" and "persistent" are in many ways synonyms, but one we think of as "bad", the other we think of as "good." It should come as no surprise then that words that are "good", despite being somewhat at odds in real personalies, being correlated in descriptive language ...like "deliberate" and "decisive".

Add to this, the fact that factor analysis has a large amount of arbitrariness built into the technique itself. I find it unsurprising that the normative content of words that are "good" combine in an area that personality researchers would claim for themselves.

What is troubling, however, is that this model is in fact the most favored one in academic research.

 

[ygolo]

I don't look at it that way, ygolo. (But then I don't think in terms of "good" and "bad" personalities.) Frankly, I see being disagreeable as a plus - it works for me.

Whether we like it or not, words do have a normative content. See above.

It's ygolo who made it appear biased:

An introvert is a lesser being.
The disagreeable are lesser beings.
Those that aren't conscientious are lesser beings.
Those who are Neurotic are lesser beings.
Those who are not open are lesser beings.

Those are not comments published by Costa and McCrae.

Well, yes. I was illustrating a point. The words cluster to make those statements, and the Big 5 wouldn't be so widely accepted if the the statements were so clearly highlighted.

I assure you, I am not the first to make the observation of the inherent bias in the actual content of Big 5 research.

I should add, it has been well established that everyone is biased. The key now is to attempt to state those biases explicitly, and correct them in the face of relevant arguments and evidence.

 

[Jaguar]

I should add, it has been well established that everyone is biased.

The sky is blue. I think I'll start a thread to ask who thinks the sky is blue. Or should I ask people if they think the sky is a lesser shade of blue, due to their inherent bias?

Whether we like it or not, words do have a normative content. See above.

Do I strike you as someone who cares about normative content? Come on, now.
Some may view high conscientiousness as a "norm."

Two facets of conscientiousness:

1. Orderliness. Persons with high scores on orderliness are well-organized. They like to live according to routines and schedules.

2. Dutifulness. This scale reflects the strength of a person's sense of duty and obligation. Low scorers find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining.

I do not score high on conscientiousness. Routines and schedules? No thanks. And, yes, I find rules and regulations overly confining, at times. I've been known to say IRL, " Rules? Fuck the rules."
Now, what if I were to state that I find those who score high conscientiousness to be a "lesser being," then what?

It's all in how you look at it.

 

[ygolo]

The sky is blue. I think I'll start a thread to ask who thinks the sky is blue. Or should I ask people if they think the sky is a lesser shade of blue, due to their inherent bias?

It's funny you should mention that because in early literature the sky wasn't called blue. There wasn't even a real word for blue.

I think this was the radiolab story about this:
Why Isn't the Sky Blue? - Radiolab

This may lead to a very strange discussion about semantics, which could be interesting. Nevertheless, I am not sure what you are getting at with this comment.

Do I strike you as someone who cares about normative content? Come on, now.
Some may view high conscientiousness as a "norm."

Two facets of conscientiousness:

1. Orderliness. Persons with high scores on orderliness are well-organized. They like to live according to routines and schedules.

2. Dutifulness. This scale reflects the strength of a person's sense of duty and obligation. Low scorers find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining.

I do not score high on conscientiousness. Routines and schedules? No thanks. And, yes, I find rules and regulations overly confining, at times. I've been known to say IRL, " Rules? Fuck the rules."
Now, what if I were to state that I find those who score high conscientiousness to be a "lesser being," then what?

It's all in how you look at it.

I am not calling introverts or unconscientious are lesser beings. What I am saying is that there are words that strike people as "good" (agreed not all people equally) and there are words that strike people as bad (again, not all people equally).

The Big Five is used in things like job readiness predictors, psychological evaluations for doing team building, and so on.

What I am saying is that there are certain words that will skew the results of these things significantly because people will associate certain words with other words (again, not everyone equally). This inherent bias remains largely unaccounted for in Big Five research (and I believe it is enough to cause spurious conclusions).

I have no intention to make this personal. I am not sure if you care about normative content or not, and I don't care if you care. The fact remains, words have value judgement inherent in them.

My main point is that, based on how the Big Five was constructed (built on words), an inherent normative bias has taken root, where the "good" words clustered around the "good" end of the factors that were chosen.

I make other points, but that's the main one, and I am asking if people agree. Like I said, I am not the only one to have noticed this pattern.

 

[Jaguar]

Nevertheless, I am not sure what you are getting at with this comment.

Sarcasm.

What I am saying is that there are words that strike people as "good" (agreed not all people equally) and there are words that strike people as bad (again, not all people equally).

I'm saying that the word "conscientiousness" could strike two people in opposite ways. Or any other word for that matter.

The Big Five is used in things like job readiness predictors, psychological evaluations for doing team building, and so on.

Job readiness predictor, eh? As someone who used to interview and hire, I ripped up their resume in front of their face to see how they would react. It provided many moments of amusement and revealed much about how a person thought. I wouldn't use any self-reporting instrument to hire anyone, but that's me.

The fact remains, words have value judgement inherent in them.

There doesn't have to be a single standard for the judging of those words.

How is it that one person can look at working on straight commission as the opportunity of a lifetime; to make as much money as they want. But another views straight commission as a lack of security and panic sets in at the prospect of not having a consistent, weekly salary? It doesn't matter what we're talking about, people can look at one word or two words and judge them differently. How about "risk-taker"? Someone might judge that as "bad," another as "good."

My main point is that, based on how the Big Five was constructed (built on words), an inherent normative bias has taken root, where the "good" words clustered around the "good" end of the factors that were chosen.

Which Big Five words do you view as "good"?

 

[ygolo]

[MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] ,

I think we are in agreement that different people can interpret words in different ways. What I am saying is that there are words on the whole that are on the whole regarded as good by most.

IIRC, the words "outstanding", "impressive", "excellent", "high ranking" were all taken to be strongly correlated to the "positive valence" factor in the Big Seven, and less strongly correlated to "Extroversion" in the Big Five.

I realize that "outstanding", "impressive", "excellent", etc. can be seen to have a bad connotation, but it will be a rare person who has that connotation. Nevertheless, these self-descriptor words tend to have positive correlation to the factor researchers call "Extroversion."

I consider this a bias. I wanted to see if others agreed.

Granted, I tilted the way I asked to get people to agree with me But I am not publishing this in any sort of academic journal, and I was trying to point out what I believe is a common sentiment towards the current trend in academic personality research.

 

[INTP]

Good personality according to who? (and yes, thats also my answer to your question) and no, big 5 doesent assert those things, i dont know what source you had for your information, but my sources say that its bad to be at any extreme of the poles as it tells about unbalanced personality and likely tied to some other psychological issues.

 

[ygolo]

Good personality according to who? (and yes, thats also my answer to your question) and no, big 5 doesent assert those things, i dont know what source you had for your information, but my sources say that its bad to be at any extreme of the poles as it tells about unbalanced personality and likely tied to some other psychological issues.

Of course Big Five sources won't say they assert the things I said. I was purposely being provocative, and voiced a sentiment shared by many, it seems. My point is a bias in these directions, not that being extreme in a particular pole is indeed good. The sarcasm in my first post didn't come across, apparently.

 

[Mane]

Does the Five Factor Model implicitly or explicitly define a "good" personality?

My reading of the literature so far seems like there is an inherently normative language used even in academic research. That is language that makes clear that certain traits are more desirable than others.

For instance, the Big Five asserts:
1) Being Extroverted is better than being introverted. An introvert is a lesser being.
2) Being Agreeable is better than being disagreeable. The disagreeable are lesser beings.
3) Being Conscientious is better than being not conscientious. Those that aren't conscientious are lesser beings.
4) Being calm is better than being Neurotic. Those who are Neurotic are lesser beings.
5) Being Open is better than not being open. Those who are not open are lesser beings.

I don't think it should come as a surprise that academic researchers who study personality are Extroverted, Agreeable, Conscientious, calm and Open. Self-serving is part of human nature after all.

So what do you think, does the Five Factor model inherently define a "good" personality?

Clarification: I am asking if you think the Five Factor model is inherently biased.

Maybe not in terms of "lesser being" or judgement of worth, but I can certainly imagine that stance in human resource departments:
1) Do we want a team player?
2) Do we want someone pleasant to work with?
3) Do we want someone with good work ethics?
4) Do we want someone who can keep calm under pressure?
5) Do we want someone who can learn new ways of doing things?

I am not sure that makes it a faulty system though. Does a typology system have to be egalitarian in it's assumptions to be true? Yes, they are measuring qualities they find to be positive, you could also have a typology with a dimension of "competent at math" vs. "incompetent at math", those two sides might not be equal but they still work to describe people. To forcefully place another positive trait on the opposite of an existing one adds the additional assumption that the positive traits contradict.

 

[ygolo]

Maybe not in terms of "lesser being" or judgement of worth, but I can certainly imagine that stance in human resource departments:
1) Do we want a team player?
2) Do we want someone pleasant to work with?
3) Do we want someone with good work ethics?
4) Do we want someone who can keep calm under pressure?
5) Do we want someone who can learn new ways of doing things?

I am not sure that makes it a faulty system though. Does a typology system have to be egalitarian in it's assumptions to be true? Yes, they are measuring qualities they find to be positive, you could also have a typology with a dimension of "competent at math" vs. "incompetent at math", those two sides might not be equal but they still work to describe people. To forcefully place another positive trait on the opposite of an existing one adds the additional assumption that the positive traits contradict.

I am saying the use of normative words causes spurious correlations between descriptions considered positive that are not actually correlated in reality.

 

[Mane]

I am saying the use of normative words causes spurious correlations between descriptions considered positive that are not actually correlated in reality.

So the use of the word "Conscientious" causes an incorrect correlation between the conscientious as a tested variable and conscientious as the virtue of diligence? Wouldn't that depends on the nature of the test? From my understanding, they are basically asking "are you a conscientious worker?" using circumstantial manifestations the trait would have. Is that incorrect? Or are you saying that there is no cause and affect between whether someone describes themselves as conscientious in a test and someone's actual conscientious nature?



P.S.
I picked to focus on the example of Conscientious because I don't think I am very conscientious, avoiding at leas one layer of personal bias on my part.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Do you want a metric that is neutral in terms of social desirability? Well, then you can't measure persons height. Tall people are liked better. You can't measure IQ. Would we have to re-factor these measures with other measures to achieve a neutral metric? I don't think most of the people would put up with such nonsense.

 

[Andy]

Does the Five Factor Model implicitly or explicitly define a "good" personality?

My reading of the literature so far seems like there is an inherently normative language used even in academic research. That is language that makes clear that certain traits are more desirable than others.

For instance, the Big Five asserts:
1) Being Extroverted is better than being introverted. An introvert is a lesser being.
2) Being Agreeable is better than being disagreeable. The disagreeable are lesser beings.
3) Being Conscientious is better than being not conscientious. Those that aren't conscientious are lesser beings.
4) Being calm is better than being Neurotic. Those who are Neurotic are lesser beings.
5) Being Open is better than not being open. Those who are not open are lesser beings.

I don't think it should come as a surprise that academic researchers who study personality are Extroverted, Agreeable, Conscientious, calm and Open. Self-serving is part of human nature after all.

So what do you think, does the Five Factor model inherently define a "good" personality?

Clarification: I am asking if you think the Five Factor model is inherently biased.

You know, this idea of one end of the scale being better than the other in the five factor model is something I've been seeing more of recently. It wasn't mentioned at all in the earliest descriptions I read and in fact I think its bullshit... I don't think the model is inherently biased, but the way many people understand it is. I'd be willing to bet there are profesional psychologist out there banging their heads in frustration at the way the model gets reprosented these days. Both ends of all the scales and pros and cons. For example being extremely agreeable makes it hard to say no and thus an open target for every con artist and bully out there. Sometimes it's in your own best interest to tell someone to go fuck themselves.

 

[ygolo]

So the use of the word "Conscientious" causes an incorrect correlation between the conscientious as a tested variable and conscientious as the virtue of diligence? Wouldn't that depends on the nature of the test? From my understanding, they are basically asking "are you a conscientious worker?" using circumstantial manifestations the trait would have. Is that incorrect? Or are you saying that there is no cause and affect between whether someone describes themselves as conscientious in a test and someone's actual conscientious nature?



P.S.
I picked to focus on the example of Conscientious because I don't think I am very conscientious, avoiding at leas one layer of personal bias on my part.

Well the bias can work both ways, I think. People with lower self-esteem may self-describe themselves so that negative value judgments are both associated with themselves.

For instance, the words "thorough" and "quick" are usually both laden with positive value judgement. Those who are more self-assured are more likely to think of themselves as both despite perhaps not being that way in real life. However, those who think of themselves as less conscientious may see neither of those things as applying to themselves, despite the fact that they are indeed one of the two.

Do you want a metric that is neutral in terms of social desirability? Well, then you can't measure persons height. Tall people are liked better. You can't measure IQ. Would we have to re-factor these measures with other measures to achieve a neutral metric? I don't think most of the people would put up with such nonsense.

I think with a little imagination, the bias due to value judgments can be mitigated to some extent, without the result being "nonsense". There are personality systems that have a "Lie" scale, for instance. A way I thought of to attempt to mitigate this phenomenon, is to ask people if they thought it was good or bad to be the way a particular statement stated they were. Then we could see how self-esteem (or other esteem, if being done for someone else) affects the answers given.

You know, this idea of one end of the scale being better than the other in the five factor model is something I've been seeing more of recently. It wasn't mentioned at all in the earliest descriptions I read and in fact I think its bullshit... I don't think the model is inherently biased, but the way many people understand it is. I'd be willing to bet there are profesional psychologist out there banging their heads in frustration at the way the model gets reprosented these days. Both ends of all the scales and pros and cons. For example being extremely agreeable makes it hard to say no and thus an open target for every con artist and bully out there. Sometimes it's in your own best interest to tell someone to go fuck themselves.

Well, I've never know personality researchers to be a very self-critical or reflective bunch. So I don't think it's surprising that they wouldn't highlight the short comings of their own model. To be frank, the same is true for most scientists.

The researchers themselves are measuring things like job performance and trying to correlate these to Big Five, and releasing results like "conscientious people are more likely to live longer, and be better at their jobs". So they have themselves to blame.