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

[Jaguar]

spurious correlations between descriptions considered positive that are not actually correlated in reality.

Are you equally as concerned with MBTI descriptions not correlating/correlating with "reality"? Or would it be fine with you should an MBTI description read: INTPs are the smartest people on earth.

 

[ygolo]

Are you equally as concerned with MBTI descriptions not correlating/correlating with "reality"? Or would it be fine with you should an MBTI description read: INTPs are the smartest fuckers on earth.

I think MBTI is even more ridiculous. But plenty of people bring up it's short-comings, and in most circles on consequence (places where institutions can affect peoples lives) it was just treated as something bordering on frivolous.

Big Five, however, purports to be something meaningful. Granted, statistically based nonsense, maybe slightly better than anecdotal nonsense. But it still remains nonsense.

 

[Jaguar]

I think MBTI is even more ridiculous. But plenty of people bring up it's short-comings, and in most circles on consequence (places where institutions can affect peoples lives) it was just treated as something bordering on frivolous.

Big Five, however, purports to be something meaningful. Granted, statistically based nonsense, maybe slightly better than anecdotal nonsense. But it still remains nonsense.

If I score low on agreeability, would you think I agree with everyone to maintain peace, love, and harmony - kumbaya?

 

[ygolo]

If I score low on agreeability, would you think I agree with everyone to maintain peace, love, and harmony - kumbaya?

What's the relevance of that question?

You personally have made it clear that you don't think everyone should maintain peace, love, and harmony. I personally don't think this is always a good thing either. But does that mean that people (as a whole) don't believe that in most circumstances, it is better to be agreeable than disagreeable?

 

[Jaguar]

What's the relevance of that question?

You personally have made it clear that you don't think everyone should maintain peace, love, and harmony. I personally don't think this is always a good thing either. But does that mean that people (as a whole) don't believe that in most circumstances, it is better to be agreeable than disagreeable?

You posted:

"Big Five, however, purports to be something meaningful. Granted, statistically based nonsense, maybe slightly better than anecdotal nonsense. But it still remains nonsense."

Big Five would be "nonsense" if I scored low on agreeability, but agreed with everyone. That was my point. I'm talking correlation, and now you're back to that "good" and "bad" crap, again. Lol. Wise guy.

 

[ygolo]

You posted:

"Big Five, however, purports to be something meaningful. Granted, statistically based nonsense, maybe slightly better than anecdotal nonsense. But it still remains nonsense."

Big Five would be "nonsense" if I scored low on agreeability, but agreed with everyone. That was my point. I'm talking correlation, and now you're back to that "good" and "bad" crap, again. Lol. Wise guy.

I am saying:
1) whether we like it or not, words have value judgement.
2) the value judgement will skew the results compared to a parallel model not based on words.

Do you disagree with either of those statements?

Edit: Also, I score low on agreeability usually, and I (on the whole) agree that in most cases, it would be better to agreeable than disagreeable. So then does it make sense that the Big Five is nonsense to me? It only takes a small set of people to skew the results of a whole model. When people (it seems people different from you) are using these models to make hiring decisions, this is troubling.

Edit 2: I gave examples, like "thorough" and "quick" where it is unlikely that someone is both, but more likely for people to claim to be both if they are full of themselves.

 

[OrangeAppled]

The terminology used in the model has bias because of the way these terms and their associated qualities are understood & valued socially. "Introversion" in laymen's terms can mean socially anxious, brooding, unfriendly, etc. "Disagreeable" is loaded with negative connotations. "Conscientious" fails to include the extreme, which is rigidity, but "not conscientious" almost only implies the extreme, which is flakiness, not the positive of being flexible and adaptable.

I could go on... So yes, there is inherent bias simply in the way the dichotomies are labelled. MBTI, IMO, is less biased, but still has problems (namely, with "thinking" and "feeling").

Many Big 5 descriptions of each trait has language which reveals bias also. This may be interpretations of the author and not the creators of Big 5, but this is still how it is being presented to people. I have seen some tests which explain the benefits of every quality, including neuroticism, but the very labels they use still leave impressions that one end of the spectrum is superior.

 

[grey_beard]

Well *done*.

 

[kiddykat]

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 make a great point! I never really gave it much further thought but once was offended by the agreeableness vs. disagreeable spectrum and thought to myself maybe as to why I tend to fit slightly more on the latter?

Yes, there's an inherent cultural bias in the wording of the test. So, I'm not a conscientious that makes me not thoughtful or considerate? Some of the high scoring conscientious people I know are conscientious when it comes to their own benefit so maybe word it differently? As opposed to saying I'm lazy.

Most psych tests do have an inherent culture/value bias in them.

 

[Galena]

I see what you mean. If it were the test makers' intention to avoid bias, then using culturally loaded words would have been an extremely obvious mistake to avoid.

 

[Jaguar]

I (on the whole) agree that in most cases, it would be better to [be] agreeable than disagreeable.

I disagree.

 

[ygolo]

I disagree.

Yes. I believe we've established that. I agree.

 

[Tater]

i don't think so. if there's any trait i'm partial to, it's openness. even then, i'll admit that plenty of folks maintain a level of stability by filtering out alternative perspectives and refusing to refurbish their standpoints.

if the makers of the test intended for the measurement of each trait to be so qualitative, then they probably would have been more consistent about it. for instance, instead of grading for "neuroticism", they would have graded for "calmness", since it would fall in line with "positive" traits like agreeableness and extraversion.

 

[Bush]

The model itself? Not really. Empirically derived, etc. etc., but be careful of researchers' own dispositions to creating the model which could in turn instill their own values into the model, and so on with the caveats.

The questions that compose the test that assess individual in terms of the model? Maybe. I doubt many people would like to mark affirmative to a question of e.g. "I often feel depressed and blue." Why? Because we tend to not value feeling depressed and blue.

I realize that the questions and the model are linked, but I think of the model as the underlying, the core; and the questions as the only way to connect to that model. Despite that those questions are in turn mostly answered by self-report, the whole system is more suited as a research tool than as a tool for self-discovery.

if the makers of the test intended for the measurement of each trait to be so qualitative, then they probably would have been more consistent about it. for instance, instead of grading for "neuroticism", they would have graded for "calmness", since it would fall in line with "positive" traits like agreeableness and extraversion.

+1

 

[Patrick]

I can easily see how one might be biased in the ways the OP describes. I don't think it was intentional on the part of Big Five theorists, though. I just think the names of the traits could use a PR makeover--especially Neuroticism. Who wants to own up to being Neurotic?

That said, I recently took a couple Big Five tests, and they proved helpful. I scored high on Neuroticism, and that corresponded with my Oldham type of Sensitive; and those results corresponded to the chronic, low-level anxiety I've experienced all my life. That "anxiety factor" has never been adequately explained by my M-B type of INFP. And if anything, it clashed with what I had thought was my Enneagram type, One.

So, I did some rereading and self-searching, and it dawned on me that my Enneagram type is actually Six. That gives me a fresh--and I believe more accurate--picture of my personality than I ever had before.

 

[Mane]

The thread necromancy reminds me - [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]

Have you checked out the murderous villain test?


It's the big 5, but with much better definitions:


Extrovert = Extrovert
Dreamer = Openness
Warm heart = agreeable
Focused = Conscientious
Brooding = Neuroticc

while the opposite spectrum gets:

Introverted
Realist
Cool headed
Flexible
Carefree

Which.. are pretty good traits in themselves (I/E is still the same, but.. well, not sure how that was depicted as lesser to begin with)

Overall, I thought it was an improvement. Figured you might like it.

 

[ragequit]

SimilarMinds is awful about this. SCOAI (calm ENFJ basically) is is perfect, and the further away from that you are, the more negative your description is.

I'm SLOEI and here's mine: demanding, controlling, aggressive, retaliatory, does not forgive easily, opinionated, domineering, does not accept what others say, believes that appearances are important, likes to be the center of attention, not patient with people who annoy them, easily annoyed, quick to judge others, preoccupied with self, show off, feels you have to be tough on people to get things done, prone to addiction, not good at sports, frequently pursues impressive achievements, takes charge, competitive, frustrated and angry when people don't live up to expectations, not on good terms with everyone, second place rarely feels good enough to them, antagonistic, able to stand up for self, acts superior to others, hard to satisfy, bothered by disorder, impatient, becomes aggressive when they feel hurt, decisive, abrupt, impulsive, more dominant than submissive, finishes most things they start, desires some level of fame in their community, unable to control cravings, acts out frustrations on others, easily frustrated, can become overwhelmed by events, does not readily admit mistakes, moody, not very religious

In comparison, here's SCOAI:

happy, level emotions, not easily discouraged, optimistic, fearless, self confident, non-hostile, trusting, rarely sad, social, content, positive, knows where life is going, socially skilled, not quiet around strangers, acts comfortably with others, takes on responsibilities, likes public speaking, not prone to worrying, not apprehensive about new encounters, flexible, adapts easily to new situations, not afraid to draw attention to self, likes to lead, not bored while working, likes others, hard to annoy, calm in crisis, does not second guess self, not embarrassed easily, high energy level, easy to understand, thinks before acting, strong sense or purpose, likes crowds, interested in science, not prone to jealousy, comfortable in unfamiliar situations, fearless, not skeptical, true to self in all circumstances, highly motivated to succeed, decisive, easy to get to know, narcissistic, driven by reason, physically fit, passionate about bettering the world's condition, finishes most things they start, not easily confused, willing to explain things twice, thinks they are extraordinary

I'd really like to do some sort of study of the traits most attractive to others. I get an odd feeling they would sound a lot like RCOAI. But that's not to say that the other types don't have their strengths. The Big Five itself isn't biased. Similarminds is. They almost equate likability with being superior.

 

[ragequit]

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.

THISSSS. People have done this to the MBTI, too. They either label certain types as superior or they blow stereotypes even more out of proportion. The worst part of all this is that the Big Five IS remotely scientific, unlike the MBTI, yet people still misrepresent the true model.

 

[Such Irony]

The thread necromancy reminds me - [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]

Have you checked out the murderous villain test?


It's the big 5, but with much better definitions:


Extrovert = Extrovert
Dreamer = Openness
Warm heart = agreeable
Focused = Conscientious
Brooding = Neuroticc

while the opposite spectrum gets:

Introverted
Realist
Cool headed
Flexible
Carefree

Which.. are pretty good traits in themselves (I/E is still the same, but.. well, not sure how that was depicted as lesser to begin with)

Overall, I thought it was an improvement. Figured you might like it.

I like these, except brooding still has a somewhat negative connotation. Perhaps 'reactive' in place of neuroticism?

 

[Mane]

I like these, except brooding still has a somewhat negative connotation. Perhaps 'reactive' in place of neuroticism?

That was my initial reaction too. We've had a talk about that in the villains thread:

Carefree vs. Brooding is a measure of neuroticism, with the more brooding sorts being more neurotic.

That's the one item I was not entirely sure how to improve... Its very hard to frame neurotic as a positive, and brooding makes it just as bad. Perhaps they could call the opposite of neurotic oblivious rather then carefree, making both ends of the spectrum kind of equally neutral-negative in flavor.

I disagree. I can see brooding having sort of a "tortured and sophisticated" Byronic appeal to it. There are at least some people out there who look at brooding as deeper and more authentic.

Then again, perhaps I do have a side of me that's a little naive and childlike, so maybe oblivious does fit.

That is true, I didn't think of that. There is also the weird statistic about males with brooding pictures getting more responses on dating websites.... I suppose it does kind of have it's own idolization.

Edit: Also.. This http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneatypes/76857-fantasizing-emotional-pain.html

I think he raised some good points.