• 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.

[Big Five] Any Big Five Fans in here?

Spectre

New member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
104
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
I saw that big five had a place within this forum, but i could not find anything when I searched.

Anyways, as the title says "Any Big Five Fans in here?".

I have read Personality by Nettle. I found the book interesting, indeed.

Which dimension do you find most interesting?
 

BAD1973

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
69
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
I don't know much about Big Five. I know my percentages, but not even how it corresponds with letters/type or whatever.
 

Metis

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,534
I haven't taken a Big 5 test, but I'd like to.

I find the "Conscientiousness" dimension the most interesting, because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I think of as conscientiousness at all. When I think of it, I think of more along the lines of "following your conscience" and "moral duty". In Big 5, it sounds like it's more of a measure of how organized you are.

These can overlap: I'm punctual because I respect people's time, including my own, and I don't want others to treat my time (i.e., my life) as thought it's their own private, personal resource, for them to expend as they wish; I try to treat others the way I wish to be treated in this regard.

I also see value in other ways of being organized, and I try to do some of them for the sake of the benefits they can provide, but for the most part, I don't associate them with conscientiousness. I don't think of conscientiousness in terms of the ant storing up food vs. the grasshopper living for the moment, as in the fable. That seems to be what Big 5 calls conscientiousness.

What I've always thought of as "conscientious" is more related to what the Stanley Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment were about. In my idea of "conscientiousness", the more conscientious the person, the more likely s/he would be to resist participating in unethical behavior, despite either being tempted by one's "position" or being pressured by "authority" or peers. Apparently, that's not what the Big 5 "conscientiousness" dimension describes.

However, I've heard (Source: Jordan Peterson, although I'm not sure in which specific talk or writing) that the Big 5 dimension of agreeableness correlates to how someone performs on an experiment like the Milgram experiment, specifically that low agreeableness makes it more likely that the subject will stand up to commands s/he disagrees with.
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
If anyone likes psychology in here, wave your hands like you just don't care :party2:

Big5 is a pretty neutral, working tool for measurement of various psychological qualities. The scientific base for it seems pretty solid. I've understood the creators selected the measured attributes by principal component analysis, or the PCA. That should have taken care of all the first-order dependencies between the parameters.

Their approach hasn't left much material to be described that wouldn't have already been described in the independent components. Big5 offers disillusionment for people like me who acquired a liking for the MBTI's lavish personality type descriptions and extended explanations. Big5's traits don't combine, so they say, so there's not a specific type of person behind a particular combination of traits.

The PCA doesn't isolate the traits completely though so there's some room for description of different trait combinations, many of which aren't entirely derived from the independent traits. Some big5 descriptions have been made available. The big5 hasn't attracted a lot of writers though, so it's improbable we'll see a lot of fan movement for it in the future.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp

Spectre

New member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
104
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
I haven't taken a Big 5 test, but I'd like to.

I find the "Conscientiousness" dimension the most interesting, because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I think of as conscientiousness at all. When I think of it, I think of more along the lines of "following your conscience" and "moral duty". In Big 5, it sounds like it's more of a measure of how organized you are.

These can overlap: I'm punctual because I respect people's time, including my own, and I don't want others to treat my time (i.e., my life) as thought it's their own private, personal resource, for them to expend as they wish; I try to treat others the way I wish to be treated in this regard.

I also see value in other ways of being organized, and I try to do some of them for the sake of the benefits they can provide, but for the most part, I don't associate them with conscientiousness. I don't think of conscientiousness in terms of the ant storing up food vs. the grasshopper living for the moment, as in the fable. That seems to be what Big 5 calls conscientiousness.

What I've always thought of as "conscientious" is more related to what the Stanley Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment were about. In my idea of "conscientiousness", the more conscientious the person, the more likely s/he would be to resist participating in unethical behavior, despite either being tempted by one's "position" or being pressured by "authority" or peers. Apparently, that's not what the Big 5 "conscientiousness" dimension describes.

However, I've heard (Source: Jordan Peterson, although I'm not sure in which specific talk or writing) that the Big 5 dimension of agreeableness correlates to how someone performs on an experiment like the Milgram experiment, specifically that low agreeableness makes it more likely that the subject will stand up to commands s/he disagrees with.

Yes. There are many clips ion youtube with Jordan Peterson.

Here is my favorite
YouTube

It is about creativity as a function of openess to experience.
Openness is the the most interesting dimension in my opinion.

conscientious as you mentioned is also interesting. It explains a lot of frustration I have with some people.
 

Douglas MacNeill

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
13
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6
I'm into the Berkeley Big Five (as in U of California at Berkeley), yes.

Some of the psychological/psychometric ideas behind the Big Five, however, are the kind that will prevent it from "catching on" the way the MBTI has.
For example, you would have to be in the top or bottom two percent of the entire population before you are considered to have a significant trait
on one of the Big Five/CANOE/OCEAN dimensions (C for Conscientiousness, A for Agreeableness, N for Neuroticism or emotionality, O for Openness
to new experiences, and E for Extraversion); in contrast, the MBTI requires you to be extroverted or introverted, sensing or intuitive, and so on.

And if that isn't enough, then there are a couple of guys from Canada who argue that the Big Five should actually be the Big Six, with Humility/Honesty as an additional dimension of personality (hint: Donald Trump would score very low on this particular trait).

The Big Five may have a more solid evidence base than any other model of personality traits, but I doubt that that will earn it much popularity any time soon.
 

Spectre

New member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
104
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
I'm into the Berkeley Big Five (as in U of California at Berkeley), yes.

Some of the psychological/psychometric ideas behind the Big Five, however, are the kind that will prevent it from "catching on" the way the MBTI has.
For example, you would have to be in the top or bottom two percent of the entire population before you are considered to have a significant trait
on one of the Big Five/CANOE/OCEAN dimensions (C for Conscientiousness, A for Agreeableness, N for Neuroticism or emotionality, O for Openness
to new experiences, and E for Extraversion); in contrast, the MBTI requires you to be extroverted or introverted, sensing or intuitive, and so on.

And if that isn't enough, then there are a couple of guys from Canada who argue that the Big Five should actually be the Big Six, with Humility/Honesty as an additional dimension of personality (hint: Donald Trump would score very low on this particular trait).

The Big Five may have a more solid evidence base than any other model of personality traits, but I doubt that that will earn it much popularity any time soon.

I have wondered what makes some people honest and some not...

The only place I can remember that the big five has been featured, besides media explicitly about it, is "The defining decade" by Meg Jay.
In the book she talks about "being in like", hence to be somewhat similar to each other when it comes to finding a partner for marriage.
Definitlity thinks she has a point. We tend to get a long with people similar to ourselves.
What do you guys think about "being in like"?
 

Metis

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,534
"The defining decade" by Meg Jay.
In the book she talks about "being in like", hence to be somewhat similar to each other when it comes to finding a partner for marriage.
Definitlity thinks she has a point. We tend to get a long with people similar to ourselves.
What do you guys think about "being in like"?

In theory, I would rather be with someone who was more centrist on traits that I think I have too much of.

High in opposite trait => get on each other's nerves.

Higher than me in same trait => puts me into a position of having to focus on making up for their problems (for example, clean up after them or keep track of their appointments lol, yeah right).

Similar level of problematic trait => not sure I have real life data to judge this, but I think it would be helpful if they were just a little bit better. Not so much better that they would want to kill me. Just superior enough to inspire improvement.​
 

Metis

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,534


Awesome. Actually, it's not bad. A little extreme on some things. I don't mean to brag about something that's obviously not true, but, well, the test said it, so I humbly submit the following verified result to the forum:

:greatscott:

"Intellect 100%"

:blush: Wow. I really should come up with something dismissive and modest to say about that finding, but... I don't know. Who am I to argue with an official TypologyCentral test, after all?

:einstein2:

I mean, it just wouldn't be right. After all, I'm like

"Authority-challenging 100%"

And since TypologyCentral isn't exactly what one would consider an authority, per se, there's no real reason to argue with it. Right? Right!

You are unconventional, somewhat indirect and tranquil.

You are philosophical: you are open to and intrigued by new ideas and love to explore them. You are independent: you have a strong desire to have time to yourself. And you are reserved: you are a private person and don't let many people in.

Your choices are driven by a desire for discovery.

You are relatively unconcerned with both tradition and taking pleasure in life. You care more about making your own path than following what others have done. And you prefer activities with a purpose greater than just personal enjoyment.
 

Metis

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,534
Yes. There are many clips ion youtube with Jordan Peterson.

Here is my favorite
YouTube

It is about creativity as a function of openess to experience.
Openness is the the most interesting dimension in my opinion.

conscientious as you mentioned is also interesting. It explains a lot of frustration I have with some people.

Okay. I had this on my list. I just finished listening to the Jordan Peterson link.

Lectures: Exploring the Psychology of Creativity
National Gallery of Canada
Published on Apr 27, 2017
"What is creativity? Can we develop it, or is it innate? Watch the conversation between Marc Mayer, Director and CEO of the National Gallery of Canada, and Dr. Jordan Peterson, Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, which took place March 9, 2017 at the National Gallery of Canada."​

Thanks for the link. I hadn't heard that one before. I'm always blown away by that man's insights.

:nice:
 

Spectre

New member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
104
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4

Quick

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
217
MBTI Type
INFX
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx

Oh, cool. This is awesome that TC uses the IMB Watson Personality Insights.

Here is how I turned out (only analyzing my Facebook posts):

 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Oh, cool. This is awesome that TC uses the IMB Watson Personality Insights.

Here is how I turned out (only analyzing my Facebook posts):


It seems to be a lot more accurate for forum posts than with Facebook but you need to accumulate enough post data for that to work.
 

Quick

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
217
MBTI Type
INFX
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It seems to be a lot more accurate for forum posts than with Facebook but you need to accumulate enough post data for that to work.

I turn out mostly the same with any kind of input I give Watson. That said, when I journal, it tends to be a bit higher in some things like agreeableness.

It's going to be a while before I have enough for Watson to analyze from my forum posts.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I turn out mostly the same with any kind of input I give Watson. That said, when I journal, it tends to be a bit higher in some things like agreeableness.

It's going to be a while before I have enough for Watson to analyze from my forum posts.

As I understand it, there is a new API. I'll probably migrate this over to the new API at some point soon.
 

Quick

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
217
MBTI Type
INFX
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I have done a lot with Watson.

Here's one I did with ~15,000 words:



- - - Updated - - -

As I understand it, there is a new API. I'll probably migrate this over to the new API at some point soon.

Really? Is it up and running?
 
Top