Any Big Five Fans in here?

[Spectre]

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]

I don't know much about Big Five. I know my percentages, but not even how it corresponds with letters/type or whatever.

[Metis]

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]

If anyone likes psychology in here, wave your hands like you just don't care

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]

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?

There is this

http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...nalitytest.php

[Spectre]

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]

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]

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]

YouTube

"Extroverts don't necessarily like you, but they like to be around you."

[Metis]

"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.