funtensity
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- MBTI Type
- ISTP
_
Last edited:
1. [4] Is talkative
2. [2] Tends to find fault with others
3. [3] Does a thorough job
4. [2] Is depressed, blue
5. [4] Is original, comes up with new ideas
6. [2] Is reserved
7. [4] Is helpful and unselfish with others
8. [4] Can be somewhat careless
9. [3] Is relaxed, handles stress well
10. [5] Is curious about many different things
11. [4] Is full of energy
12. [1] Starts quarrels with others
13. [4] Is a reliable worker
14. [3] Can be tense
15. [4] Is ingenious, a deep thinker
16. [4] Generates a lot of enthusiasm
17. [5] Has a forgiving nature
18. [4] Tends to be disorganized
19. [3] Worries a lot
20. [4] Has an active imagination
21. [2] Tends to be quiet
22. [4] Is generally trusting
23. [3] Tends to be lazy
24. [3] Is emotionally stable, not easily upset
25. [4] Is inventive
26. [2] Has an assertive personality
27. [3] Can be cold and aloof
28. [2] Perseveres until the task is finished
29. [3] Can be moody
30. [5] Values artistic, aesthetic experiences
31. [2] Is sometimes shy, inhibited
32. [4] Is considerate and kind to almost everyone
33. [2] Does things efficiently
34. [3] Remains calm in tense situations
35. [2] Prefers work that is routine
36. [4] Is outgoing, sociable
37. [2] Is sometimes rude to others
38. [2] Makes plans and follows through with them
39. [3] Gets nervous easily
40. [5] Likes to reflect, play with ideas
41. [1] Has few artistic interests
42. [3] Likes to cooperate with others
43. [4] Is easily distracted
44. [4] Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature
Mingularity, I try not to be disagreeable on this forum (ahem, high A score on the Big 5), but the algorithms make no sense. Think about it. If you have to factor in the Big 5's extroversion into someone's S/N score, that score is not a valid measure of S/N. You're saying you can figure out whether someone's S or N by taking 16% of a measure of their neuroticism, 9% of a measure of their extroversion, adding a large chunk of how open they are, and subtracting small figures based on how agreeable or conscientious they are...that gives you a reliable measurement of sensing or intuition? I argue that if it does, then it's by chance, and not because those algorithms are valid.I recently mentioned in another thread that it should be possible to compute your MBTI score from your Big 5 score based on published Big 5 / MBTI correlations, which are remarkably high. This may be useful for those who aren't sure about their MBTI type and would like to try to get at it from a different angle. In this thread I will provide a legal version of the Big 5, and will try to work out how to convert the Big 5 score to your MBTI score in a reasonable way. Figuring out the best way to do the conversion is a work in progress. Once I / we are satisfied with the method, I will implement a javascript version that scores it for you - automagic MBTI via Big 5. Also, I used the following references to make this happen:
- McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality.
- Oliver, J., Naumann, L. & Soto, C. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big Five Trait Taxonomy. In Handbook of Personality, 3rd ed.
Step 1: Take the Big 5
Instructions: Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you are someone who likes to spend time with others? Please enter a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.
[1] Disagree strongly [2] Disagree a little [3] Neither agree nor disagree [4] Agree a little [5] Agree strongly
- [] Is talkative
- [] Tends to find fault with others
- [] Does a thorough job
- [] Is depressed, blue
- [] Is original, comes up with new ideas
- [] Is reserved
- [] Is helpful and unselfish with others
- [] Can be somewhat careless
- [] Is relaxed, handles stress well
- [] Is curious about many different things
- [] Is full of energy
- [] Starts quarrels with others
- [] Is a reliable worker
- [] Can be tense
- [] Is ingenious, a deep thinker
- [] Generates a lot of enthusiasm
- [] Has a forgiving nature
- [] Tends to be disorganized
- [] Worries a lot
- [] Has an active imagination
- [] Tends to be quiet
- [] Is generally trusting
- [] Tends to be lazy
- [] Is emotionally stable, not easily upset
- [] Is inventive
- [] Has an assertive personality
- [] Can be cold and aloof
- [] Perseveres until the task is finished
- [] Can be moody
- [] Values artistic, aesthetic experiences
- [] Is sometimes shy, inhibited
- [] Is considerate and kind to almost everyone
- [] Does things efficiently
- [] Remains calm in tense situations
- [] Prefers work that is routine
- [] Is outgoing, sociable
- [] Is sometimes rude to others
- [] Makes plans and follows through with them
- [] Gets nervous easily
- [] Likes to reflect, play with ideas
- [] Has few artistic interests
- [] Likes to cooperate with others
- [] Is easily distracted
- [] Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature
Step 2: Score the Big 5
Do not read this section before taking the Big 5!
Reverse score the items labeled "R" and compute scale scores as the mean of the following items:
[] Extraversion [] Agreeableness [] Conscientiousness [] Neuroticism [] Openness
- Extraversion (8 items): [] 1, [] 6R, [] 11, [] 16, [] 21R, [] 26, [] 31R, [] 36
- Agreeableness (9 items): [] 2R, [] 7, [] 12R, [] 17, [] 22, [] 27R, [] 32, [] 37R, [] 42
- Conscientiousness (9 items): [] 3, [] 8R, [] 13, [] 18R, [] 23R, [] 28, [] 33, [] 38, [] 43R
- Neuroticism (8 items): [] 4, [] 9R, [] 14, [] 19, [] 24R, [] 29, [] 34R, [] 39
- Openness (10 items): [] 5, [] 10, [] 15, [] 20, [] 25, [] 30, [] 35R, [] 40, [] 41R, [] 44
Step 3: Convert Big 5 to MBTI
Here are the published correlations. The number of stars indicate the significance, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. No stars, not sigificant.
HTML:Big 5 Factor N E O A C Men EI (Introversion) .05 -.34** .15 .10 .17 SN (Intuition) .07 .06 .61*** -.27* -.15 TF (Feeling) -.11 .22 .01 .25 -.16 JP (Perception) -.10 .11 .04 -.10 -.34** Women EI (Introversion) .08 -.38* -.04 -.03 -.02 SN (Intuition) .16 .09 .41* -.01 -.04 TF (Feeling) .15 -.01 -.06 .46 -.39* JP (Perception) .12 .00 .18 .11 -.55***
For my first attempt I propose the most obvious thing - each MBTI preference is a linear combination of the Big 5 Factor scores. A score below 0 is either E, S, T or J, while a score above 0 is either I, N, F or P. I have not thought about how to interpret the magnitudes yet, although it should be possible. It would be nice to use only the significant correlations, but in order to make this work we need them all (for now). So, perform the following calculation:
HTML:Men E/I = .05*N - .34*E + .15*O + .10*A + .17*C S/N = .07*N + .06*E + .61*O - .27*A - .15*C T/F = -.11*N + .22*E + .01*O + .25*A - .16*C J/P = -.10*N + .11*E + .04*O - .10*A - .34*C Women E/I = .08*N - .38*E - .04*O - .03*A - .02*C S/N = .16*N + .09*E + .41*O - .01*A - .04*C T/F = .15*N - .01*E - .06*O + .46*A - .39*C J/P = .12*N + .00*E + .18*O + .11*A - .55*C
If any brave souls who are sure of their type will now try this out, I'll be able to evaluate how much or little I messed this up.. ^_^
It would be helpful if you could directly reply to each point of my post above. I have taken a plethora of advanced statistics / modeling / machine learning courses.
The Big 5 is a high dimensional rotation of the MBTI. The questions were not designed to cleanly capture single MBTI dimensions. The most powerful way to explain the MBTI variance with the Big 5 variance is to use the entire model. The power of those "small" "messy" correlations, summed together, can outweigh the "significant" ones.
Dude, you missed the point of my post. :/ I wasn't arguing that Big 5 factors don't correlate with MBTI's factors. I was saying that if you're using factors like "extraversion" from the Big 5 to calculate S or N, your algorithm is inherently invalid. But it's okay, carry on.^ Significance levels are arbitrary. The correlations still carry information. The key question is about power, not significance. Keeping them in increases power because it keeps all the information around, which means we are using all the data from all the subjects.
The Big 5 is a high dimensional rotation of the MBTI - all variables do in fact correlate significantly. The question is how big of a sample would you need to achieve standard significance levels.
Since you didn't reply to my points I'm going to restate one of them with respect to your last post.
The Big 5 questions were not designed to explain the MBTI variance. Language is high dimensional, thus, the Big 5 is a high dimensional rotation of the MBTI, and vice versa. The Big 5 is not the MBTI. It doesn't matter if the trait mappings don't appeal to your intuition. That's just how the model works!
The model I am using is called a linear combination aka regression model. I am implementing the javascript version right now, which should be done soon, after which I will do more work on the statistics (probably intermittently throughout the week).
It's not a flaw in the algorithm; it's all up in the stats.Dude, you missed the point of my post. :/ I wasn't arguing that Big 5 factors don't correlate with MBTI's factors. I was saying that if you're using factors like "extraversion" from the Big 5 to calculate S or N, your algorithm is inherently invalid. But it's okay, carry on.
I thought we were all operating under the assumption that scales like extraversion/introversion and sensing/intuiting are discrete, which I believe they are. If we're not all operating under that assumption - and apparently we're not, then it's a whole different story.I haven't delved into the specific stats or sources, but I have bothered to use the equations.
Scores of:
N 2
E 70
O 95
A 93
C 92
from another test (please don't kill me)
Yield:
EI 15.49 I
SN 23.38 N
TF 24.66 F
JP -29.28 J
Works well enough in this case.
I'll have to mull over how the legitimacy of using correlations to derive equations and so on, but nothing too troublesome comes to mind off the top of my head.
It's not a flaw in the algorithm; it's all up in the stats.
Suppose we have some typology systems--perhaps Grant's Temperament System (GTS) and a Tinkerbell Classification (TC). Suppose also that we've had a bunch of people who've taken both the GTS and TC.
Data could show that those who have scored as Extraverts on the GTS have also tended to score as Extraverts on the TC scale. There's no stopping the data from showing also that Extraverts on the GTS (perhaps slightly) tend to score high on the TC's "Caffeine Intake" factor.
(Hell, the data could also show that Extraverts on the GTS tend to score as "Friendlies" on the GTS as well. This would mean that the GTS has factors that aren't quite independent from one another, which is not a good thing.)
The test I'm using here was designed to explain as much of the variance in the original Big 5 as possible, given the number of questions. It's also free for non-commercial use.
Why don't you lend a hand and try to make it actually work?
Thank you, reckful - what you wrote may be a clearer way of making the point. Thank God for INTJs.Um, yeah, and, as you know, those correlation statistics were for a 500-person study involving McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI test and, as you also know (I assume), there's really no reason to think that a study involving the BFI test you're using would end up matching those statistics very closely. And in any event, McCrae & Costa have never (to my knowledge) suggested that it made sense to "convert" Big Five types to MBTI types using anything like the method you're using — and I suspect nobody else respectable has either, but feel free to surprise me with a citation or two.
As for "lending a hand" and "mak[ing] it actually work," I already offered you my constructive solution, which was that you should "convert" Big Five to MBTI by means of the simple technique of matching Big Five Extraversion to MBTI E/I, Big Five Openness to MBTI S/N, Big Five Agreeableness to MBTI T/F and Big Five Conscientiousness to MBTI J/P.
Are those going to be perfect matches? No, sir, but that's not the point. The point is that, as [MENTION=16139]Honor[/MENTION] has also been trying to explain to you, you don't improve the conversion by trying to take the other dimensions into account in the way you're proposing. That's really not an appropriate use of those correlation statistics, and I can't help noting that you still haven't addressed my objection that your technique involves using those stats to give a same-directional boost to an affected dimension if you're converting in the opposite direction — which seems to me to mean (unless I'm missing something) that your conversion method must be fatally flawed.
Under that assumption, you're pretty much right. Though, papers and such tend to view the factors as continuous scales ("scores") rather than dichotomies and calculate their correlations with those scores in mind.I thought we were all operating under the assumption that scales like extraversion/introversion and sensing/intuiting are discrete, which I believe they are. If we're not all operating under that assumption - and apparently we're not, then it's a whole different story.
You were saying?
As I explained, we want to use all the available information to explain as much variance in the MBTI scores as possible. The algorithm for doing so is still up in the air. Please do download the paper and try to work out how to do it, as it will save me time later on.
...[MENTION=16139]Honor[/MENTION]
Here are some MBTI (Form F - discontinued in 2012) intercorrelations. I got them from this paper:
Stricker, L. & Ross, J. (1963). Intercorrelations and reliability of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Scales. Psychology Reports.
* means p < .05, ** means p < .01
HTML:High school students E-I S-N T-F J-P E-I -.02 -.01 .04 S-N .05 .00 .18** T-F .03 .07 .13* J-P .03 .21** .14** University students E-I S-N T-F J-P E-I .08 -.04 .14* S-N -.03 .07 .23** T-F .05 -.02 .09 J-P .13 .31** -.05
John said:Yes, as has been noted repeatedly, ... the Big Five dimensions ... are not strictly orthogonal, and scale intercorrelations of .26 are statistically significant. However, the size of these intercorrelations represents barely 10% shared variance, ... [some of which] may be explained in terms of self-enhancing biases in self-reports.
[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION], here are your final scores in the new equations (the old ones are wrong). The new ones have a zero midpoint.
EI = .42*2.75 + .58*2.25 - .52*3.44 + .07*4.8 + .42*2.56 = 2.1
SN = -.36*2.75 + .03*2.25 - .14*3.44 + .17*4.8 - .16*2.56 = -1
TF = .12*2.75 + .13*2.25 - .21*3.44 - .12*4.8 + .05*2.56 = -.5
JP = .2*2.75 + .67*2.25 - .08*3.44 + .01*4.8 - .1*2.56 = 1.57
As you can see it classified you as ISTP (it also classified me as an ISTP).
The system is underdetermined (!). There are an infinite number of ways to shift the variance around while still resulting in an entirely valid mapping. Trying to use your intuition to understand the coefficients I found is pointless because the solver shifted the variance around willy nilly.
You can look at the Big 5 score and the resulting MBTI score. However, you can't look at the coefficients.
Also, I have not validated this model, nor tested it much, aside from the smoke test of it giving me the right score for my own type.