Do you strongly prefer some attributes in the Big Five system?

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Neuroticism: prefer low levels in myself and other.

As a personal matter, I strongly believe being over 50% neurotic can't do any good for a person. People are ok, lovable and great and all even to higher neurotic scores, but they'd be much better off with lower neuroticism scores.

Openness to experience: wide range is ok, apart from the extreme 5% either way.

Agreeableness: wide range is ok. I'd like low agreeableness to be balanced by being open or calm, as opposed to neurotic or "closed-minded". Imagine a crackpot or some closed-minded person sticking to his guns no matter what. Wouldn't want that.

Conscientiousness: I think it takes an effort to be conscientious, and optimum would be about 70% on the scale from 0 to 100. People with Low conscientiousness seem unreliable, non-accomplishing liars in the worst, and too conscientious people seem to lose the idea of why we live in the world in the first place, important part of which is to enjoy life. Still, I generally look up to the people who are more conscientious than I.

Extroversion: I'd prefer people to avoid being extremely introverted, or very extroverted. It's too freaking slow to get anything out of too introverted people, while much too extroverted people shut me down, which is a rare occasion.

As a follow-up question, are there some Big 5 attributes you'd dislike in a mate?

Some attributes - or levels in attributes - that would warrant a person to develop them for their own sake?

 

[Haphazard]

I still don't understand what neuroticism means in big five.

 

[Eric B]

Neuroticism, as originally defined by Hans Eysenck, is how much a person tends to hold on to more readily experience a lot of negative emotions. The Five Factor Model may or may not have revised/added to the definitions, but it's still the basic concept. In an instrument called TDI (Type Differentiation Indicator) that attempts to add the factor to MBTI, it's called "Comfort-Discomfort".

 

[Haphazard]

Neuroticism, as originally defined by Hans Eysenck, is how much a person tends to hold on to negative emotions. The Five Factor Model may or may not have revised/added to the definitions, but it's still the basic concept. In an instrument called TDI (Type Differentiation Indicator) that attempts to add the factor to MBTI, it's called "Comfort-Discomfort".

What is considered holding on to negative emotions?

 

[Eric B]

Actually, that should have been "ability to experience negative emotions". "Holding onto' was an earlier idea called "response sustain".

But "holding onto" meant, like someone who tends to stay angry or depressed, in contrast to someone else who gets over those things quickly. Eysenck had used the ancient temperaments and determined that the Melancholic and Choleric fell into the former, and the Sanguine and Phlegmatic, the latter. Hence, an apparent higher "ability to experience" those emotions.
The people who developed the FFM used the factor without the temperaments, but it's still pretty much the same idea.

 

[Requeim]

loooool, i guess my 0% extroversion and 98% neuroticism wouldn't be too popular then

 

[Haphazard]

Actually, that should have been "ability to experience negative emotions". "Holding onto' was an earlier idea called "response sustain".

But "holding onto" meant, like someone who tends to stay angry or depressed, in contrast to someone else who gets over those things quickly. Eysenck had used the ancient temperaments and determined that the Melancholic and Choleric fell into the former, and the Sanguine and Phlegmatic, the latter. Hence, an apparent higher "ability to experience" those emotions.
The people who developed the FFM used the factor without the temperaments, but it's still pretty much the same idea.

Where is anxiety in that bad-emotion cocktail?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

loooool, i guess my 0% extroversion and 98% neuroticism wouldn't be too popular then

Well, that was just my preference. Someone with 0% extroversion would be too intimidated or aggravated by what - and how much - I say, whereas they'd be fine with someone 25% extroverted.

Internet is a good media for the introverted - discussion seems to flow great here, esp. on this forum.

 

[FDG]

My preferences are similar to yours, Santtu, although I am more ambivalent about coscentiousness. I do have some coscentiousness (score around 65), although I don't necessarily enjoy that aspect of myself - in some ways, being coscentious is another form of neuroticism.

 

[garbage]

I kind of prefer agreeable people, because disagreeable people are a pain in the ass to talk to and work with

 

[Charmed Justice]

I prefer high extroversion(65%+), low neuroticism(less than 40%), medium levels of conscientiousness(40-55%), mid-high agreeableness(60%+), and very high openness(70%+) in my circle.

 

[proteanmix]

Eric B, here's a good paper on temperament. It's more "scientific," updated, and modernized than those ancient temperaments and more in line to what the NEO-PIP/Big 5 is gauging.

http://psych.colorado.edu/~colunga/P4684/temperament.pdf

ETA: If you want good research on this google Chess and Thomas.

 

[Eric B]

Thanks!
Yeah, it does seem that "modernized" "scientific" "temperament" theory focuses more on children and deals in the factors themselves rather than temperaments as types or type groups.

 

[proteanmix]

Thanks!
Yeah, it does seem that "modernized" "scientific" "temperament" theory focuses more on children and deals in the factors themselves rather than temperaments as types or type groups.

I think they do that to show how innate temperament is, ya know the whole nature vs. nurture thing, i.e. f you were calm and placid as a baby that heavily ways in favor of you carrying those traits throughout your life.

 

[Mole]

You and I

Internet is a good media for the introverted

I love introverts and I adore mature introverts.

I love introverts because they have something inside them that can grow, mature and flower.

Introverts are not thrown into this world fully formed. But they are given to us with a rich seed buried deep inside.

Introverts need to be loved and nurtured so they can germinate and grow into the beautiful mature tree they are meant to be.

I love introverts because they are on a quest - a quest for themselves - they are buried deep in the earth and must push and struggle to grow. The very life of any introvert is a dramatic struggle towards the light.

And as we struggle and struggle and struggle we realise our strength comes from within and at that very moment we relax and trust our inner self.

We relax and fall in love with that deep inner self which is mysterious and magical and somehow bigger and better than ourselves.

So we relax as though we are being held in the hand of God. As indeed we are. For God has given us a special gift. And God watches over us with bated breath as we open our gift. And if we are pleased with it, God smiles And if I regard it as a curse, God weeps a river over me.

And as we shyly open our gift, we look at it with delight and take it out into the world. If you are lucky, you will be told what a beautiful gift you have. But if you are unlucky, you will be told you are odd, spare and different and must spend the rest of your life trying to be just like the rest of us. If you are unlucky, you will be condemned to wear shoes that do not fit you - you will be condemned to a prison and told it is all your own fault.

So the unlucky introverts try and try and try to be something they are not. And the more they try, the more tense they become. And the further they go from that deep relaxation they need to grow. And life becomes a painful tragedy.

But always they know there is that seed deep inside, just waiting for the right conditions to burst through the soil and reach for the sun.

Who could not, who would not, fall in love with an introvert on first meeting?

And at that meeting we flow together like water - sometimes like tears and sometimes like bubbling brooks meeting for the first time in the sunlight beneath the silver oaks.

So meet me, meet me down by the river. We will dance under the silver oaks, dip our toes in the flow then fling ourselves into the full bodied river - that deep and beautiful river that is ourselves - both you and I.

 

[King sns]

Neuroticism: prefer low levels in myself and other.

As a personal matter, I strongly believe being over 50% neurotic can't do any good for a person. People are ok, lovable and great and all even to higher neurotic scores, but they'd be much better off with lower neuroticism scores.

Openness to experience: wide range is ok, apart from the extreme 5% either way.

Agreeableness: wide range is ok. I'd like low agreeableness to be balanced by being open or calm, as opposed to neurotic or "closed-minded". Imagine a crackpot or some closed-minded person sticking to his guns no matter what. Wouldn't want that.

Conscientiousness: I think it takes an effort to be conscientious, and optimum would be about 70% on the scale from 0 to 100. People with Low conscientiousness seem unreliable, non-accomplishing liars in the worst, and too conscientious people seem to lose the idea of why we live in the world in the first place, important part of which is to enjoy life. Still, I generally look up to the people who are more conscientious than I.

Extroversion: I'd prefer people to avoid being extremely introverted, or very extroverted. It's too freaking slow to get anything out of too introverted people, while much too extroverted people shut me down, which is a rare occasion.

As a follow-up question, are there some Big 5 attributes you'd dislike in a mate?

Some attributes - or levels in attributes - that would warrant a person to develop them for their own sake?

Neuroticism: Same thing.. Really should be low. I don't mind neurotic people but would rather be around someone who is not neurotic.

Openness to experience: Well, some openness is okay, but I prefer people who like to do mostly the same stuff. Really open people who want to change what they're doing every 2 seconds makes me a bit nervous. I also don't like people who are extremely closed for obvious reasons. So, moderately closed to mildly open is my answer.

Agreeableness: Prefer some agreeability but don't mind when people like to question things and debate things. Too agreeable is just plain annoying... Too disagreeable is awful too. Moderately on both sides of the spectrum okay.

Contientiousness: Prefer people a little on the less contientious side. Its annoying to have someone on your ass all the time. "The retail price for the store brand is 14 cents less than..."
Who the hell cares?
Being reckless is obviously a terrible trait. So I would say mildly contientious or anything below that but not reckless.

Extroversion: If I had to spend time in a room with one of the two extremes, I would pick the introvert. I find extreme extroverts to be very tiresome and annoying. Extreme introverts make me nervous. As close to the middle on this score, the better.

 

[redacted]

I'm really high on openness and agreeableness. the rest are probably within 1 SD of the mean, maybe neuroticism is -1.

 

[/DG/]

I really can't think of anyone who would actually prefer neurotic people. :/

 

[Haphazard]

I really can't think of anyone who would actually prefer neurotic people. :/

More like something you like someone for despite?

 

[Athenian200]

I really can't think of anyone who would actually prefer neurotic people. :/

I prefer neurotic people.

Come on, they're awesome.