Big Five Aspects

[Wyote]

Where do you fall? Links to information and (paid) test provided. I'm more interested in discussing your personal thoughts on the concept than what your answers to a test are/would be but feel free to take it and share if you are so inclined.

1) Neuroticism
Volatility
Withdrawal

2) Agreeableness
Compassion
Politeness

3) Conscientiousness
Industriousness
Orderliness

4) Extraversion
Enthusiasm
Assertiveness

5) Openness-Intellect
Openness
Intellect


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_Aspect_Scales
http://ipip.ori.org/BFASKeys.htm
https://understandmyself.com/IasIntegration/Purchase/Setup/17

 

[infinite dreams]

Unfortunately I can't feel free to take it, cause it's a paid test.

 

[Wyote]

I'm not exactly sure how the results are output, but I think it may give you a plus/minus for each of these sub-aspects

 

[Wyote]

Unfortunately I can't feel free to take it, cause it's a paid test.

I'm more interested in discussing your personal thoughts on the concept than what your answers to a test are/would be

 

[Ginny]

Unfortunately I can't feel free to take it, cause it's a paid test.

On the wikipedia test there is a free test linked. I'm taking it myself now.

 

[infinite dreams]

Actual footage of my attempt at a joke:

I'm more interested in discussing your personal thoughts on the concept than what your answers to a test are/would be

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of the Big 5. I find it overly simplistic and presumptive. My view is that each of the five aspects (tendencies) outlined in the model are too complicated to simply be placed on a sliding scale. For example, if someone scores 67% on "Conscientiousness" or 35% on "Extraversion," those data points alone don't tell me much of anything about their personality. Big 5 would tell you that someone who scores high in Conscientiousness probably performs very exacting work and keeps a neat and orderly workspace, when in fact one isn't necessarily an indicator of the other.

Even the questions presume a great deal; many of them seem vague at least to some degree. I realize that this is probably by design (i.e. how you answer the questions in concert is what's important) but it still seems disingenuous and simplistic to me.

I've yet to study the aspect scales, but they at least seem to add some much needed depth to the model.

I can't access that free test thru work but I'll try to find an alternate and report back.

 

[Ginny]

Actual footage of my attempt at a joke:

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of the Big 5. I find it overly simplistic and presumptive. My view is that each of the five aspects (tendencies) outlined in the model are too complicated to simply be placed on a sliding scale. For example, if someone scores 67% on "Conscientiousness" or 35% on "Extraversion," those data points alone don't tell me much of anything about their personality. Big 5 would tell you that someone who scores high in Conscientiousness probably performs very exacting work and keeps a neat and orderly workspace, when in fact one isn't necessarily an indicator of the other.

Even the questions presume a great deal; many of them seem vague at least to some degree. I realize that this is probably by design (i.e. how you answer the questions in concert is what's important) but it still seems disingenuous and simplistic to me.

I've yet to study the aspect scales, but they at least seem to add some much needed depth to the model.

I can't access that free test thru work but I'll try to find an alternate and report back.

In those terms, I've heard of the HEXACO test, which is much more extrensive, but it measures each trait on a scale in relation to other's who have taken the test, and not as a thing in itself.

 

[hush]

Idk

Spoiler

 

[hush]

Even the questions presume a great deal; many of them seem vague at least to some degree. I realize that this is probably by design (i.e. how you answer the questions in concert is what's important) but it still seems disingenuous and simplistic to me.

I felt this way answering the questions, I was like wtf, how is enjoying poetry and art relevant here, really.

 

[Ginny]

I felt this way answering the questions, I was like wtf, how is enjoying poetry and art relevant here, really.

There are one or two questions on that also in the HEXACO. I believe it's supposed to measure the interest in aesthetics and creativity. Those things were also mentioned in the results.

Spoiler: BTW, here's my summary:

They are very different from my HEXACO results. Sorry if I'm being obtrusive about it, it just provides a good reference material for comparison.

 

[Wyote]

On the wikipedia test there is a free test linked. I'm taking it myself now.

This seems to be unrelated to the Big Five Aspects, but is a good starting point for diving into Big Five.

Spoiler

 

[infinite dreams]

I felt this way answering the questions, I was like wtf, how is enjoying poetry and art relevant here, really.

Exactly. Got to love the presumption that if one doesn't enjoy certain kinds of art, they aren't as open to new experiences (or vice versa).

Use of the word "art" is even misleading and based on false pretense. When I read the word "art" the first thing I think of is painting and sculpture, which aren't modes of art I'm especially interested in. But that leaves out music, photography, graphic design and other forms of art that I'm in fact very interested in and love to explore in great depth. There are other vague/misleading questions in this same vein.

I think this points to one of the major failings of Big Five - it's foundation is based in lexical hypothesis, which largely depends on the brain's interpretation of certain words. Since different words quite often mean different things to different people, I don't see how such a test can produce consistently valid results.

And that's not even getting into how different words can mean different things to different people at different times. Hell, different times of day! This model would seem to be especially susceptible to biases related to mood or circumstance. Think about how much higher someone would score on "Neuroticism" if they're having a really bad day (an experience shared by literally 100% of the human population).

 

[Ginny]

I think the test tries to push too many traits into one basket to make them more easily digestible.

I think this points to one of the major failings of Big Five - it's foundation is based in lexical hypothesis, which largely depends on the brain's interpretation of certain words. Since different words quite often mean different things to different people, I don't see how such a test can produce consistently valid results.

Agreed. In these instances, there is nothing more pleasurable* than a personal assessment, wherein all these things can be adressed and clarified. But that also makes the whole process less "efficient", which is what these tests are, they sacrifice accuracy for efficiency.

Edit: Weird word I was using here, but satisfying doesn't really make it better.

 

[infinite dreams]

Edit: Weird word I was using here, but satisfying doesn't really make it better.

I would just say "preferable" for that circumstance but I am a dirty stinky thinky Thinker!

 

[Ginny]

I would just say "preferable" for that circumstance but I am a dirty stinky thinky Thinker!

As much as I'd like to have one, I don't have a very vast mental thesaurus at my disposal

 

[hush]

This question though lol

Spoiler

I had to select strongly disagree, much to my sadness, because this is me:

Spoiler: ;__;

 

[Wyote]

I can't stress enough how that particular test is not neccessarily a reflection of the Big Five Aspects test, which I have not seen. It may or may not fall prey to the same troubles of Big Five itself, but these traits have been extensively researched and while tests themselves often have a ton of flaws, we can safely say there have been observable trends. Not much more than that.

Also, don't let the robot take over!!!!!!!!!!

:gettogether:

 

[invisible]

For me when I look at those categories I'm struck by the extent to which they seem based on values judgments. On forum we have sometimes discussed the idea that N types are supposedly somehow superior to S types in the MBTI. Comparing these categories to that, it seems a lot more clear that there's maybe some sort of bias involved, it seems more desirable to land on some particular side of the mean. Like obviously, who wants to be called neurotic? Well maybe some people would want that for some reason, but how is it really supposed to help you? Like "OK, I'm neurotic. Now what?" It reminds me a lot of the idea of hysteria. The way that the concept of hysteria was used historically not always to help but also to dismiss or control. "She's hysterical."

There also seems to me to be a bit of an aspect of measuring or describing the personality in ways that are not really intrinsic to the personality itself but of the personality expressed in a social context. The way self behaves or is played out within or according to social expectations in context... Is a personality taken alone really conscientious or not? - I think not, I think that in itself the personality is just "doing its own thing", it's only in the context of a social setting and the expectations of that setting that we can decide whether it is hard working or not. "He's lazy." Like yes we are social animals... but is our performance in a social setting really our personality? It just seems like a weird externalised sort of way of describing the "essence" of a person.

I don't feel any enthusiasm about this theory. It seems very oriented in commercial philosophies, job selection testing. That approach to hiring, which is so pervasive right now, eg "It's not what you know it's who you know", "Show your passion", "It's important to get the right person", "You need to develop your soft skills", really irks me. It's all just excuses for hiring managers to go with the candidate they "feel" is "the right fit" rather than the candidate who can demonstrate actual legitimate skill development and task performance.

MBTI has its many flaws... but by comparison in its potential commercial application, it's much more oriented towards being like actually useful to the job seeker. "Check out these careers that have been of interest to people you have something in common with!"

 

[hush]

I can't stress enough how that particular test is not neccessarily a reflection of the Big Five Aspects test, which I have not seen. It may or may not fall prey to the same troubles of Big Five itself, but these traits have been extensively researched and while tests themselves often have a ton of flaws, we can safely say there have been observable trends. Not much more than that.

Also, don't let the robot take over!!!!!!!!!!

:gettogether:

You must not forget, that I am a squishy purple amoeba. I would envelop and devour the robot, not the other way around

Spoiler

Spoiler

And of course, the slotheba you made for me : p

But yeah, I can see the parallels with MBTI. The "Neuroticism" factor can even almost sort of correspond to the Turbulent/Assertive aspect of MBTI the 16 Personalities test offers.

 

[Wyote]

spoiler

Teehee :bouncy: