"Big 5" personality traits & the Work

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Hi all,

Since Jordan Peterson often mentions the big 5 personality traits, I'd like to share some thoughts about how this concept might be useful in the context of the Work.

Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

The Big Five personality traits, also known as the five factor model (FFM), is a model based on common language descriptors of personality. When factor analysis (a statistical technique) is applied to personality survey data, some words used to describe aspects of personality are often applied to the same person. For example, someone described as "conscientious" is more likely to be described as "always prepared" than "messy". This widely examined theory suggests five broad dimensions used by some psychologists to describe the human personality and psyche.[1][2] The five factors have been defined as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, often listed under the acronyms OCEAN or CANOE. Beneath each proposed global factor, a number of correlated and more specific primary factors are claimed. For example, extraversion is said to include such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions.[3]

That these factors can be found is consistent with the lexical hypothesis: firstly that those personality characteristics that are most important in peoples' lives will eventually become a part of their language; secondly that more important personality characteristics are more likely to be encoded into language as a single word.
...

The five factors:

Openness to experience: (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience. Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety a person has. It is also described as the extent to which a person is imaginative or independent, and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine. High openness can be perceived as unpredictability or lack of focus. Moreover, individuals with high openness are said to pursue self-actualization specifically by seeking out intense, euphoric experiences, such as skydiving, living abroad, gambling, et cetera. Conversely, those with low openness seek to gain fulfillment through perseverance, and are characterized as pragmatic and data-driven—sometimes even perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret and contextualize the openness factor.

Conscientiousness: (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). A tendency to be organized and dependable, show self-discipline, act dutifully, aim for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior. High conscientiousness is often perceived as stubbornness and obsession. Low conscientiousness is associated with flexibility and spontaneity, but can also appear as sloppiness and lack of reliability.[4]

Extraversion: (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved). Energy, positive emotions, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness. High extraversion is often perceived as attention-seeking, and domineering. Low extraversion causes a reserved, reflective personality, which can be perceived as aloof or self-absorbed.[4]

Agreeableness: (friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/detached). A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. It is also a measure of one's trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is generally well-tempered or not. High agreeableness is often seen as naive or submissive. Low agreeableness personalities are often competitive or challenging people, which can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy.[4]

Neuroticism: (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability. Neuroticism also refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to by its low pole, "emotional stability". A high need for stability manifests as a stable and calm personality, but can be seen as uninspiring and unconcerned. A low need for stability causes a reactive and excitable personality, often very dynamic individuals, but they can be perceived as unstable or insecure.[4]

People who don't exhibit a clear tendency towards specific characteristics chosen from the above-mentioned related pairs in all five dimensions are [considered] adaptable, moderate and reasonable personalities, but can be perceived as unprincipled, inscrutable and calculating.[4]

Although this doesn't seem to be an exact science, the statistical correlations between the traits ('clusters') seem to be well-established.

I'm not well-versed yet in this concept, but I already found some interesting applications for it in real life. If we assume that we are dominated to an extent by certain traits while lacking others, then in the context of the Work, I think we should become aware of it and try to balance these traits to a degree. Setting the right Aims can help with that because it forces us to go beyond 'what we normally do'.

There is another aspect to this I think: becoming aware of one's own traits and the fact that other people might have other dominant traits can help us understand other people much better. It can reduce anxiety or anger or other negative emotions because we can see other people's behavior in a different light.

For example, I'm fairly sure I'm high in openness, agreeableness and neuroticism, but lower on conscientiousness. So when someone who is high in conscientiousness/lower in agreeableness communicates with me, I might misinterpret him and think he's unfriendly, doesn't like what I did and so on. Knowing about different traits helps me seeing his behavior as an expression of a different temperament - just because I myself usually communicate differently doesn't mean that there's something wrong! In fact, I can adapt to his way of seeing the world, which makes communication much quicker and easier.

Since I learned about the big 5 traits, I noticed quite a few differences in the way people see the world, communicate and set priorities. Especially in my job context this is very apparent. It's also funny how we tend to like people better who share a similar temperament because we can instantly understand each other. But that says nothing about the true qualities of the person! So maybe we can avoid such pitfalls by being aware of fundamental differences in temperament and instead focus on the things that really count and/or help the other person overcome some flaws by reacting in a way that keeps his or her temperament in mind.

On another note, I think my efforts working on myself already helped me balance my traits a little more - if only just a bit. For example, I think I'm a little more conscientious and less agreeable now than I used to be, i.e. my work ethic and 'sense of duty' improved while my submissiveness decreased - or so I hope. It would actually be interesting to take a standard big 5 personality test once in awhile if we are engaged in self-work and see if things change a bit over time.

Anyway, I think there is more to this and I didn't delve very deeply into it - but it seems to me that it's another useful tool to understand oneself and other people and to transcend our 'standard operating mode'. It might help as well to define fruitful goals for oneself to work on.
 
In terms of finding balance between the 'big 5' in real life application, I've been experimenting for the past several weeks with something that I've struggled with for basically my whole life, which is lateness. I set it as an aim for myself to leave early for everything be it an appointment, work, or friendly gathering. In so doing I've noticed some improvements in my life.

Where before I would leave with little time to spare and would rush to get where I was going, all the while thinking of excuses I could use to shift the blame away from my lack of planning, I have now been doing my best to leave early so that I can take my time and don't have to rush or feel rushed. This has freed up a lot of energy that was before being wasted, and at the same time I get to where I was going with time to enjoy my journey.

This hasn't been easy and I've not been early to everything. But, I feel less neurotic and more balanced overall by struggling with myself in this way. So finding other ways to apply this balancing of the 'big 5' could be beneficial. Thanks for sharing!
 
Hey Luc, thanks for bringing up this topic. I remember a thread awhile back where everyone was doing this one big 5 personality test, that had very specific breakdowns for subcategories and whatnot. I wish I could remember where it was.

I do know that typically those deemed more politically liberal tend to have higher openness and lower conscientiousness, and the reverse is true for conservatives. Men tend to have lower agreeableness and lower neuroticism, and women tend to have higher agreeableness and neuroticism. Male and female personalities on average have the same extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness, but dividing the categories further shows women excel in some aspects and men others. Jordan Peterson talks about this a bit here and there throughout some of his lectures. _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzAynn80SU

I have a typical liberal personality, so I have higher openness but lower conscientiousness, historically speaking. One credo I've used to help increase my conscientiousness was from the book Time Warrior (thanks for recommending it!), which essentially states "Finish what you start". Leaving things hanging just fills your head with more cognitive tasks that just weighs you down more than actually physically finishing a task would. Giving yourself the option of not completing a task, leaving loose ends, etc. just creates openings for the lazy mammal little i to sleep at the wheel, like the drunk carriage driver Gurdjieff talks about. A similar maxim I found useful is is from a forum of people trying to quit porn which states "It's easier to quit something 100% than it is to quit something 99%." It is generalizeable to any habit (such as tardiness or disorganization) you want gone. Maybe you'll find these useful, or not. Just from my own experience, they've helped.
 
whitecoast said:
Hey Luc, thanks for bringing up this topic. I remember a thread awhile back where everyone was doing this one big 5 personality test, that had very specific breakdowns for subcategories and whatnot. I wish I could remember where it was.

[...]

Hi whitecoast, you may be thinking of this thread, starting with Laura post on the IPIP personality test she and others took. The test is from http://www.personal.psu.edu/%7Ej5j/IPIP/

One of the things that came from the discussion was that it would be better to have someone else take the test for you (preferably someone that knows you well since they'd have more data on which to draw on, but I suppose even someone that didn't know you very well and could only go off first impressions would be interesting to see too). My problem with those personality tests is that it is usually done by yourself so I think it is hard to get a truly objective result, even if you try your best to answer as you see yourself now and not how you were or wished to be. Nonetheless it does reveal some things that could be useful to be aware of (for example, I've often thought of myself as more introverted but scored higher on extraversion).


[quote author=luc]Anyway, I think there is more to this and I didn't delve very deeply into it - but it seems to me that it's another useful tool to understand oneself and other people and to transcend our 'standard operating mode'. It might help as well to define fruitful goals for oneself to work on.[/quote]

That's what I think too and why I like taking those tests. It's more data to work with, and combined with feedback from others, helps to get a better overall picture of oneself and how to relate with others.
 
Boy, I don't know, Luc. Sometimes these systems of categorization and typing can leave my head spinning.

I am having trouble taking this one seriously. First red flag for me is how they define things which are sometimes contradictory and at other times pretty mushy and vague.

OK, if I am going through an airport and come up to the Homeland Security dudes, you better believe I am going to be just the right amount of agreeable, whether that is my thing or not. But I am going to be agreeable because I am Neurotic about authority figures who can lock me up in a little cell. And I am going to dial down the Extroversion enough so as not to trigger any excess attention because I try to be Conscientious about not displaying Neuroticism to guys with guns and badges. etc etc etc

Some people act secure and confident because they are a nervous mess inside. Psychopaths act and seem quite friendly when they are actually totally detached and challenging in the long run.

I mean....it just gets absurd at a certain point. The bottom line of any system's worth is: Does it help me awaken or is it sleep inducing? Does it tell me a good way to live? Is it based on objective truth or just a lot of subjective conjecture? What does the system fail to take into account? Does it quack like it is made out of swiss cheese?
 
BHelmet said:
Boy, I don't know, Luc. Sometimes these systems of categorization and typing can leave my head spinning.

I am having trouble taking this one seriously. First red flag for me is how they define things which are sometimes contradictory and at other times pretty mushy and vague.

OK, if I am going through an airport and come up to the Homeland Security dudes, you better believe I am going to be just the right amount of agreeable, whether that is my thing or not. But I am going to be agreeable because I am Neurotic about authority figures who can lock me up in a little cell. And I am going to dial down the Extroversion enough so as not to trigger any excess attention because I try to be Conscientious about not displaying Neuroticism to guys with guns and badges. etc etc etc

Some people act secure and confident because they are a nervous mess inside. Psychopaths act and seem quite friendly when they are actually totally detached and challenging in the long run.

I mean....it just gets absurd at a certain point. The bottom line of any system's worth is: Does it help me awaken or is it sleep inducing? Does it tell me a good way to live? Is it based on objective truth or just a lot of subjective conjecture? What does the system fail to take into account? Does it quack like it is made out of swiss cheese?

Well, it seems to me that with this kind of reasoning, you can 'deconstruct' almost any psychological ideas. But, as you said yourself, it depends on how useful they are, what kind of useful information we can extract out of them. I gave some examples in my post about how I went about it and how I applied the big 5 traits to my own life - with some interesting results. So I do see some value in it, although it's good to remain sceptical and not take such concepts as gospel truth. It's also worth noting that apparently (as far as I know) there is a lot of research that confirms that there's something to the big 5 traits.

Also, I think that if you are able to act as you described in the bold part, i.e. you can completely adapt your traits to the situation at hand, then you are a very advanced human being. It's a very difficult thing to do. For example, I could decide that for the next 5 months, I will earn a million dollars by upping my conscientiousness and lowering my agreeableness to such an extent that I sleep only 2 hours and spend the rest of my time screwing people over for big bucks. That's part of what Gurdjieff did during certain periods of his life, according to his own account. But I would never ever be able to do such a thing in my current state of being.

But what you describe is important: to be the master of our traits to an extent is an important goal in the Work IMO - so that we can act as extroverts if we need to, act like a highly agreeable person if the situation demands it, act like a very conscientious person to reach our goals etc., without being one such person or identifying with this or that trait ("that's just the way I am"). But for that, we need first to realize that different kinds of people exist, that we are born/socialized into certain dominant traits and characteristics etc. And for that, I think concepts like the big 5 are useful and (together with more esoteric concepts like emotional/physical/intellectual people) can be a good starting point for our own observations.
 
The distinction I notice about the 5 traits or Briggs & Stratton/Jungian types or most other systems of human classification that use personality traits is that they describe external appearances and tendencies. That is good from a certain point of view. A person can evaluate their normal modes of operation and, in a somewhat superficial way, identify how the human machine appears to act and respond. Sort of like the body on the chassis of a car: the paint job; the external appearance. But these are the effects of deeper causes, IMO. They answer "what?" but they don't really answer "why?"

On one level I can say - wow look - my hand always reaches out when in the presence of a piece of chocolate cake, or I always put on a happy face, or withdraw when I meet a pretty woman, or alpha male. I can fight that tendency on the level upon which that tendency is expressed. I can tell myself not to smile and fight back that tendency to reach for pie and maybe even eliminate it entirely, but is this really gaining self mastery or self knowledge? I suppose it is, up to a certain point, and sometimes that is where we must start - sort of like the way of the yogi: dealing with self control on a physical level: ha - or like Dr Strangelove trying to restrain his gloved hand from strangling his own throat.

But what of the root cause of the happy face or the arm reaching for chocolate cheesecake? Maybe I want to be liked; I am driven by a sense of scarcity; I am gluttonous; I am afraid my darker sides will be seen/a fundamental lack of self-worth; I am running from intimacy; afraid of domination and losing control because I do not trust.... or whatever, a thousand things - these are some deeper issues that drive the surface appearances.

Perhaps the path to confronting the deeper issues is through starting on a superficial level, but ultimately, we need to confront those deeper things that drive the machine of false personality. Systems that deal with superficial appearances and tendencies of the personality are useful up to a point but they can also deflect a person from going deeper by their focus on outward appearances: shy, outgoing, withdrawn, are all effects but none of them causes. (IMO)

I might think, "Oh I AM shy" - like that is an unchangeable reality. In that sense, a system that tells me my machine is painted blue might leave me thinking that my intrinsic nature is blue; that it can't be changed and I should accept this. Or maybe what I need is a red paint job. But the inner engine driving the show remains the same and remains undiscovered, and isn't that what the work is all about?

All my opinions and observations, of course. YMMV

Then there is the enneagram, which, if I am not mistaken, is the system of types used by Gurdjieff. It is more complex and difficult than using 4 or 5 external appearances. With its 9 points you have the 7 notes of an octave and the 2 intervals. It also reveals the inter-relatedness of the different points. From what I have seen, the enneagram seems to deal more with the internal motivations, drives and psychology of an individual - more like what is underneath the hood: the inner workings. Yes, it uses external cues too, but the same external appearance in 2 different individuals can be driven from within by very different mechanisms. In my estimation, the enneagram is a more useful and powerful tool for doing the work. It is the system used by the guy who put forward this idea of inner work. That is good enough for me.
 
BHelmet said:
The distinction I notice about the 5 traits or Briggs & Stratton/Jungian types or most other systems of human classification that use personality traits is that they describe external appearances and tendencies. That is good from a certain point of view. A person can evaluate their normal modes of operation and, in a somewhat superficial way, identify how the human machine appears to act and respond. Sort of like the body on the chassis of a car: the paint job; the external appearance. But these are the effects of deeper causes, IMO. They answer "what?" but they don't really answer "why?"...

Then there is the enneagram, which, if I am not mistaken, is the system of types used by Gurdjieff. It is more complex and difficult than using 4 or 5 external appearances. With its 9 points you have the 7 notes of an octave and the 2 intervals. It also reveals the inter-relatedness of the different points. From what I have seen, the enneagram seems to deal more with the internal motivations, drives and psychology of an individual - more like what is underneath the hood: the inner workings. Yes, it uses external cues too, but the same external appearance in 2 different individuals can be driven from within by very different mechanisms. In my estimation, the enneagram is a more useful and powerful tool for doing the work. It is the system used by the guy who put forward this idea of inner work. That is good enough for me.

Personality powered by a Briggs & Stratton! Anyways, one can correlate these factor (like Jungian and 5-factor) and circular (like enneagram and circumplex) models to each other and then if one is better at something, you can kind of use it for all of them. For the the Jungian MBTI you can say be biased towards networking for NP research reasons or biased towards networking for FJ social reasons so they can get into motivational whys. The MBTI has comfort and maturity levels and the Enneagram has health levels so both can get at the idea that you aren't stuck with your biases. Learning, peer pressure, your environment, etc. can push you to be mature for things you aren't biased towards and can even cause you to have problems in areas you do have a bias towards.

Gurdjieff actually didn't get into personality models and the guy (Ichazo) credited with using the Enneagram for personality is actually a bit of a shady character so you have to be careful since others after Gurdjieff can misuse Gurdjieff's ideas. Others who came after Ichazo I think did an OK job getting away from Ichazo where needed but compared to Gurdjieff and the Cass forum, modern use of the Enneagram for inner work is a very watered down thing.
 
Bluelamp said:
BHelmet said:
The distinction I notice about the 5 traits or Briggs & Stratton/Jungian types...."why?"...
Then there is the enneagram,...

Personality powered by a Briggs & Stratton! Anyways, one can correlate these factor (like Jungian and 5-factor) and circular (like enneagram and circumplex) models to each other and then if one is better at something, you can kind of use it for all of them. For the the Jungian MBTI you can say be biased towards networking for NP research reasons or biased towards networking for FJ social reasons so they can get into motivational whys. The MBTI has comfort and maturity levels and the Enneagram has health levels so both can get at the idea that you aren't stuck with your biases. Learning, peer pressure, your environment, etc. can push you to be mature for things you aren't biased towards and can even cause you to have problems in areas you do have a bias towards.

Gurdjieff actually didn't get into personality models and the guy (Ichazo) credited with using the Enneagram for personality is actually a bit of a shady character so you have to be careful since others after Gurdjieff can misuse Gurdjieff's ideas. Others who came after Ichazo I think did an OK job getting away from Ichazo where needed but compared to Gurdjieff and the Cass forum, modern use of the Enneagram for inner work is a very watered down thing.

All great points! And glad you got the engine joke! ;D Yeah, there is a mixed bag aspect to all this. So many different sources of info and it is good to dross (!!HA!! Freudian..CROSS reference) reference them - heck even G and Mouravieff...all of it - a vast buffet where being 2/3 true is a high batting average!

I just read a good one on the enneagram by Sandra Maitri. She does distance herself from Ichazo. Really intense microscope on the inner stuff but you have to know thyself to sort it out and see what is true about ones self and what isn't. Kinda harsh like G could be, I suppose. Not watered down at all. It helped me see some things and provided several major "aha!'s. But, no one source is perf.
 
BHelmet said:
All great points! And glad you got the engine joke! ;D Yeah, there is a mixed bag aspect to all this. So many different sources of info and it is good to dross (!!HA!! Freudian..CROSS reference) reference them - heck even G and Mouravieff...all of it - a vast buffet where being 2/3 true is a high batting average!

I just read a good one on the enneagram by Sandra Maitri. She does distance herself from Ichazo. Really intense microscope on the inner stuff but you have to know thyself to sort it out and see what is true about ones self and what isn't. Kinda harsh like G could be, I suppose. Not watered down at all. It helped me see some things and provided several major "aha!'s. But, no one source is perf.

Yeah I knew someone online who wanted something beyond just the Enneagram of Personality and he liked Maitri and Almaas and the Diamond Approach. I know almost nothing about the Diamond Approach other than it includes a lot of things in addition to the Enneagram of Personality.
 
This is very interesting, whether they're objectively useful I think it's not the point per se. But whether it provides a map of our own inner workings that resonates and creates material for the work. I for one have observed that I can be less agreeable depending on the amount of stress/exhaustion being experienced at a certain time.

So I think it's useful to have as a compass to measure tendencies and programs and how much our behavior changes depending on the constant influx of impressions. But again, the system has to resonate in a way that is useful to each individual.

This makes me think of other systems of defining behavior that carry their own value, for instance the zodiac. For some people, the zodiac is a great way to determine and measure up their behavior and traits. So I think that much like the zodiac or a spirit release or recapitulation, the value of the system of the big 5 lies upon information and it's quality.

In other words, how much information becomes available and visible to us through seeing ourselves through the lens of a certain system. For some it needs to be more logical and for some others it needs to be more emotional, while for some others it can be a combination of both. For some it requires a physical expresión such as martial arts.

In my opinion if it's working towards your aim to adopt a certain structure then it's valuable and efficient. But I also think that as we evolve through the steps of the work different systems become more or less resonant with the work at hand. And it's ok to adapt and change systems as the need calls for it.

It's sort of what was said by Bruce Lee about the need to be like water and remain fluid, but also maintain the capacity to turn solid and into mist when need be.

I hope the above makes sense. It's just my two cents. Thanks for sharing luc
 
Alejo said:
In other words, how much information becomes available and visible to us through seeing ourselves through the lens of a certain system. For some it needs to be more logical and for some others it needs to be more emotional, while for some others it can be a combination of both. For some it requires a physical expresión such as martial arts.

In my opinion if it's working towards your aim to adopt a certain structure then it's valuable and efficient. But I also think that as we evolve through the steps of the work different systems become more or less resonant with the work at hand. And it's ok to adapt and change systems as the need calls for it.

Thanks Alejo, I think you put it very well. There's also this to consider from the Cs:

Session 26 July 2014 said:
Q: (dugdeep) We've been kind of looking into the enneagram personality type thing here, and we're just wondering if that's a valid direction. It seems it could provide a lot of material for Work on oneself.

A: About 54 percent validity. Remember that this was essentially just "made up".

Q: [Toronto starts asking another question]

A: As are most human psychological systems in your society.

Q: (Perceval) [Repeats last 2 answers for remote group]

A: Cognitive psychology is an exception when it is based on lab and social studies.

This suggests that one psychological system as as good as the next, and its value lies in how we make use of it, how we use those systems as lenses through which we can discover more of ourselves and other people. It restricts our thinking in a sense, which can actually help us focus more on certain aspects and stimulate our thinking.

However, in the case of the big 5 traits, I think the Cs' bold answer applies: as I understand, this concept has been tested in the lab and in social studies extensively. This doesn't mean it's exact science, but it suggests that it is not just some random, made-up system. There seems to be an empirical basis to it, which may make it a productive 'lens' through which to look at differences in human behavior. I think that oftentimes we need to focus on something specific to gain a better understanding as opposed to looking for the 'answer to everything'.
 
luc said:
This suggests that one psychological system as as good as the next... However, in the case of the big 5 traits, I think the Cs' bold answer applies: as I understand, this concept has been tested in the lab and in social studies extensively...

The origins of the big 5 are interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_hypothesis

The lexical hypothesis[1] (also known as the fundamental lexical hypothesis,[2] lexical approach,[3] or sedimentation hypothesis[4]) is a thesis current primarily in early personality psychology and subsequently subsumed by many later efforts in that subfield.[5] Despite some variation in its definition and application, the Lexical hypothesis is generally defined by two postulates. The first states that those personality characteristics that are most important in peoples' lives will eventually become a part of their language. The second follows from the first, stating that more important personality characteristics are more likely to be encoded into language as a single word.[6] With origins in the late 19th century, use of the lexical hypothesis began to flourish in English and German psychology in the early 20th century.[4] The lexical hypothesis is a major foundation of the Big Five personality traits...

So it kind of started more by using a dictionary than by looking at actual people. They of course have done lots of studies on people using what they got from a dictionary analysis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience

Factor analysis has shown that the fantasy, aesthetics, and feelings facets of openness are closely related to absorption and predict hypnotisability, whereas the remaining three facets of ideas, actions, and values are largely unrelated to these constructs.[25][27] This finding suggests that openness to experience may have two distinct yet related subdimensions: one related to aspects of attention and consciousness assessed by the facets of fantasy, aesthetics, and feelings; the other related to intellectual curiosity and social/political liberalism as assessed by the remaining three facets. However, all of these have a common theme of ‘openness’ in some sense. This two-dimensional view of openness to experience is particularly pertinent to hypnotisability. However, when considering external criteria other than hypnotisability, it is possible that a different dimensional structure may be apparent, e.g. intellectual curiosity may be unrelated to social/political liberalism in certain contexts.

So some of the things they via the dictionary stuck together may not actually overly go together personality-wise. Maybe the dictionary has a bit of a bias towards liberals being smart and artistic. I personally think the MBTI (actually more Keirsey's Jungian model) does a better job of differentiating traits. That said, 4 of the big 5 traits do correlate to the 4 MBTI traits so overall I think both models are aiming at the same result. The 5th big 5 trait (neuroticism) is more a health/comfort/maturity thing than a personality trait. The MBTI/Enneagram do have separate comfort/maturity/health levels. Neuroticism has some correlation with MBTI introversion perhaps due to introversion being viewed like a defect according to a dictionary analysis. Kind of as you say via the Cs though, social studies correlations overall make one system as good as the next.
 
Jordan Peterson has just released a personality assessment questionnaire of his own design based on the Big Five Aspect Scale, available at this link...

https://www.understandmyself.com

It's a one time only assessment that normally costs $9.95 but with a discount code can be purchased for 20% off.

From his email -

You signed up for a discount coupon at www.understandmyself.com, for Dr. Jordan B Peterson's new personality test.

The regular price is $9.95.

With the discount, the price is 20% lower, at $7.95.

To obtain your discount, go to

https://www.understandmyself.com/IasIntegration/Purchase/Setup/17

Enter Coupon Code: OPEN45

Valid through Thursday, Oct 26, 2017

Select your payment method: Credit Card or PayPal

Thank you very much for your interest in our products. We hope that you find the results of your personality test useful and interesting.

Sincerely,

Dr. JB Peterson

I took the test and found the questions to be similar to other personality tests, and the results obtained were similar as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom