Big 5: Science or Pseudo-Science?

[Kanye69]

So, people like Jordan Peterson claim that the big 5 is super scientific. Do you think this is true?
-Kanye69

 

[Amberiat]

I consider the Big 5 about as scientific as MBTI and Enneagram are, all 3 of them have their own advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Seymour]

Big Five is pretty darn scientific given the soft science of personality theory. There's good support for it and the Big Five traits that correlate with all kinds of interesting things. (Plus, four of the five Big Five traits correlate with MBTI preferences.)

I do find the Big Five a bit frustrating in some respects, because it often seems to be no more than the sum of its parts. Individual studies may illuminate surprising correlations, but in general it doesn't seem to generate a great deal of additional insight beyond what the MBTI might (except for the dimension of neuroticism).

One could argue (although I don't) that the Big Five is nothing but a scientific distillation of a kind of inherent "folk personality theory," since it was developed by statistical analysis of descriptions of people. There are some other challenges with the Big Five, as well. One is that the terms for and descriptions of the traits show a lot of bias. It's pretty clear that an Extraverted, Open, Agreeable, Conscientious, and low-Neuroticism person (basically a healthy ENFJ) has the best combination of traits. That makes it problematic to use in organization or even educational settings.

Another shortcoming is the absence of descriptions of preference combinations, which I think is a strength of the MBTI. Granted, the MBTI typically limits itself to descriptions of the temperaments, or the functions, but at least it has some of those descriptions.

There's also the HEXACO model, which makes it seem like either the Big Five missed out on a trait, or the Big Five isn't quite as cross-cultural as it additionally appeared.

So, for pros of the Big Five (versus MBTI) I would say:

• Is actually scientific
• Has a huge wealth of studies available.
• Can accurately reflect the fact that preferences/traits fall in a bell curve, and most people have at least one middling preference/trait.
• Represents neuroticism.
• Avoids the nonsense that is type dynamics and function theory.

Cons

• Uses biased language.
• Generally doesn't describe the effect of preference/trait combinations.
• Often no more than the sum of its parts, insight-wise.
• May not represent a trait (honesty/humility) that HEXACO includes.

 

[Kanye69]

I agree with a lot of what you said here. This is my take on big 5 vs other forms of typology: other personality models' power is their theory, while big 5's power is in what it can predict outside of what it tests. Big 5 is, itself, like you said, not greater than the sum of its parts. However, it has extreme predictive capability. For example, how one scores in openness and consciousness can predict with startling accuracy their political beliefs
-Kanye69

 

[Bush]

I agree with a lot of what you said here. This is my take on big 5 vs other forms of typology: other personality models' power is their theory, while big 5's power is in what it can predict outside of what it tests.

Pretty much. That's also why, as it stands, Big 5 doesn't get a lot of love around these parts because there's not a fat lot of room for discussion.

It's like discussing a hammer. Hammers are obviously useful and have obviously allowed us to accomplish a lot of stuff. But I can't imagine that a forum about hammers would last very long. You can talk about the history of the hammer, or the engineering and physics behind a hammer, tweaking the design of the hammer, I guess? But there's still not too much there unless you're part of a very specific audience. The more inclusive, relatable, momentum-carrying discussions would be about the houses, structures, and other stuff that hammers have helped build.

 

[Cellmold]

Pretty much. That's also why, as it stands, Big 5 doesn't get a lot of love around these parts because there's not a fat lot of room for discussion.

It's like discussing a hammer. Hammers are obviously useful and have obviously allowed us to accomplish a lot of stuff. But I can't imagine that a forum about hammers would last very long. You can talk about the history of the hammer, or the engineering and physics behind a hammer, tweaking the design of the hammer, I guess? But there's still not too much there unless you're part of a very specific audience. The more inclusive, relatable, momentum-carrying discussions would be about the houses, structures, and other stuff that hammers have helped build.

Pretty apt analogy.

Although I would argue there is plenty of room for discussions around trait distributions and correlations with behavioural patterns in humans using the Big 5. Life outcomes and tendencies also tend to be of interest for people as well, with a view to being careful not to assume an overly settled or rigid view of those outcomes.

That's actually where MBTI falls down a lot for me; overt levels of theoretical wiggle room discourages, and perhaps even blocks, more useful conclusions that one can use for self recognition and improvement. Most people can't even agree on what Jung actually meant when interpreting or applying his ideas from Psychological Types. Bearing in mind that the originators of MBTI appear to have got their idea for the structure of the 8 cognitive functions in their system from, if I've remembered correctly, a single page Jung wrote on rare cases where a person has the presence of a lesser or weaker function, but he primarily wrote his types as singularly all encompassing.

In Jung's original theory, one is an extraverted sensory type, not an extraverted sensory type with a secondary footing in being an introverted feeling or thinking type and then an even lesser footing in extraverted thinking or feeling & then finally, a very weak footing in introverted intuition.

It makes just enough sense to be believable and when you first read up on those function stacks there is often this 'aha' of understanding where suddenly one feels they can apply the ideas involved to a whole host of their experiences. It's like a very long winded version of cold-calling, except you're only doing it to yourself. And, even better, that disagreement over interpretation often manifests as the freedom to create pet theories that conveniently suit an individual's preferences and biases, creating an increasingly fragmented series of offshoots with escalating complexity.

Just look at how many discussions there are on what a certain function is or isn't. And while I can agree that there is an argument for people simply misunderstanding the information, it occurs with exceptional frequency. By comparison, how many discussions appear on what neuroticism is? Or openness?

It's also a factor of ego-boosting. Mbti, with those fragmented interpretations, produces a lot of grandiose descriptors that can inflate self worth and importance, particularly in areas of rarity. Big 5 on the other hand (with openness being a bit of an exception and vulnerable to a degree of ego-boosting as well) mainly makes you aware of your shortcomings and strengths. People also argue that this is what MBTI does but, to reiterate, the level of disagreement and differing interpretations makes this an unreliable claim.

Now I'm sure there are those who will probably be along to bombard me with data in defence of MBTI, most of which will be about career correlation, which is what MBTI was created for: employers wanting to categorise their workforce.

The problem with that data is that it's largely tautological. "Oh, the research scientists are reporting strongly as INTP and INTJ, do tell!". "Performance artists are largely reporting as ESFP? Would never have guessed".

Big 5 is less popular because it tends to make you look at yourself critically in a more dry manner. Whereas MBTI is ripe for personal bias and interpretation, generally favouring yourself while allowing a critical judgement of others.

Very much a tool of the people, but not so much the individual.

 

[Arcayne]

I trust the science of it, professionals used it and have been able to do studies that prove it so I think yes it is a science. I think it works because it is not as black and white as other personality theories are kind of. Like you said it is good at predicting behavior of a person more so than other kinds that are not considered scientific.

 

[ducks]

Openness just sounds like a sneaky way of saying someone is an N or S. And introvert/extrovert is what it is. So they more or less define ENxx, ESxx, INxx, ISxx types with different degrees of agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness.

But I don't think psychology is very scientific to begin with. Determining certain traits to be mostly stable and predictable doesn't make it any more scientific than typology, considering the nature of the human mind changes based on its own thoughts and experiences. But I guess as far as psychology is concerned that's good enough to get people to thinking more accurately?

 

[GavinElster]

Another shortcoming is the absence of descriptions of preference combinations, which I think is a strength of the MBTI. Granted, the MBTI typically limits itself to descriptions of the temperaments, or the functions, but at least it has some of those descriptions.

You probably will find these interesting:

AB5C Key

They're about the combinations given by each pair of scales.

the trouble with the MBTI function-attitudes is there's no good empirical support for the relation between them and the combinations that actually statistically are supported.

I don't see any problem to employing them independent of correlation with the instrument, though.

 

[Seymour]

Openness just sounds like a sneaky way of saying someone is an N or S. And introvert/extrovert is what it is. So they more or less define ENxx, ESxx, INxx, ISxx types with different degrees of agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness.
[...]

Well, Openness is highly correlated with MBTI intuition (at about 0.72), so both they are both describing a similar trait/preference. The Big Five was arrived at independently, so it's interesting that all four of the MBTI preferences correlate with to Big Five traits (although T/F only at 0.44 and J/P only at 0.49).

It can be interesting to look at the Big Five facets vs the MBTI Step II facets. For example, Agreeableness vs Thinking/Feeling:

Big Five Agreeableness sub facets: Trust, Compliance, Altruism, Modesty, Tender-mindedness
MBTI Step II Feeling sub-facets: Empathetic, Compassionate, Accommodating, Accepting, Tender

So, some of those line up pretty well: Tender-mindedness with being Empathetic and Compassionate, for example. Some Big Five Agreeableness aspects aren't really captured by Feeling in the MBTI, such as "Modesty". (You can see some of the Big Five sub-facet correlations with MBTI preferences here.)

You probably will find these interesting:

AB5C Key

They're about the combinations given by each pair of scales.

Ah, that is pretty nice! Thanks for the link!

the trouble with the MBTI function-attitudes is there's no good empirical support for the relation between them and the combinations that actually statistically are supported.

I don't see any problem to employing them independent of correlation with the instrument, though.

I think it's pretty clear that the descriptions of the function-attitudes are describing the interaction of J/P with either T/F or N/S (with a little I/E mixed for confusion). So descriptions of Fe are really F+J (in which a preference for consistency over time is added to a preference for harmonious interactions), with perhaps a little E throw in (to account for how F+J gets expressed by "Fe doms"). However, if one takes this interpretation, then things like tertiary and inferior functions are meaningless, and you can't really talk about INTJs "having Fi", for example. Also the difference between Dom and Aux go by the wayside, since people's strongest preferences have largest effect (and those don't match type dynamics in practice).

Also, there's nothing special about J/P, and it's equally valid (and powerful) to describe N+F, I+P, S+F, etc. Each preference scale is a (mostly) independent variables, except for the slight MBTI problem that N/S preference correlates a bit with the J/P preference. If someone has a middling J/P preference, then none of the function attitude descriptions are going to be particularly resonant. I think middling J/P preferences leads to typing frustration for people trying to type according to the functions.

 

[GavinElster]

I think it's pretty clear that the descriptions of the function-attitudes are describing the interaction of J/P with either T/F or N/S (with a little I/E mixed for confusion).

Well it's certainly intended that way -- I'm just saying unlike the link I posted, which examines combinations with actual rigor (what items actually correlate most with BOTH say, I and N or I and Openness) these correlations to the interactions TJ/TP/FJ/FP (like you say with e/i mixed) are based on a loose rule of thumb because they try to link these to Jung's descriptions

When in reality, there's no reason Fe a-la Jung should be related more to J than Fi is....nor should Fi be more related to P than Fe is. The result is something that's neither true to Jung nor to the instrument but contains elements of both.


But it's of course true that the *intent* was to map something like eFJ to Fe

 

[GavinElster]

And to add, yes Seymour gets it right when saying Big 5 is scientific in the soft science sense. That means that technically, the Big 5 is not necessarily describing physical phenomena directly...it's describing soft things like personality, but it is supported by rigorous statistical analysis that aims to replicate the model across many different populations.

 

[Opal Star]

Openness just sounds like a sneaky way of saying someone is an N or S. And introvert/extrovert is what it is. So they more or less define ENxx, ESxx, INxx, ISxx types with different degrees of agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness.

Well, sensors can be “open” in regards to the Big Five. Think of how many people that get an “N” result on MBTI tests (which have Big Five-ish questions a lot of the time).