• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Any thoughts on that Northwestern University study of 4 personality types?

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today, 20:57
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,833
Location
th
#1
This study.


I don't fit in it, in terms of the big 5 at all. I am open, introverted, not conceited at all (by big 5 definition), and not neurotic nor calm.

Which absolutely doesn't fit anywhere.

The way its performed leads me to believe it would be valid but the results are crap.
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 00:57
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,858
Location
38S 145E
#2
the validity of it is what makes it so good tbh. the results are great, just not satisfying. but satisfying results and accurate results are two different things.

it's not there trying to tick off every box, it's just reporting on trends in personality.

also welcome back my dude :D
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today, 20:57
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,833
Location
th
#3
the validity of it is what makes it so good tbh. the results are great, just not satisfying. but satisfying results and accurate results are two different things.

it's not there trying to tick off every box, it's just reporting on trends in personality.

also welcome back my dude :D
Thanks man! I just wished it provided some insight to our personalities other than the fact that we are not a common type.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 00:57
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#4
Hmm, clusters of Big 5 traits... we already know ("know"?) that there are 16 types, but there are then I guess certain common expressions of those types. It's interesting.

I'd be "reserved" I guess. (I don't think it's saying that most people will be one of the four, just that those are the clusters)
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today, 20:57
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,833
Location
th
#5
Hmm, clusters of Big 5 traits... we already know ("know"?) that there are 16 types, but there are then I guess certain common expressions of those types. It's interesting.

I'd be "reserved" I guess. (I don't think it's saying that most people will be one of the four, just that those are the clusters)
Hmm me too but then I am very "open" which kinda stabs the definition. I guess you are right about that. Just clusters and I'd say they are really hyping up the whole 4 personality types thing, its probably more gradient-ish (don't know how else to say it). Where INTPs would just wind up somewhere along the edges of the clusters along with other rarer MBTI or Type 5s.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 00:57
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#6
Hmm, clusters of Big 5 traits... we already know ("know"?) that there are 16 types, but there are then I guess certain common expressions of those types. It's interesting.

I'd be "reserved" I guess. (I don't think it's saying that most people will be one of the four, just that those are the clusters)
Hmm me too but then I am very "open" which kinda stabs the definition. I guess you are right about that. Just clusters and I'd say they are really hyping up the whole 4 personality types thing, its probably more gradient-ish (don't know how else to say it). Where INTPs would just wind up somewhere along the edges of the clusters along with other rarer MBTI or Type 5s.
Yeah I'm highly open too. I'm INFJ, so naturally gonna be quite agreeable and conscientious.

INTPs would fit that group if they used too much Si and Fe. Since people are generally imbalanced and therefore don't quite display the traits associated with their actual type, and also given that according to this study personality type can change as you age, it's probably just four ways that it's typically done - ways of being imbalanced.

It also has ingrained in it the idea that certain personality traits are preferable to others, calling the "ideal" personality (low neuroticism but high in everything else) the Role Model. In Jungian typology there is no "ideal" type, just better or worse ways of operating within the type that you're given.

edit: Also the four correlates to Jungian type that this study suggests are:

ESxx (average), ISFJ (reserved), ENFJ (role model), ESTP (self-centred)

Of course, those correlations aren't going to line up well at all with the actual type distribution of people falling under those categories. There's probably some kind of connection though.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 00:57
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#7
I'd say it's not measuring how the brain works, but rather social archetypes that people tend to mold themselves into.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 00:57
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#9
Happy - Fi
Sad - Fi
Mad - Fe (actually, complicated, but can be Fe)
Stoic - Ti

The way I see it is:

happy - sad - Fi (good vs bad intrapersonal emotional state)
friendly - hostile - Fe (good vs bad interpersonal emotional state)
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today, 20:57
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,833
Location
th
#10
I guess that leads me to a very pseudo-ish theory that the MBTI functions are variables in a "function" that outputs a small array of Big 5 personalty values which could then be clustered by the Northwestern study.

Disclaimer: In this case, I mean obviously who knows what else gets effected by our MBTI functions other than the BIg 5.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 00:57
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#11
I guess that leads me to a very pseudo-ish theory that the MBTI functions are variables in a "function" that outputs a small array of Big 5 personalty values which could then be clustered by the Northwestern study.

Disclaimer: In this case, I mean obviously who knows what else gets effected by our MBTI functions other than the BIg 5.
Not totally sure what you mean, but basically our type is the hard-wiring of our brain, and then due to ingrained personal factors, and how we are choosing to/being prompted to act by our environment/circumstances, we will make use of our hard-wiring in a particular way which will give rise to a set of observable attributes/behaviours.

So, for example take an INFJ who overfocuses on Ti (relevant example for this forum). Then, although their hard-wiring is Ni, then Fe, then Ti etc. they will be emphasising Ti to the degree that they may seem like a Thinker, or be somewhere in the middle of the F/T dichotomy. They may also seem more like a P type. So this INFJ could show the traits associated with the dichotomies of INFJ, INTJ, INFP or INTP, and it would be difficult to tell which they were unless you identified the specific function set that they were using.

As Big 5 is more correlated to the dichotomy approach to types, the resulting behavioural pattern will have some particular associated dichotomy set (and it will be as a spectrum). There is a wide variety of expressions of a particular type, and if you can identify both the underlying cognitive pattern, and how that is being tangibly expressed, then you can deduce how the person differs from their natural inclinations.
 
Top Bottom