Live data from Hacker News

A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

dynomight.net

251–260 of 261 posts

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side of that, I typically don't add a disclaimer about my heritage or political leaning before going into similar discussions, and it is hilarious that people assume I am a cisgender white male in order to invalidate anything I say. I also find it completely appalling how the "allies" act like female, trans and people of color have no ability to think for themselves or have different goals and opinions. T…

You clearly only think that way because of your internalised oppression /s

gigglesnort

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wildly successful is a term that would be better applied to item response theory models, the Big 5 (and personality psychology more generally) are at the leeches stage compared to them. That being said, it's much much harder to develop measures when you rely on other measures of the same type to validate them, which is where personality testing is right now.

By response theory do you mean behavior research by Skinner, Panksepp, etc? Yes, basically everything in personality psychology barely even registers compared to that, I agree that my comparison was too broad. A more reasonable statement might have been that Big 5 is wildly successful compared to other personality models . Thank you for the correction.

Nope, I meant item response theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item_response_theory

It's a much, much better method for designing and analysing questionnaires, and it is the foundation for all standardised testing (SAT, MCAT etc).

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neuroscience has a bit more behind it because it’s actually rooted in quantifiable measurements somewhat and even there it’s difficult. The problem still remains of how the physical measurements (even assuming we could measure them perfectly, which we definitely can't) relate to the internal experience. Any real theory of psychology/neuroscience needs to be able to explain that, and currently I'm not aware of any t…

Sounds like we're in agreement. What I hear you saying is that the current situation is likely worse than my pessimistic take on it, right? :).

My only disagreement with you was that neuroscience will solve the problem, which it almost certainly won't, at least in my lifetime (hopefully I'm wrong though).

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#254
The author is over simplifying evolution. A trait maybe passed on to children even though the parent isn't displaying it.

The easiest example of this across many species is homosexuality. As it seems obvious that it would reduce an individuals chances of having offspring. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths...

There is the added complexity that some positive traits are tied to negative traits. Meaning if the gene stops getting selected the positive trait goes away with the negative one.

And then there is culture. It is clear humans have become the dominant species of our planet (at least for now) and it is our culture and the technology it supports that enable this.

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Myers Briggs is astrology for people that scoff at astrology I will code switch between star signs and personality acronyms to get in your pants and assign zero weight to either

Technical analysis of securities is for people who scoff at both. I've often referred to it as "numerology for smart people."

As someone who implemented over 70 different indicators and close to 20 tools for drawing Gann fans, Fibonacci retracements and so on, I've heard a similar thing about technical analysis and astrology and very much concur :)

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#256
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the argument usually presented for intelligence testing.

My goodness, is intelligence testing now so taboo that this constitutes an argument?

Nope, just pointing out the commonality.

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you could get a prior over this without some really dubious assumptions. Plus, it's not what GGP described.

The prior is given by the score on the big five?

And do you combine that with something like an Occam's Razor formalism?

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those studies don’t separate preparation from raw performance they only suggest a self-reinforcing bias different from capability. Any correlation then is purely anecdotal.

The high correlation suggests that both preparation/study and raw intelligence are important in getting a high SAT score. If you sacrifice one of those two things, you'll get a low SAT score. If you have both, you'll get a high score.

> If you sacrifice one of those two things, you'll get a low SAT score. If you have both, you'll get a high score.

Even this is saying too much. I know someone who literally did two or three practice tests and got just shy of a 2400 (he got every q right and lost ten pts for his essay). There's nothing on the SAT that's difficult enough to need prep for a high school junior, with the possible exception of the permutation/combination qs.

Though note that this leaves a massive hole for those who are doing math at middle-school levels, which is true of a shocking fraction of the student population.

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#259

Of all of the personality traits I have attempted to change over the years, my introversion has remained the most stubborn. It's a shame, too. I can briefly emulate extraversion, at an enormous cost of mental energy and feel like a dog walking on its hind legs. Nor do I seem to be able to extract the purported benefits of it. And the list of approaches I have exhausted is, in retrospect, more than a little shocking.…

What does it mean to you to be extroverted or what kind of benefits do you want to achieve by emulating this trait(s)?

Personally, I really don't like this differentiation between introverts and extroverts because I don't see where I fit in on this scale. Reducing so many hard to define traits like empathy, compassion, charisma, social competence, emotional intelligence, etc. and all kind of personal experiences and habits to a single binary label doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Are you an introvert if you don't like to be around most people in your current environment but can't stop talking for hours when you're around people that you actually like?

Do you become introvert after an unfortunate series of events, which create serious trust issues and result in you staying at home more often instead of constantly going out like in the past?

Are you an extrovert when you can't be alone because then you will experiences constant FOMO, can't stop yourself from ruminating or need constant approvement from others and socializing whenever you can is your only coping mechanism.

Are you a real extrovert if you get along really good with a lot of strangers on a daily basis as part of your job but prefer to spend most of your free time alone reading, painting etc.?

Sometimes it looks almost like a self-fullfilling-prophecy when someone labels themself this way.

Re: A review of correlations between big five personality types and life outcomes

#260
post #20

I think a lot of this analysis is tautological -- meaning that when you boil it down, you're just saying that things are as you have defined them to be. For instance, take a Big Five trait such as agreeableness. How do we know that a person is agreeable? Because we define agreeableness in a certain way and then measure the degree to which someone conforms to the definition. If that measurement includes questions such…

Hum i did not know that word but i have thought allot about that.

Especially in relation to “neurological disorders” like ADHD. Where some people blame their ADHD for their behavior. Or basically anything that has to do with personality. It is clearly as you say tautological. You have a certain personality because you behave in a certain way, you don’t behave in a certain way cause you have a certain personality.

But then you have the fact that earlier personality can be used to predict future personality and future behavior. It is not causal but it is predictive.

Some people call that causal people in social science. I think that is twisting the definition of “causal”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

Post reply on HN