4 ms·
Generalizations like those need solid data to back them up. As it stands, it's just pushing a pseudo-psychological narrative.
by henriquemaia 6y ago
Generalizations like those need solid data to back them up. As it stands, it's just pushing a pseudo-psychological narrative.
- rlonn 6y agoHow do you know? Do you have solid data to support your statement?
- bmn__ 6y agoExplanation for your downvotes: GP's description is not a generalisation or pseudo-psychological, but reflects the current standard model of personality in psychology. http://enwp.org/OCEAN_model http://enwp.org/OCEAN_model
- henriquemaia 6y agoThanks for the link. Actually, I think the downvotes were somewhat deserved. I wasn't careful enough to set the proper tone of my critique. In any case, I just wanted to point out here on HN we value those who back up their claims with good data. You did this. So, thanks.
- dwd 6y agoYou may also have been thinking of Myers-Briggs which is pseudo-scientific nonsense and quite worthless given the ease it can be gamed when answering the questions.
- antepodius 6y agoI'm pretty sure the big 5 model was developed from data directly, not from a pre-existing theoretical model. I.e. they just made big personality tests and then checked how many factors there seemed to be, and it came out to 5.
- henriquemaia 6y agoThe model is not without its fair share of criticisms. Check out this section on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Critique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Cr...