5 ms·
AFAIK the criticism comes down to the notion the 4 traits need to be viewed on a scale, not as a binary. I am under the impression the 4 traits do map fairly w
by the-dude 5y ago
AFAIK the criticism comes down to the notion the 4 traits need to be viewed on a scale, not as a binary.
I am under the impression the 4 traits do map fairly well to the 'big 5' [0] and there is little debate about that foundation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
- dragonwriter 5y ago> I am under the impression the 4 traits do map fairly well to the 'big 5' Of the four axes of types on MBTI, and ignoring weak correlations, two each have a strong correlation to a Big-5 axis, one has a moderate correlation to an Big-5 axes, and the other has moderate correlations (one somewhat stronger) to two Big-5 axes (the weaker of which is one of the ones another MBTI axes has a strong correlation with.)
- sabellito 5y agoWhile it's true that the theory talks about a spectrum, would you agree that's not how people (like the original comment) use it, given that everything is reduced to 4 letters, with no nuance? Whatever 4 letter combination becomes a "class", like "debater", and somehow it becomes appropriate to draw conclusions about a person based on that. The big 5 has also been criticized quite a bit. The wikipedia article has a good section on that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Critique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Cr...
- rpastuszak 5y agoThe big 5 is often considered simplistic, given the complex nature of human personality. It was called the “psychology of the stranger”.