6 ms·

> the whole field of Big Five is fundamentally a fraud Do you have more reading? The Big 5 is hardly perfect and merits critique, but to call it "fundamentally

> the whole field of Big Five is fundamentally a fraud Do you have more reading? The Big 5 is hardly perfect and merits critique, but to call it "fundamentally a fraud" frankly feels like the conclusion of a "topic tourist" that read 1-2 critiques and made up their mind. It's not theoretically-derived, it relies on factor analysis, its utility does not all cultures, the five traits are not fully orthogonal. I'm not here to champion it. But comparing Big 5 to Positivity Ratios or Power Posing seems hyperbolic at best, particularly given its usage in situations where validity must be demonstrated. But I've changed my mind on a lot of things. I'm prepared to change my mind on this if you've seen or read something I haven't.

JackFr 5y ago
Consider the whole type A personality thing - it's pure nonsense from a scientific perspective (created by tobacco companies to explain why certain people [smokers] had more heart attacks.) But at this point it's still a useful cultural shorthand to describe certain characteristics we subjectively experience in others.
- HelloMcFly 5y ago
  Yes, but that's a) not the Big 5, and 2) the worst example of personality tests/models where you're put into a category (which will show very low reliability over time, even if your responses show some).
runarberg 5y ago
It’s been a while since I was studying this topic but if I remember correctly, there is fundamental problem of a lack of justification for operational definition in the whole field of psychometrics. This applies to most (all) personality tests including the big 5. Because the whole theory is based around cluster analysis it is pretty important that you can justify the data that is going into the analysis if you want it to be reveling any truth outside of the model, otherwise you end up with what is called “junk-in-junk-out”. As far as I know, this justification is still lacking 40 years after this theory surfaced. I think that the big 5—and personality psychology in general—might not have the same glaring issues as positive psychology. But solid science it is not. Fraud might be overreaching, but I would definitely categorize it as pseudoscience.
- HelloMcFly 5y ago
  I appreciate your response, but think I'd have to read more to be nearly as convinced as you. I'm familiar with the critiques you mention, but your conclusion as to the model's merits go beyond what I've seen other critiques make. As a model grounded in theory it is lacking, but as an explanatory construct to predict patterns of behavior and outcomes in specific settings (e.g., knowledge work) it persists for a reason. I've peer reviewed papers criticizing it, but none "debunking" it. Personally my biggest gripe personally is that it is represented as a model of total personality, but that's definitely not true. It's just just representing a larger "personality space" than most other constructs. At least the outcome isn't placing one into a discrete category.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    When I was doing psychology over a decade ago personality psychology was actually my biggest gripe. The way that I saw it, was that it wasn’t explaining anything which didn’t have better explanation using a different theory. Now a decade later—being a little more class conscious—I can actually see how this is problematic. When a better explanation can come from sociology and has to do with class and economic status, measuring people based on a theory that lacks justification to justify one hire over another is problematic. When you ascribe it was because of an operationally defined concept (read: made up; based on data analysis) and name it personality that seems like a lame excuse to hire from your ingroup and excluding your outgroup. These tests are robust, I know that, however robustness alone is not enough to justify a theory. These tools might be useful (or they may be dangerous) but while there is no justification for the operationally defined terms it cannot be used to justify terms outside of the model. That is pseudoscience. You can only to explain things inside of the model, and as such it is pretty limited as a theory.
    - HelloMcFly 5y ago
      I agree that the label "personality" unreasonably implies some sort of real (possibly for many, "genetic") truth. > When a better explanation can come from sociology Explanation for what? Behavior generally? In that case, the Big 5 is less of the predictor and more the criterion. The Big 5 is not a theory, it's a taxonomy that emerged from trait theory. It describes, it clusters, it predicts, but in and of itself it doesn't explain. > ... seems like a lame excuse to hire from your ingroup and excluding your outgroup. When it comes to hiring in the United States this is literally the opposite of the biggest use-case for personality testing for the past 50 years. But that's the only domain I can speak confidently on, and that doesn't include class or SES as a subgroup. > there is no justification for the operationally defined terms This is subjective, and I do not agree. If your critique of The Big 5 is actually a critique of trait theory more generally, I'm there for that. But a taxonomy for observable behaviors that shows reliability as well as content, convergent, and predictive validity across many populations and contexts seems justified to me barring a superior option. The Big 5 is not and never would be a grand theory of human behavior, but it does describe actual behavior in a way that is interpretable and connected to the world we actually inhabit.
wmil 5y ago
This seems like the perfect time to pull out the old phrase: "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." Big 5 seems useful.
- karpierz 5y ago
  Useful for what?
  - wmil 5y ago
    People need to understand that different personality types exist and have some idea about the different traits that people have. It's common to assume everyone thinks like you, then to read spite into their actions. Here's a good article loosely related: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/baTWMegR42PAsH9qJ/generalizing-from-one-example https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/baTWMegR42PAsH9qJ/generalizi...
- setgree 5y ago
  When I cite such things, it's because "all models are wrong, but mine are useful" :) And yeah I think big five is useful in the above context, and also for things like this: https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/keeping-up-with-the-fits-114 https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/keeping-up-with-the-fits-... "Empirically, men and women to tend to differ on the trait that personality psychology calls agreeableness. More women show up as high in agreeableness than men. [As an aside, I once wrote Nassim Taleb and the Disagreeables. Nassim Taleb’s latest book heaps praise on the trait that personality psychologists call low agreeableness. . . I am pretty far out on the disagreeable end of the spectrum myself, but Taleb makes me look like a goody two-shoes. Taleb came across the essay and tweeted this response: There is this BS in this "disagreebleness" scale used by psychologists, unconditional of domain. Like most psych categorizations, BS. Many are socially gentle but intellectually rigorous & no-nonsense: others nasty in person but appear gentle in public . BS! I rest my case.]"

JackFr 5y ago

Consider the whole type A personality thing - it's pure nonsense from a scientific perspective (created by tobacco companies to explain why certain people [smokers] had more heart attacks.) But at this point it's still a useful cultural shorthand to describe certain characteristics we subjectively experience in others.

HelloMcFly 5y ago
Yes, but that's a) not the Big 5, and 2) the worst example of personality tests/models where you're put into a category (which will show very low reliability over time, even if your responses show some).

runarberg 5y ago

It’s been a while since I was studying this topic but if I remember correctly, there is fundamental problem of a lack of justification for operational definition in the whole field of psychometrics. This applies to most (all) personality tests including the big 5. Because the whole theory is based around cluster analysis it is pretty important that you can justify the data that is going into the analysis if you want it to be reveling any truth outside of the model, otherwise you end up with what is called “junk-in-junk-out”. As far as I know, this justification is still lacking 40 years after this theory surfaced. I think that the big 5—and personality psychology in general—might not have the same glaring issues as positive psychology. But solid science it is not. Fraud might be overreaching, but I would definitely categorize it as pseudoscience.

HelloMcFly 5y ago
I appreciate your response, but think I'd have to read more to be nearly as convinced as you. I'm familiar with the critiques you mention, but your conclusion as to the model's merits go beyond what I've seen other critiques make. As a model grounded in theory it is lacking, but as an explanatory construct to predict patterns of behavior and outcomes in specific settings (e.g., knowledge work) it persists for a reason. I've peer reviewed papers criticizing it, but none "debunking" it. Personally my biggest gripe personally is that it is represented as a model of total personality, but that's definitely not true. It's just just representing a larger "personality space" than most other constructs. At least the outcome isn't placing one into a discrete category.
- runarberg 5y ago
  When I was doing psychology over a decade ago personality psychology was actually my biggest gripe. The way that I saw it, was that it wasn’t explaining anything which didn’t have better explanation using a different theory. Now a decade later—being a little more class conscious—I can actually see how this is problematic. When a better explanation can come from sociology and has to do with class and economic status, measuring people based on a theory that lacks justification to justify one hire over another is problematic. When you ascribe it was because of an operationally defined concept (read: made up; based on data analysis) and name it personality that seems like a lame excuse to hire from your ingroup and excluding your outgroup. These tests are robust, I know that, however robustness alone is not enough to justify a theory. These tools might be useful (or they may be dangerous) but while there is no justification for the operationally defined terms it cannot be used to justify terms outside of the model. That is pseudoscience. You can only to explain things inside of the model, and as such it is pretty limited as a theory.
  - HelloMcFly 5y ago
    I agree that the label "personality" unreasonably implies some sort of real (possibly for many, "genetic") truth. > When a better explanation can come from sociology Explanation for what? Behavior generally? In that case, the Big 5 is less of the predictor and more the criterion. The Big 5 is not a theory, it's a taxonomy that emerged from trait theory. It describes, it clusters, it predicts, but in and of itself it doesn't explain. > ... seems like a lame excuse to hire from your ingroup and excluding your outgroup. When it comes to hiring in the United States this is literally the opposite of the biggest use-case for personality testing for the past 50 years. But that's the only domain I can speak confidently on, and that doesn't include class or SES as a subgroup. > there is no justification for the operationally defined terms This is subjective, and I do not agree. If your critique of The Big 5 is actually a critique of trait theory more generally, I'm there for that. But a taxonomy for observable behaviors that shows reliability as well as content, convergent, and predictive validity across many populations and contexts seems justified to me barring a superior option. The Big 5 is not and never would be a grand theory of human behavior, but it does describe actual behavior in a way that is interpretable and connected to the world we actually inhabit.

wmil 5y ago

This seems like the perfect time to pull out the old phrase: "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." Big 5 seems useful.

karpierz 5y ago
Useful for what?
- wmil 5y ago
  People need to understand that different personality types exist and have some idea about the different traits that people have. It's common to assume everyone thinks like you, then to read spite into their actions. Here's a good article loosely related: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/baTWMegR42PAsH9qJ/generalizing-from-one-example https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/baTWMegR42PAsH9qJ/generalizi...
setgree 5y ago
When I cite such things, it's because "all models are wrong, but mine are useful" :) And yeah I think big five is useful in the above context, and also for things like this: https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/keeping-up-with-the-fits-114 https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/keeping-up-with-the-fits-... "Empirically, men and women to tend to differ on the trait that personality psychology calls agreeableness. More women show up as high in agreeableness than men. [As an aside, I once wrote Nassim Taleb and the Disagreeables. Nassim Taleb’s latest book heaps praise on the trait that personality psychologists call low agreeableness. . . I am pretty far out on the disagreeable end of the spectrum myself, but Taleb makes me look like a goody two-shoes. Taleb came across the essay and tweeted this response: There is this BS in this "disagreebleness" scale used by psychologists, unconditional of domain. Like most psych categorizations, BS. Many are socially gentle but intellectually rigorous & no-nonsense: others nasty in person but appear gentle in public . BS! I rest my case.]"