3 ms·
Big 5 isn't particularly good, and hopefully no-one says it is (except when they follow up with a "compared to MB"). And unlike MB, it doesn't claim to be anyth
by wisty 14y ago
Big 5 isn't particularly good, and hopefully no-one says it is (except when they follow up with a "compared to MB"). And unlike MB, it doesn't claim to be anything deep or fundamental. It is just a lens which might be useful, and that's what it says on the tin.
The most important part of Big5 (IMO) is that it gets away from archetypes. Changing "introvert / extrovert" to "level of introversion / extroversion" is very important.
- disgruntledphd2 14y agoWell the constant refusal of Costa and McCrae to accept the results of confirmatory factor analyses is what gets me. To argue that personality must necessarily have a different method because the current method does not agree with your (essentially qualitative) conclusions is not science in my view. Certainly in my areas (social especially) there's a lot of flag waving for the Big 5 which really upsets me. Then, when I told my lecturers during the course of my PhD that all psychologists should have to learn a little matrix algebra i was essentially laughed at. Unfortuntately, until they do, stupid over interpretations of flawed statistical models are likely to remain commonplace.