Big Five

Today I thought I would share some of my thoughts on the big five factor model to personality mapping. It is one of the most accepted and widely used methods of personality mapping. Essentially this model boils down a plethora of adjectives and traits that could be used to describe a person’s personality into five comprehensive scales. There are a number of tests that one can find on the internet to map one’s personality. Though there are sometimes different synonyms to name the five factors, they are generally openness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness.

I took two of these internet tests for good measure. Both tests ended up being pretty similar. I scored very high on both openness and extroversion in both tests. This means that I have a tendency to be curious and open to art and learning, as well as talkative and sociable. I fell average on agreeableness, meaning that I am a mix of trusting and friendly as well as aggressive. I scored mildly high on neuroticism. This means that I have a tendency to be less relaxed. The score that I was lowest on was conscientious. This implies that I am disorganized, and perhaps can become distracted from tasks.

There are a great deal of uses for this particular scale, mostly in research, but I think there are still issues. Firstly, it becomes tempting to make broad assertions about an individual because of how they score on these particular scales. For instance, if one were to score lowly on a factor such as conscientiousness it may be because they are disorganized, yet the score also implies that they are easily distracted. This is actually strange to me, because I have read a number of articles and papers that suggest that messy desks and disorganized workspace are actually a signs of a more efficient thinker.

Another issue with the big five testing is the way we have to gain that information. It is through self survey, and there is always a problem with that. I did a bit a research recently about the psychological difference between the Japanese and those in the United States. They used the five factor model to compare the two peoples, and found that the Japanese scored significantly worse on all aspects than the Americans when scoring themselves, yet higher when scoring one another. The conclusion that was reached was that those in the United States were far more apt to be critical of others, and bolster their own scores, while the Japanese were more critical of themselves, and complimentary to others. This tendency for the Japanese to be humble, and the Americans to not be, shows that how one decides to answer can skew the results of a test like this.

In the end, it is still a relatively effective and useful way to gauge one’s personality, or at very least how one views themselves, or wishes others to view them. There may never be a perfect way to map personality. I think that is why it is so interesting. People are interesting.

Take one of the tests. How did you score? What do you think this says about your personality? Do you think it is accurate? Answer honestly, because you will only be lying to yourself.

Come back next time, where I will be discussing Ellis’s sixth personality trait: scientific thinking.

Persona and hip hop

Carl Jung discussed the idea of the persona, saying that it was the impression, or mask that one puts on to interact with the world. I am not really one for Jungian psychology, but this idea of the persona is something that persists in our culture. In modern everyday language, we use the term to talk about a character that an actor plays, or even sometimes a different personality one can evince.

I was enjoying a bit of hip hop music, and one line in a song got me thinking about this idea, and the interesting relationship of hip hop and the use of persona. In much of rap and hip hop music, the artist uses a persona, or creates a character to rap as. They choose symbolic, clever, or simple alternative names, and the content of the music is not always real to that individual’s life, desires, actions, or even ideas. Some rappers even have multiple personas, and sometimes these personas even end up in conflict with one another. Artists in other genres sometimes can develop persona such as this, but hip hop is unique in that the persona takes center stage, and stands directly in the spotlight in the content of the music. Hip hop artists often make references to his/her persona by name, making their alternate identity clear.

I see these personas as fragments of the individual’s personality; a small aspect of who they are, like a lens through which they can express those which are normally hidden or understated thoughts and feelings. By creating these personas, they give a voice to different aspects of their personality, and can indulge often ignored desires. I think this can be used as a cathartic release. Perhaps by telling stories through these personas, they can give listeners a glimpse into a dormant part of their personality.

Many have said that good art is a reflection of the artist, and I think hip hop is no different. Though, I would assume, just as there are paintings and books that are crafted without feeling or self reflection, there would be a fair share of hollow hip hop, that just goes through the motions that the real hip hop artists are presenting. I just think the presentation of the art by the artist through persona in hip hop is an intriguing phenomenon. Just a quick thought. Perhaps I will follow up on it later. Thanks for reading.

Ellis and Healthy Personalities #5: Flexibility

Ellis, in describing the nine personality traits that make up a healthy personality, defines flexibility as being able to remain “intellectually flexible.” He then goes on to say that this involves being open to change and incorporating an unbigoted view of the variations of people, ideas, and things in the world. I don’t think that the majority of people would consider being open to change, and having unbigoted views toward the varied difference in the world as negative, or undesirable qualities, and most people would agree that these are things that most people could use more of.

The one part of Ellis’s explanation here that may cause some confusion is the idea of intellectual flexibility. In order to understand what being intellectually flexible means, one must examine what it means to be intellectually stubborn, stagnate, or dogmatic. When we get invested in particular ideas, to a point where we lose the ability to consider other perspectives or examine our own ideas objectively, we become intellectually stagnant. This happens quite often actually, in politics in particular. In politics, often two sides of an argument become more deeply entrenched in their own position as a debate or discussion carries on. When one is intellectually dogmatic in a particular idea, they also become more susceptible to logical fallacies, which they fall victim to in order to prevent pressure on the ideas they have become so steadfast and fervent in protecting, as if any give in their resolve would ruin the sanctity of their core ideas. Such fallacies as ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies, and over generalizations help one avoid confronting their own intellectual stubbornness.

In this way, I feel that intellectual flexibility and acceptance of uncertainty are essentially tied at the hip. When one holds a particular position, but can honestly say that they may be wrong, and that sufficient evidence against their point could sway them, they are evincing an acceptance that they are not entirely certain of their claim, and the intellectual flexibility to change, adapt, and continue in light of new evidence. That is not to say that the best position to take on any subject is one of “I don’t know, whatever,” but there is a healthy level of doubt and flexibility that individuals can exhibit. This is actually the backbone of scientific inquiry: To be able to test a hypothesis, and respect the outcome, whether it proves you right, wrong, or suppresses you with an unexpected outcome.

These two traits, when combined, can cause what some may describe as a sincere modesty. Many consider modesty to be a good thing, but on the other side of the coin, there is also quite a bit of admiration displayed in some media for the stoic, unwavering idealist, passionate about his cause, never losing faith in his ideas, even against the strongest winds of change. Is one who fights against opposing views with such passion actually a good thing to look up to? Are there some good qualities in this kind of personality? Perhaps the reality lies in the balance. Being able to reasonably change, and flex one’s ideas in the face of new evidence, yet also being fervent enough to fight for them in the first place, may be a very difficult, but manageable.

This actually reminds me of chapter 76 of the Tao Te Ching, on flexibility. This passage reads:

A man is born gentle and weak.
At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap.
At their death they are withered and dry.

Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death.
The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.

Thus an army without flexibility never wins a battle.
A tree that is unbending is easily broken.

The hard and strong will fall.
The soft and weak will overcome.

Sometimes it amazes me how insightful things like this can be. Perhaps it is the cultural lens that I am viewing it through, but passages such as this, and some of the philosophies that accompany many marital arts, promote a great deal of practices, ideas, and mindsets, that are adaptive and healthy. A quick internet search shows that many people agree. There a plethora of sites that connects the practice of martial arts with emotional and mental well being. Perhaps that is a discussion for another time.

Wow, I strayed a bit that time. Oh well, it was fun. Please come back bi-weekly for more. Next time I will began discussing the “big five” factor model, and after that Ellis’s number 6 personality trait for healthy personalities: scientific thinking.