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.

Optical Illusions

Gestalt psychology is a topic that is a bit off of the path that I usually take. Where my usual topics are related to personality theories and the like, the Gestalt psychology is a set of rules and observations that relate more to the way our brain works to process the information that we perceive.

In the Gestalt package, there are six laws:

• Law of good figure - Stimulus patterns are seen so that the perceived structures are as simple as possible.
• Law of similarity – Similar items are grouped together.
• Law of good continuation – Points that, when connected create a striate or smooth curve, are seen as belonging together.
• Law of nearness – Things near one another appear to be grouped
• Law of common fate – Things moving in the same direction appear to be grouped together.
• Law of familiarity – Things are more likely to form groups if those groups would be familiar or meaningful.

These laws, along with other attributes of our perception such as motion and color perception, can be used to explain and create interesting and fun optical illusions found at your local internet web site, such as here.

I have personally observed something interesting though. Most people that I have talked with about optical illusions said that while some optical illusions seem to work on them, others do not come across as strongly. This made me think that perhaps there was a natural susceptibility to optical illusions. I looked into it a bit, and found that there has indeed been some research into the effects of unilateral brain lesions and their effect on the perception of optical illusions. The abstract of the research can be found here. This research shows that some lesions on the brain do affect the strength of the illusions. As a side note, the research also shows that the hemisphere of the brain in which the lesion is placed does not seem to matter.

Anyway, this has me wondering about biological susceptibility. I think that some people are just more prone to some optical illusions. The one question that I keep asking myself is: Is susceptibility to optical illusions a sign that one's perception is stronger or weaker? Lesions weakening the perception of illusions would suggest that the strength of an optical illusion is a sign of healthy perception, but in some cases, I can see the advantages of not being confused or tricked by particular optical illusions. I suppose I am taking a far too broad and simplistic a stance on "optical illusions." Many play on different aspects of perception, and likely function on differing parts of the brain.

The illusion that gets to me the most is the breathing box, while the hidden bird illusion does not work on me. I can see it no matter what. What illusions are your favorites? Which illusions work well on you, and what ones are lost on your perception?

Next week I will discuss Ellis's fifth trait, flexibility, and the time after that I will start talking about the "Big Five." As always, thanks for reading.

Ellis’s fifth trait of a healthy personality: Flexibility.

Hold up.

In the last few weeks I have been pretty swamped with final projects for some of my classes, so I have been unable to work on the next post. I will need to postpone the post until next week, after my projects and finals are finished. I apologize, but maintaining my GPA is priority at the moment. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

Ellis and Healthy Personalities #4: Acceptance of Uncertainty

Ellis’s fourth trait of health personalities is acceptance of uncertainty. I feel that the wording here is pretty self explanatory, and the rationale behind this can be easily deciphered. The world is a naturally uncertain place. Regardless of numerous claims and attempts, there is no definitive and accurate way to decipher future events. There are many ways to react to the undeniable uncertainty of the world. Many have constructed elaborate scenarios and conspiracies in their minds to feign some understanding of the world’s workings, take practice in various rituals to promote luck so that they may have some control of the future, or turn to theology to provide some assured and definitive certainty in their lives. It is not a big leap to say that failure to accept the uncertainty that exists in life may lead to fear and anxiety. One of the cornerstones of Ellis’s idea of psychotherapy was to aid the individual into becoming minimally anxious. In this line of logic, gaining some acceptance of the uncertain future can help reduce one’s anxiety. This is a pretty simple idea to grasp, but there are a few finer points that could use some exploration.

What does it mean to accept uncertainty? Well, I believe that acceptance in this particular context comes in a few stages. Firstly, to accept something, one must first acknowledge it. Acceptance can not come from escapism, and hiding from the frightening idea of vast possibility and unknowable future only surrenders to the anxiety caused by lack of knowledge. Being able to acknowledge the uncertainty means that an individual can, when there is a lack of sufficient evidence, shrug one’s shoulders and say “I don’t know.” I don’t know what will happen, I don’t know how this will work, and I don’t know what is going on. Secondly, and likely a bit harder, is being okay with it. This is a complicated thing to do, with a simple way to say it. So now we can add “but that’s okay” to the end of our “I don’t know.” Thirdly, there is a healthy desire to investigate the unknown through exploration and discovery, rather than attempting to control the unknown through speculation and superstition.

One thing that I have been doing lately is a great deal of cross cultural research. One of the methods that researchers use to identify differences in cultures is Geert Hofsted’s five cultural dimensions. One of these dimensions in which cultural context is defined is avoidance of uncertainty. This means that an entire culture’s tendency to avoid or explore the unknown and uncertainty is one of the five traits that researchers have agreed are vital enough, and universal enough, to define the cultural context and pattern of thought of an entire people by. This means that avoidance of uncertainty is a cultural thing. It varies widely, depending on a plethora of cultural and theological factors. Also, across cultures the definitions and attitudes regarding healthy personalities differ. Admittedly, this casts some doubt on the use of Ellis’s model for a healthy personality across varying cultures. On the other hand, there are great similarities in many western cultures, and that is the cultural context that both I and Ellis reside. So, in the cultural context in which I live, is the same in which this concept was created and is applicable. This works for me, as this is the context that I plan on working in. Yet I think it is good to know where an idea falters, and where the weaknesses lie.

Next time I will begin discussing Gestalt psychology, and the time after that I will be discussing Ellis’s fifth trait of a healthy personality: Flexibility.

The Words You Use

Recently I have had a few spammers flaming my blog, so I have had to begin moderating my comments. I will still approve dissenting opinions, as long as they are thought out, and constructive. I am not one to stock the pond with only true believers; I just don’t want my readership to be exposed to the kind of silliness the internet can breed. It is a shame that I had to do this, but that is the risk you take being on the internet. Now, I know most of you that do read approach me personally with comments and discussion, which is fine, but as always feel free to make comments. And as always, just you being on the page increases my numbers, which makes me look good, and increases my visibility on search engines and the like. So I thank each and every one of you for your patronage.

As far as my progress goes, every day that passes, I get just that much closer to getting my Bachelors of Science in Psychology. It will be very soon, and by next fall I will be sending out my grad school applications. It is exciting to look at the possible doctoral programs that I am eligible for. Many of them will take me to a far-away place for a great deal of time. I am actually kind of overwhelmed with all of the prospective directions I could move in. I have a particular passion for personality psychology, but there are other focuses that peak my interest. So as the day of sending out my doctoral program applications approaches, it becomes a process of comparing schools and weighing options.

Anyway, let us move onto the psychology discussion. While I do find other aspects of psychology interesting, I am drawn more toward that of REBT and other kinds of CBT. As you may have noticed, a great deal of my posts have been heavy on the cognitive behavioral side of personality theory. I do in fact appreciate other avenues, but this is my personal blog, so I decided to discuss topics that I find the most alluring, and psychotherapy, REBT, and interpersonal relationships are what I find to be the most fascinating.

One of the central pillars of the REBT ideals is the continuing internal struggle against irrational beliefs. These irrational beliefs come in a lot of forms, and one particular form that Ellis took issue with was what he called “musterbation.” In his book “How to control your anxiety before it controls you,” Ellis describes this musterbation as the “absolutistic Musts, Shoulds, Oughts, and other Demands” that we make on ourselves. Some of the most common, and most problem causing musts are directed at one’s self (e.g. “I MUST be clever, smart, successful, etc. . . . or it is awful”), directed at others (e.g. “Others MUST treat me well, fairly, pay attention to me, or I can’t handle it), and directed at the environment (e.g. “Life MUST be easy and without complications, otherwise I cannot cope”). These are the kinds of internal statements that can create the foundation for irrational beliefs.

‘Must’ statements are not the only kind of irrational statements. Almost any definitive statement can work its way into creating irrational beliefs. One kind of irrational statement that I have personally noticed often abused is “need.” Many people tell themselves that they need things that they in reality do not, that things need to be a certain way when other ways are functional, and that certain components in life are required to make it of value. The ‘need’ definitive can often be used interchangeably with the ‘must’ definitive, but there are a few subtle distinctions that make the two differ. The difference that I would like to point out is that ‘need’ is more often used by people to impose their own desires onto others, and in doing so, wrap up their own wellbeing into that of the other individual’s. An example of this would be when someone evinces that a friend “needs a man/women to complete their life.”

These statements are often visceral and automatic, like a reflex. They enter our minds as reactions to events, and without intervening circumstances, they can persist and foster irrational base beliefs that we begin using to make decisions. With conscious effort, we can resist these unnecessary musts. This aids us in becoming minimally anxious. We can replace phrases such as “I MUST achieve x” to a more flexible and amendable “achieving x would be preferable, and the realistic consequences of not achieving x is y.” Replacing MUST and NEED with ‘it would be preferable’ gives us an option of failure, and the notion that when things do not go as we prefer, it is not the end of the world. In this way, we can rationally weigh options, instead of attempting to live up to unreasonable expectations that we lay on ourselves, and catastrophizing when we as humans inevitably fail at something. When we do this, we open a door for discussion and questioning of what we desire, and what we find preferable. We can analyze evidence provided, weigh the consequences, and consider all avenues of action. This allows us to not live by definitive, irrational beliefs based on visceral reactions, but to operate on reason and consideration.

Above and beyond the “war on musterbation,” as Ellis called it, I think internal word choice can matter. It may blur the line between psychology and philosophy, but I think that the practice of e-prime may have psychological benefits, much as the semantics and word choice that Ellis talks about do. The e-prime form of the English language sets out to eliminate all definitive wording. If one were to use e-prime, they would eliminate all words derived from ‘to be.’ Is, are, am, is not, and all words that imply strict, rigid, and definitive existence, become replace with “appears to” and “seems to.” This use of language reflects a lack of absolutism, can help with the expansion of scientific thinking, and create a psychological environment of skepticism of perception that can be healthy. One classic example of e-prime is the example of a man observing a field of grass. He can say to himself “the grass is green” and rely completely on his senses, or he can say “the grass appears green,” thus taking information from his senses, while also using rationality to leave open the possibility that his senses are wrong. Like I said, this idea floats a bit closer to philosophy, but it is one worthy of a bit of consideration. The biggest problem with e-prime is the difficulty. I do try to use it sometimes, but it is a very difficult habit to keep up, and I am not very good at it currently.

In the future I will try to post little discussions between my bi-weekly bigger posts. Also, I promise after I finish with Ellis’s personality traits I will explore other territory. Anywho, come back next time for Ellis and Healthy Personalities #4: acceptance of uncertainty. And later down the pipe I will be talking about perception and Gestalt psychology.