# Big 5 test correlation?



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

I don't think it maps over, tbh... 


because O vs C is Open vs Conventional which isn't S/N at all
nor is Agreeable vs Guarded... like, that doesn't indicate F/T either


what do you guys think?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I find it pretty hard to believe that anyone could look at the items on the NEO-PI-R (the most-used Big Five test, I believe) and the official MBTI and fail to conclude that, notwithstanding some noteworthy differences, the MBTI and Big Five are (each in their own imperfect way) tapping into the same underlying personality clusters.

That's certainly the conclusion McCrae and Costa — the leading Big Five psychologists, and the creators of the NEO-PI-R — arrived at. Based on the data they reviewed, they concluded that "each of the four [MBTI] indices showed impressive evidence of convergence with one of the five major dimensions of normal personality."


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

I always get "RIOGS" when I take the big 5 test, and imo that corresponds WAAAAAAAAAAY more to IxFP types than INTP... like, the riogs description was actually pretty good, and there's no way I'm INTP. 



And how in the Hell does a perceiving preference dictate your openness to ideas and experiences? 
And you can be a feeling type and guarded.... the "G" in Big 5 would make more sense mapped to Fi/Te to me imo.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@reckful do you have any more links on that - or your own paraphrase of what you read? Apparently I can't get in to the site to read more because I'm not a researcher.

The thing about the big five (to me anyway) is that it doesn't tell me what would be useful, I mean someone who is more structured or open or organized - people DO structuring in different ways. The conscientious thing I get, some tests use the word compliant - I prefer people who are a little bit flexible - thats what I test as - flexible.

But the neurotic thing - I think there are many brands of that - and if I hire someone I want to know if the brand is Si, or Ni because Si neurotic might as well be a brick wall or somebody I have to babysit - by comparison to other neurotic tendencies. Fi can have a tinge of neuroses but I know how to deal with and maybe even benefit from that kind. Do you know what I mean? Anybody?

I'm not bad mouthing any type, I'm speaking from ease of communication and cooperation (for me) standpoint.

@Oprah open vs conventional DOES sound a lot like the struggle between Ne and Si - to me.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> Si neurotic might as well be a brick wall or somebody I have to babysit


um...



Old Intern said:


> I'm not bad mouthing any type, I'm speaking from ease of communication and cooperation (for me) standpoint.


sure.




Old Intern said:


> @Oprah open vs conventional DOES sound a lot like the struggle between Ne and Si - to me.


Ne/Si/Ni/Se are all about how we perceive information... so I'd love to hear how it correlates to one's "openness to experience."


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> @reckful do you have any more links on that - or your own paraphrase of what you read? Apparently I can't get in to the site to read more because I'm not a researcher.


Click on the pic on the upper right side of the page to read the full article.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

@reckful @Old Intern

actually, from my big 5 results it seems they marked "Openness to experience" with 6 different categories.


1. Imagination Self-explanatory. You can argue N for this. One point N.

2. Artistic Interests  Talks about appreciation for the beauty of things and the appreciation for the aesthetic and importance of art. This, imo, has *nothing* to do with being N/S and actually maybe even points a little more to S when it talks about aesthetics. Talks about appreciation for *nature* which has often been attributed to Se. 

3. Emotionality  _"People with high scores on emotionality have a good awareness of their feelings"_ Again... *nothing* to do with S/N.

4. Adventurousness  Like to try new things and don't like routines... which COULD be attributed to N/S, but not really.

5. Intellect Don't even fucking try. 

6. Progressivism Prone to challenge authority. Again, nothing to do with S/N.





So.... there's 6 things and MAYBE 1 of them points to a N preferences whereas most don't, and some even might point to an S preference.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Oprah said:


> um...
> 
> 
> sure.
> ...


How we perceive information having nothing to do with openness - are you kidding me?

Open-ness can be open to ideas too. Si takes forever to get comfortable with something - needs several sources or historical context, familiarity - this is hard for me to be patient with. Ni might not hear you if you are not using what it recognizes as appropriate jargon but NI is open, curious by nature - just more careful and detailed and focused than NE.

You could argue that Se is the most open to experience but it is not open as much as moving toward satisfaction?
This is where Ne and Se overlap in the sense of being adaptable which could also be labeled as open - and then you go back to the P/J thing that some typologists and scientist have disagreement about. You could debate is P/J avoidance of commitment and pref for messiness, resentment of structure and discipline - or is it protection of having the mental space for openness.

Thank You @reckful - from what I read, the problems are all about *language* and how to make *testing* that has any shot at accurate measurement - not so much that Jung's ideas are not real or not feasible and useful.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> @reckful @Old Intern
> 
> actually, from my big 5 results it seems they marked "Openness to experience" with 6 different categories.


The NEO-PI-R breaks each of the Big Five factors down into six "facets," and the "Step II" version of the MBTI breaks each of the four MBTI dimensions into five "facets," and both typologies take the position that, with respect to each dimension, somebody's facets can be a mix of the two sides — e.g., you can come out T on three of the T/F facets and F on the other two.

So it all gets potentially messy and complicated — under _both_ typologies — if you move down to the facet level, and it remains to be seen whether either typology's "facets" really correspond to something real in terms of the underlying biology, etc.

But if you set the facets aside and just focus on the relationship between the five main Big Five dimensions and the four MBTI dichotomies (and those are the categories that can make respectable claims to scientific validity at this point), then, as I already noted, I really don't think there's much question that — although there are unquestionably significant differences between the two typologies in terms of _exactly_ what each dimension is said to involve — the two typologies (each in its own imperfect way) are tapping into the same real underlying human personality dimensions.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Ive taken a few of these tests. They always say I'm lazy to a fault, plain looking, and hate humanity with no remorse. One test straight up said I'm an atheist within the first 3 words. Does that mean they will call a super giving and happy go lucky person a christian? The assumptions were too bold and more often than not incorrect. The only thing the test could understand was introverted vs extroverted tendencies.

Big 5 tends to use quite a lot of negative language on points many people consider positive.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> The NEO-PI-R breaks each of the Big Five factors down into six "facets," and the "Step II" version of the MBTI breaks each of the four MBTI dimensions into five "facets," and both typologies take the position that, with respect to each dimension, somebody's facets can be a mix of the two sides — e.g., you can come out T on three of the T/F facets and F on the other two.
> 
> So it all gets potentially messy and complicated — under _both_ typologies — if you move down to the facet level, and it remains to be seen whether either typology's "facets" really correspond to something real in terms of the underlying biology, etc.
> 
> But if you set the facets aside and just focus on the relationship between the five main Big Five dimensions and the four MBTI dichotomies (and those are the categories that can make respectable claims to scientific validity at this point), then, as I already noted, I really don't think there's much question that — although there are unquestionably significant differences between the two typologies in terms of _exactly_ what each dimension is said to involve — the two typologies (each in its own imperfect way) are tapping into the same real underlying human personality dimensions.



Wasn't the entire point of Big 5 because they found mbti insufficient?


In any case... to say _"N corresponds to open-mindedness"_ is rude, offensive, snobby, and incorrect.


OT: weren't you the same person who argued _"99% of university students are N's. 99% of artists are N's. S's are the people who work jobs that don't require thinking."_ 
yea, I don't know how valid your arguments will be here...


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Oprah said:


> Wasn't the entire point of Big 5 because they found mbti insufficient?
> 
> 
> In any case... to say _"N corresponds to open-mindedness"_ is rude, offensive, snobby, and incorrect.
> ...


The history of the Big 5 is independent of MBTI. The Big Five is based on personality traits (something which the MBTI is not). They took the 4000+ trait words from the dictionary and reduced them to their most collectively fundamental levels, of which there are five.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> In any case... to say _"N corresponds to open-mindedness"_ is rude, offensive, snobby, and incorrect.


That's the same kind of silly straw-man objection as somebody criticizing the MBTI because, hey, T's can feel and F's can think! You have to look past the labels, for one thing, and for another, you have to realize that the dimensions are spectrums, not black-and-white categories.

And speaking of silly straw men...



Oprah said:


> OT: weren't you the same person who argued _"99% of university students are N's. 99% of artists are N's. S's are the people who work jobs that don't require thinking."_


Nope. I didn't say any of those things. _As you know_. And it's disappointing to see that, although you've changed your username, you haven't yet upgraded your posting integrity.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> That's the same kind of silly straw man objection as somebody criticizing the MBTI because, hey, T's can feel and F's can think!


No it isn't..... not even remotely...
Incredibly ironic how you're accusing me of using "a strawman" when this is exactly what you just did right here... 




reckful said:


> Nope. I didn't say any of those things. _As you know_. And it's disappointing to see that, although you've changed your username, you haven't yet upgraded your posting integrity.


I exaggerated the statistics but you still posted those things... 
going to ignore the blatant insults.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

reckful said:


> Nope. I didn't say any of those things. _As you know_. And it's disappointing to see that, although you've changed your username, you haven't yet upgraded your posting integrity.


I actually agree with them, you do seem to carry this attitude that intuitives are better. I'd like to hear you say that sensors are just as capable as being artists, psychologists, and any other good job, as well as getting into a good university as intuitives are. I know you won't though, because you have fake "facts" to back you up.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

john.thomas said:


> I actually agree with them, you do seem to carry this attitude that intuitives are better. I'd like to hear you say that sensors are just as capable as being artists, psychologists, and any other good job, as well as getting into a good university as intuitives are. I know you won't though, because you have fake "facts" to back you up.


We've been over all this at tiresome length in other threads. I'm sorry it makes you unhappy that there are decades of respectable statistics that indicate that some types are more likely to select X occupation than others, or attend a selective university, or whatever.

If you want to continue to let "political correctness" trump the facts, that's your choice.

Both Jung and Myers believed that the different types tended to have different strengths and weaknesses, and I agree. Neither Jung nor Myers believed that it made sense to say that, _on an overall basis_, any type was superior to any other type, and neither do I.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> We've been over all this at tiresome length in other threads. I'm sorry it makes you unhappy that there are decades of respectable statistics that indicate that some types are more likely to select X occupation than others, or attend a selective university, or whatever.
> 
> If you want to continue to let "political correctness" trump the facts, that's your choice.
> 
> ...


And so *of course* you -must- be an intuitive because you clearly view yourself as superior to anyone you talk to... (your posts as an example).

What would you do if you got an official type assessment one day and they said you were a sensor? Could your ego take it?
OMG IF THAT HAPPENED YOU'D HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS NO _"BETTER"_ PERCEIVING PREFERENCE! WHAT A CONCEPT.




(btw. Linking to your own posts as "references" isn't really worth much).


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

reckful said:


> We've been over all this at tiresome length in other threads. I'm sorry it makes you unhappy that there are decades of respectable statistics that indicate that some types are more likely to select X occupation than others, or attend a selective university, or whatever.
> 
> If you want to continue to let "political correctness" trump the facts, that's your choice.
> 
> ...


Oh, so you're one of those people who hate political correctness and think anything that says people are equal is just a politically correct lie. It seems like to me these things you are saying are lies. I remember you once said that 55% of university students are intuitives, yet also claim that only 25-30% of the population are intuitives. You do realize that 52% of the adult population in the US has an associates degree or higher right? Let's see, that means that if 100% of intuitives make it into higher education (which there is no way you can tell me is true) then at least half of sensors would have to make it into higher education, which means guess what! Sensors would outnumber intuitives in higher education! And if you assume less than 100% of intuitives make it into higher education, sensors outnumber intuitives even more in universities!


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

john.thomas said:


> Oh, so you're one of those people who hate political correctness and think anything that says people are equal is just a politically correct lie. It seems like to me these things you are saying are lies. I remember you once said that 55% of university students are intuitives, yet also claim that only 25-30% of the population are intuitives. You do realize that 52% of the adult population in the US has an associates degree or higher right? Let's see, that means that* if 100% of intuitives make it into higher education (which there is no way you can tell me is true) then at least half of sensors would have to make it into higher education, which means guess what! Sensors would outnumber intuitives in higher education!* And if you assume less than 100% of intuitives make it into higher education, sensors outnumber intuitives even more in universities!


HA! Great job picking that out... amazing. <33


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

john.thomas said:


> I remember you once said that 55% of university students are intuitives, yet...


Here's what I posted, Mr. Thomas:



reckful said:


> As Myers noted in Gifts Differing:
> 
> 
> 
> > The proportion of intuitives varies widely from one educational level to another. It is particularly low among students in vocational and general high-school courses, and at least twice as high in academic high-school classes and still higher in college, especially in very selective colleges. A sample of National Merit Finalists was 83 per cent intuitive. ... The preference for intuition _appears_ to conduce to the pursuit of higher education, but the difference may be as much in interest as aptitude.


And here's what _you_ posted in response, Mr. Thomas:



john.thomas said:


> And if the odds are so against me becoming anything that requires education, why should I even waste my money? Only 20-30% of the population are intuitives, yet *they make up the majority of university students* and nearly all National Merit Scholars? Should I just quit now? I doubt you believe that I can do it, simply because I'm a sensor.


So _you_ were the source of that meme that N's are the "majority of university students."

And because the logic of your post was faulty (never mind your "facts"), I posted a reply that said, _even assuming your fact was true_ (which I didn't say it was), the consequences you were describing wouldn't logically follow from that. Here's what I said:



reckful said:


> Well, I don't know if you're an S or a mistyped N, frankly, but if you think that if, say, 45% of university students are S's, that means the odds are strongly against an S "becoming anything that requires education," I'd say your _logical reasoning_ abilities could use some work. :tongue:


And unfortunately, Mr. Thomas, this kind of misrepresentation of my (and others') posts has been all too typical of your posting history at PerC.

You should really try to do better.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> Here's what I posted, Mr. Thomas:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Own up to what you did... (and your posts make no sense, btw... you should really try to do better at writing them).


You constantly post things, and then back out of what you said and get mad when people accuse you of it... stop.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> You constantly post things, and then back out of what you said and get mad when people accuse you of it... stop.


Since I "constantly post things, and then back out of" what I said, I'm sure you won't have any problem finding two or three examples and citing them here for the amusement of the assembled multitudes.

And if you can't come up with two or three examples, maybe you should think about "backing out of" that claim of yours.

Just a thought. I'm a dreamer, I know.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> Since I "constantly post things, and then back out of" what I said, I'm sure you won't have any problem finding two or three examples and citing them here for the amusement of the assembled multitudes.
> 
> And if you can't come up with two or three examples, maybe you should think about "backing out of" that claim of yours.
> 
> Just a thought. I'm a dreamer, I know.


There's no point... you'll just waste my time and back yourself out of it *like you just did on page 2 of this thread.*



You are the most close-minded person I've ever spoken with, I hope you know that.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

@_reckful_

So I guess I'm retarded?

Is that politically incorrect enough for you?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Who gives a shit?


I thought the OP topic was interesting. But now... :S


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

john.thomas said:


> So I guess I'm retarded?


In my experience, "retarded," besides being an offensive term, is most often used to refer to someone with some kind of serious shortcomings in terms of their innate intelligence. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the shortcomings I've referred to in your posts stem from a willful refusal to use the abilities you have, rather than any real lack of ability.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> Well, I don't know if you're an S or a mistyped N, frankly, but if you think that if, say, 45% of university students are S's, that means the odds are strongly against an S "becoming anything that requires education," I'd say your _logical reasoning_ abilities could use some work. :tongue:


Could you please re-iterate what you mean here? 
It's incredibly poorly worded and open to many interpretations... I want a clarification of what you actually said.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

reckful said:


> In my experience, "retarded," besides being an offensive term, is most often used to refer to someone with some kind of serious shortcomings in terms of their innate intelligence. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the shortcomings I've referred to in your posts stem from a willful refusal to use the abilities you have, rather than any real lack of ability.


Nope, I honestly do try my hardest posting here (except in the debate and current events section, where I don't care to get into a huge fight) but I guess it's just not good enough.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Oprah, a higher percentage of Ns in a particular segment of education - says nothing about the success or failure or any particular qualities to be attributed to the participants that make up the smaller percentage - who are also in the said particular educational institution.

That more Ns are in a particular field says nothing about how the Ss are doing who are in that same field. In fact nothing was said about any type having a larger percentage of being rejected from these educational institutions either.

It's not at all surprising that N's thrive in and seek out what is theoretical, and requiring academic focus. That we want and like this stuff says nothing about the capacity of what any particular S is ABLE to do.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> Could you please re-iterate what you mean here?
> It's incredibly poorly worded and open to many interpretations... I want a clarification of what you actually said.


Anything for you, pal.

Mr. Thomas had asked me, "If the odds are so against me becoming anything that requires education [because N's] make up the majority of university students, ... should I just quit now?"

And my reply, as you noted, said:



reckful said:


> Well, I don't know if you're an S or a mistyped N, frankly, but if you think that if, say, 45% of university students are S's, that means the odds are strongly against an S "becoming anything that requires education," I'd say your _logical reasoning_ abilities could use some work. :tongue:


And what my reply _meant_ — and I disagree with you that it can fairly be characterized as "open to many interpretations" — was this:

*Even if it was true that S's were (for example) 45% of university students, it wouldn't logically follow from that that the odds are strongly against an S becoming anything that requires education.*

And thus I was implicitly voting against Mr. Thomas's suggestion that he should "just quit now."

Was that helpful?


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> Anything for you, pal.
> 
> Mr. Thomas had asked me, "If the odds are so against me becoming anything that requires education [because N's] make up the majority of university students, ... should I just quit now?"
> 
> ...


You've admitted to being an "R" in big 5 so I know you're somebody who gets emotional easily, so I KNOW that your overly formal wording and forced politeness/calmness is just condescension in attempts to get us mad... it comes across as incredibly condescending and rude... and I KNOW you're doing it to try to make us mad. 


So what is the statistic? I'd like to know... because when reading your (poorly formatted) post I (and many others) got the impression that you were saying the statistic was 55%.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> @Oprah, a higher percentage of Ns in a particular segment of education - says nothing about the success or failure or any particular qualities to be attributed to the participants that make up the smaller percentage - who are also in the said particular educational institution.
> 
> That more Ns are in a particular field says nothing about how the Ss are doing who are in that same field. In fact nothing was said about any type having a larger percentage of being rejected from these educational institutions either.
> 
> It's not at all surprising that N's thrive in and seek out what is theoretical, and requiring academic focus. That we want and like this stuff says nothing about the capacity of what any particular S is ABLE to do.


That's a scratch-the-surface way of wording it, but the implications of the statements go a lot deeper than just that.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> You've admitted to being an "R" in big 5 so I know you're somebody who gets emotional easily.


I'm not feeling particularly emotional about you. I hope you're not disappointed. Also, "R" in Big Five is Reserved (in the SLOAN incarnation, anyway), which translates to MBTI introversion. 



Oprah said:


> So what is the statistic? I'd like to know... because when reading your (poorly formatted) post I (and many others) got the impression that you were saying the statistic was 55%.


I have no idea what "the statistic" might be, and I'd assume it may vary somewhat over time. I don't think I've ever cited any statistic about what percentage of "university students" are N or S.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> I'm not feeling particularly emotional about you.* I hope you're not disappointed*.


You're so transparent... 



reckful said:


> Also, "R" in Big Five is Reserved, which translates to MBTI introversion.


No it doesn't.... and here is a post YOU made backing me up.
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/225986-myers-briggs-type-s-does-description-fit.html
_"Emotionally *R*eactive means high in Neuroticism"_
_*"For a little information on what it means to be Emotionally Reactive (like me), and more information on how the Big Five dimensions relate to the MBTI dimensions, see this post."*_



reckful said:


> I have no idea what "the statistic" might be


Then why do you keep bringing it up?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> No it doesn't.... and here is a post YOU made backing me up.


I had edited my post before you replied to clarify that I was referring to the SLOAN version of Big Five, where R = Reserved.

As I pointed out in that post you linked to, different versions of the Big Five use different terms for the various poles. I'd forgotten about the "Emotionally *R*eactive" version, so thanks for jogging my memory.

I'm still not feeling particularly emotional, though. :tongue:



Oprah said:


> Then why do you keep bringing it up?


Mr. Thomas brought it up, and claimed I said something I hadn't said. So I corrected him. And now I've corrected you.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Oprah said:


> That's a scratch-the-surface way of wording it, but the implications of the statements go a lot deeper than just that.


This could be your Ne Fi looking for evaluative-ness in a comment that came out of Ni-Te. Ni looking at correlations and asking questions or pondering through the meanings of TE data. We do know (all of us here) that a correlation is not automatic causation.
And being academic is not more worthy than being some other quality like persuasive or athletic for example, in old movies being "bookish" is a put down.

I don't know how many times i got swarmed on by ENFP's scolding me for a statement that to me was no more judgmental (in a put down sense) than if I said my eyes are brown.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> I had edited my post *after* you replied to clarify that I was referring to the SLOAN version of Big Five, where R = Reserved.


fixed.






reckful said:


> Mr. Thomas brought it up, and claimed I said something I hadn't said. So I corrected him.


No I mean in a general sense.... i.e. the very first time you brought it into the discussion and onwards.




reckful said:


> And now I've corrected you.


literally where?


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Aw man, @_reckful_ lol

Whenever I run into you somewhere on this website, you always seem to have at least one other individual strongly disagreeing/arguing with you.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

O_o said:


> Aw man, @_reckful_ lol
> 
> Whenever I run into you somewhere on this website, you always seem to have at least one other individual strongly disagreeing/arguing with you.


It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. And thanks for noticing. :tongue:

Also: Digging your font change.



Oprah said:


> No I mean in a general sense.... i.e. the very first time you brought it into the discussion and onwards.


As you could easily have discovered by clicking the link on the post quote, I cited that Myers passage from Gifts Differing as part of a post where I criticized another poster for implying that, if S's had less years of education than N's (on average), that would mean that S's were _inferior_ to N's. I pointed out that Myers had _both_ noted that N's were more likely (on average) to pursue secondary education _and_ emphatically believed that N's were _not_ superior to S's. As I put it:



reckful said:


> Myers was emphatic in her view that none of the MBTI preferences was superior to its opposite. She didn't think choosing an occupation that required less education made someone _inferior_ to people who chose occupations that required more education, and neither do I.





Oprah said:


> literally where?


You asked me why I "kept bringing up" that "education statistic." And I pointed out that I wasn't the one who'd brought it up in this thread.

I goofed, though. I pointed the finger at Mr. Thomas but, actually, you were really the one who brought it up in this thread.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> This could be your Ne Fi looking for evaluative-ness in a comment that came out of Ni-Te. Ni looking at correlations and asking questions or pondering through the meanings of TE data. We do know (all of us here) that a correlation is not automatic causation.
> And being academic is not more worthy than being some other quality like persuasive or athletic for example, in old movies being "bookish" is a put down.
> 
> I don't know how many times i got swarmed on by ENFP's scolding me for a statement that to me was no more judgmental (in a put down sense) than if I said my eyes are brown.


When someone says _"There are more N's in higher institutions"_ it is exactly the same as saying _"There are less S's in high institutions"_


The main issue is that these claims aren't supported by anything, really... it's always _"Oh it was mentioned one time in a blurb somewhere by someone"_ and whenever people ask for *valid* statistics and research backing this up, people all of a sudden stop replying, change the topic, or skirt around it by saying a lot of nothing... or they link to a paper that the public doesn't actually have access to.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

reckful said:


> It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. And thanks for noticing. :tongue:
> 
> Also: Digging your font change.


Yeah, you were right, Garamond does look a little too pretentious.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> As you could easily have discovered by clicking the link on the post quote


Why are you so condescending and rude in every one of your posts? Please answer me.




reckful said:


> I cited that Myers passage from Gifts Differing as part of a post where I criticized another poster


How can anybody trust what you "cite"
based on your performance on the forums, you've probably (a) misunderstood it and (b) misrepresented it to say something that it didn't originally say... we don't know because you're very selective in which of your cited "sources" you actually direct people access to. 





reckful said:


> for implying thatif S's had less years of education than N's (on average), that would mean that S's were _inferior_ to N's. I pointed out that Myers had _both_ noted that N's were more likely (on average) to pursue secondary education _and_ emphatically believed that N's were _not_ superior to S's. As I put it:


Translation: _*"I created a strawman out of someone's argument so that I could use this cherry-picked quotation in order to invalidate their post."*_






reckful said:


> You asked me why I "kept bringing up" that "education statistic." And I pointed out that I wasn't the one who'd brought it up in this thread.
> 
> I goofed, though. I pointed the finger at Mr. Thomas but, actually, you were really the one who brought it up in this thread.


So are you _completely_ unable to look at the big picture, or do you just choose not to? It's not about this thread alone...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> Why are you so condescending and rude in every one of your posts? Please answer me.


For the record:


You started a thread on Big Five / MBTI correlations and I contributed three posts that I don't think anyone would characterize as "rude."

The change in my tone that you're complaining about began after you added this gratuitous and fact-challenged dig to your reply to my third post:


Oprah said:


> OT: weren't you the same person who argued _"99% of university students are N's. 99% of artists are N's. S's are the people who work jobs that don't require thinking."_
> yea, I don't know how valid your arguments will be here...



I pointed out that I hadn't said _any_ of those things, and on we went from there.
You're free to call me "rude" if it makes you feel better, but I'd say I've treated you better than you deserve.

My thanks-to-post ratio is 1.18, Oprah — even though I'm an INTJ jerk and don't participate in the "thanks" system — and yours is 0.63. And I'm inclined to suggest that you might want to spend some time thinking about the possibility that at least part of the explanation for that difference might be that one of us has a rudeness problem, but it isn't me.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> even though I'm an INTJ jerk and don't participate in the "thanks" system


lol.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

[double post]


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> For the record:
> 
> 
> You started a thread on Big Five / MBTI correlations and I contributed three posts that I don't think anyone would characterize as "rude."
> ...


Oh and btw posts supporting groupthink and sticking with *conventions* and *traditionalism* will be more liked than posts challenging the status quo and attempting to have open-minded discussions.


Are you sure you're not a C in Big 5?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

This thread went full retard.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)




----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

O_o said:


> Aw man, @_reckful_ lol
> 
> Whenever I run into you somewhere on this website, you always seem to have at least one other individual strongly disagreeing/arguing with you.


To be fair, if reckful post quotes you, you know before you read his post that he's going to tell you that you're incorrect, so individuals always arguing with him is pretty much inevitable. Don't feel bad for him, he brings it on himself :laughing: 
:tongue:


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> To be fair, if reckful post quotes you, you know before you read his post that he's going to tell you that you're incorrect, so individuals always arguing with him is pretty much inevitable. Don't feel bad for him, he brings it on himself :laughing:
> :tongue:


Oh yes, one does not simply start debate by summoning reckful, reckful starts debate by summoning you
And I too, have experience this occurrence 

agreed though, absolutely nothing to pity. He is a capable one-man ship.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

O_o said:


> Oh yes, one does not simply start debate by summoning reckful, reckful starts debate by summoning you
> And I too, have experience this occurrence
> 
> agreed though, absolutely nothing to pity. He is a capable one-man ship.


Yes, him usually being right just makes it all the more irritating. Blocking him is the way to go :dry:
:laughing:


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Yes, him usually being right just makes it all the more irritating. Blocking him is the way to go :dry:
> :laughing:


It's possible to block someone on this website? O.O

Man, you should see some of the monsters lurking about this website. 
You know, on occasion where you hear about folk having certain opinions while thinking "no way, there is no one that insane and primitive to actually believe that" but oh man, do some folk actually believe. 

There is one in specific I've been hoping to never catch glimpse of again. 
But I can guarantee that reckful is a ray of sunlight and love compared to some out there.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Oprah said:


> I don't think it maps over, tbh...
> 
> 
> because O vs C is Open vs Conventional which isn't S/N at all
> ...


Sociable/Reclusive isn't Extrovert/Introvert either.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

@reckful

PROOF they're not correlated.... 

(1) according to you, "BICAD" and "RICAD" would correlate to ISFJ
(2) ISFJ's make up ~14% of the population
(3) "BICAD" makes up 2.6% of the population and "RICAD" makes up 3.3%... 
(4) 5.9%=/=14%



(I can do this with all of the types, btw.... just chose ISFJ since it has one of the highest MBTI percentages and is easiest to show)


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> @reckful
> 
> PROOF they're not correlated....
> 
> ...


I have no idea where you got any of those statistics — because, hey, you couldn't be arsed to tell us.

As I already noted in my first post in this thread, the leading Big Five psychologists long ago concluded that the MBTI is essentially tapping into four of the Big Five factors, and they're far from alone in having reached that conclusion.

I also said that there are "noteworthy differences" in the way each typology characterizes those dimensions, so it's hardly surprising that there are often significant differences between MBTI tests and Big Five tests in terms of the particular things that the corresponding test items focus on for each dimension. Of course, there are also significant differences among different "MBTI" tests, and significant differences among different Big Five tests.

So it's also hardly surprising that any particular person might take an MBTI test and not get an exact "matching" type if they then took a Big Five test, and that would be especially likely if they were close to the middle on one or more of the dimensions (which seems to be pretty common).

Finally, please note that there's quite a lot of variation from data pool to data pool in terms of reported MBTI and Big Five type frequencies.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> backpedaling and pedantic tripe


So what accounts for the *8%* difference? (Btw... that's not just _"a small difference in sampling size due to slight differences in the test"_ that's a MASSIVE discrepancy that you can't just gloss over like you are doing right now). 



I feel like you're too immature to admit when you're wrong, so idk where this is going to go.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

pedantic tripe

hey oprah, can i have a free car?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> So what accounts for the *8%* difference? (Btw... that's not just _"a small difference in sampling size due to slight differences in the test"_ that's a MASSIVE discrepancy that you can't just gloss over like you are doing right now).
> 
> I feel like you're too immature to admit when you're wrong, so idk where this is going to go.


I'm having trouble understanding why you'd think you could just throw out some statistics and _not even identify the source_ and expect them to convince anybody of anything.

And I realize that could just be my immaturity getting in the way again.

Still, I can't help reiterating that McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they've concluded that the MBTI is basically tapping into four of the Big Five factors. If I'm inclined to assume they know quite a bit more about that than you do, and to treat their conclusions as more credible than yours, is that really so difficult for you to understand?


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> I'm having trouble understanding why you'd think you could just throw out some statistics and _not even identify the source_ and expect them to convince anybody of anything.
> 
> And I realize that could just be my immaturity getting in the way again.
> 
> Still, I can't help reiterating that McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they've concluded that the MBTI is basically tapping into four of the Big Five factors. If I'm inclined to assume they know quite a bit more about that than you do, and to treat their conclusions as more credible than yours, is that really so difficult for you to understand?


You're done.

Now run along and stop spewing misinformation on the forums.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oprah said:


> You're done.
> 
> Now run along and stop spewing misinformation on the forums.


You mean you're never going to tell us where those world-shaking "BICAD" and "RICAD" stats of yours came from?

That is poopy behavior, Oprah. It disrespects your readers and it's just plain poopy.


----------

