QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
Surprise: I knew already
I think one of the biggest differences between us (which this test doesn't really track) is that you tend to be more humorous and I tend to be more serious.
Mapping Big 5 Onto MBTI/Jungian Dynamics (And Oddities)
- Thread starter QuickTwist
- Start date
I think one of the biggest differences between us (which this test doesn't really track) is that you tend to be more humorous and I tend to be more serious.
QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
Or at least lighthearted. Could be an overlap with humorous, but I think lighthearted is more accurate.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Nahhh, you've got an inner goofball too
People irl always think I'm super serious
I'm just comfortable around here so it's easier for me to be lighthearted
But also yeah I think that's fair, I lean more that way than most people for many reasons
QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
Free open-source BigFive personality traits test
Take a free, open-source Big Five personality test. Learn to know your personality traits and compare yourself with your partner, colleagues, friends or family.bigfive-test.com
Just a note about this test. While it does measure certain things, and may even be asking the right questions the right way, it is another example of trying to measure so many things that to do so would probably require asking more questions. I can't remember how many questions the test by Jordan Peterson is, but I would wager it is more than 120 questions, and it only measures 2 aspects of the Big 5 dynamics. Therefore, it is "honing in" on much more depth with the questions answered for more consistency and accuracy.
- MBTI
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 947 sx/sp
The 120-question test is clinically validated.
Also, donât tank your credibility by referencing a known charlatan.
Cheers,
Ian
Fruiteloop
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 7
What makes Petersons Big 5 more "honing in on traits".
Just curious because all I saw were 5 numbers.
Does he explain them together as there would be 2^5 ways of representing personality (32 ways)?
Just curious because all I saw were 5 numbers.
Does he explain them together as there would be 2^5 ways of representing personality (32 ways)?
QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
Kind of a loaded response...
120 questions are clinically validated for what? For how many aspects of the Big 5 dynamics does that account?
In short, I do not doubt that it may accurately represent the 5 dynamics of the Big 5 (Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness); I doubt only whether it accurately measures the sub-category aspects of these. In other words, per sub-category aspect, it only asks you four questions. Is answering four questions about a dynamic of personality a good methodology?
Let's say that Jordan Peterson's test also asks 120 questions. In that case (and it could be a 200-question test, now that I think about it), it is asking 12 questions per sub-category aspect of the Big 5. That would mean it would be much more consistent and accurate to account for outliers and such.
As far as your accusation against Jordan Peterson, I'd need some serious evidence that he is a "charlatan." That is a claim, a very heavy claim, as an accusation against another person stated with zero evidence. I do not agree with Jordan Peterson. I actually think in the long run he will be harmful to Christianity (which everyone here knows is very important to me). However, I can separate his claims regarding Christianity from his claims about psychology, which he is FAR more qualified to talk about.
Now, I do not expect to convince you that Jordan Peterson is not a charlatan. That seems to be quite a strong presupposition you have of him that you are probably not going to change your mind on. I'm simply saying the claim you made about him is lacking any kind of evidence for it.
QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
Yes, that is accurate. For extroversion, for example, he measures both Assertiveness and Enthusiasm, which measure positive emotion.
Also, I wanted to mention that Dr. Peterson did his own assessment for this test, meaning he asked 10,000 people and measured their responses. Then, when you take the test, your answers are compared to those of the other 10,000 people.
Here's a picture of what they measure.
- MBTI
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 947 sx/sp
Meaning, it has been tested by double-blind, randomized, and controlled clinical testing with peer review, and repeatability.
All of them. The published literature is free for you to review.
Clearly, yes. The testing of the hypothesis repeatability, with peer review and analysis, has demonstrated that.
We do not know that. That might be true, and it might not be true. We do not know, because it has not been clinically verified.
Fair enough, so you are free to dismiss it.
That said, Google can be your friend.
He was once up and up, but he was seduced by the grift.
Cheers,
Ian
- MBTI
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 947 sx/sp
So a pastime. But not science. No peer review. Nothing clinically validated.
Yet he presents it as if it means something and can be used by individuals in their own self-discivery.
Hence, charlatan.
Cheers,
Ian
QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
1) There is nothing magic about asking 120 questions. It's not that if you ask 120 questions, then it is validated. It also matters which questions you ask, whether they are controlled, and whether they measure what they purport to measure. 120 questions by itself doesn't tell us anything.
2) Well, I mean, if you want to be completely uncharitable, then that is fine, but Dr. Peterson is a doctor and has a valid degree to measure such things. It would be very surprising to me if it were not the case that I mentioned. And as easily as you say Jordan Peterson can't be trusted, IDK why I should be more likely to trust some random test on the internet just because it is free.
QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
Okay???
And yet you think there is some magical threshold for asking 120 questions on a free test...
QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
- MBTI
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 947 sx/sp
Agreed. That said, the 120 question version is the one which has been clinically verified.
So yes, 120 questions is immaterial. The verification is certainly otherwise.
If that is your level of understanding, I will leave you to it. The research papers are out there for your review. If you wish to call it a random test, so be it. Based on your past behaviors, I have no expectation you will be reasonable, so for me to continue would be to act in bad faith.
No, not at all, and donât ascribe to me something I never said. I do not concern myself with magic, so I will leave that with you.
Believe what you like. Simply know that if you do so, remaining wilfully ignorant of the basis in research, you argue based on nothingness.
Cheers,
Ian
QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
This whole post is really passive-aggressive.
Fruiteloop
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 7
Peer review seems like a good way of scientifically validating a test.
Last time I took an OCEAN tests was in 2016 by cambridge analytica.
It said I was an altruist: (O 50% C 50% E negative 50% A 75% and N 75%)
I do not know how they calculated it but I am sure because of the big computers they know some or allot about me in those dimensions.
Petterson may be good at analysing data, many people are, but how does he use the data? I never researched his organizations.
What people do with your data matters. I am not saying I am skeptical because of Peterson but just in general people can use data in many ways.
Last time I took an OCEAN tests was in 2016 by cambridge analytica.
It said I was an altruist: (O 50% C 50% E negative 50% A 75% and N 75%)
I do not know how they calculated it but I am sure because of the big computers they know some or allot about me in those dimensions.
Petterson may be good at analysing data, many people are, but how does he use the data? I never researched his organizations.
What people do with your data matters. I am not saying I am skeptical because of Peterson but just in general people can use data in many ways.
- MBTI
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 947 sx/sp
From Google:
The "Jordan Peterson grift" is a common critique leveled against the Canadian psychologist-turned-cultural commentator. Detractors argue that he uses pseudo-intellectual rhetoric and alarmist political commentary on topics outside his expertise to monetize his massive following through paid platforms and speaking tours.
Critics point to a number of common themes when discussing the "grift":
- Monetization of Academic Credentials: Critics allege that Peterson leverages his former academic title to speak authoritatively on complex topics outside of his clinical psychology backgroundâsuch as climate change, evolutionary biology, and gender studiesâto generate traffic and revenue.
- Contrarian Content: Skeptics, including groups that track online phenomena, claim that his polarizing positions on "woke" culture, feminism, and traditional values are highly performative, designed to inflame cultural tension while bolstering his brand.
- Peterson Academy: Launched as a controversial, online-only "alternative to traditional universities", this platform drew heavy criticism from within his own audience as being a superficial or "grifty" way to cash in on education, offering courses with simplified grading formats.
Ian
- MBTI
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 947 sx/sp
Thatâs your opinion, and not of my concern, but thank you for your honesty.
Cheers,
Ian
QuickTwist
Permanent Fixture
Okay???
NONE of this has to do with "Understand Myself," which is the relevant thing we are talking about.
And just because some people disagree with someone is not evidence that they are that thing. Literally, any public figure has people saying they are this or that bad thing. It, by itself, means nothing.
Fruiteloop
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 7
This is not free but it is the latest clinical gold standard in the big 5 inventory.
You probably need to play allot of money or work in a business or see a psychologist to take it.
I wonder what it say about me? I might try and find it some time.
