Talk:Big Five personality traits

Possible statistical bias in design

Since this methodology was based on data, it is possible that some of the rarer personality types as designated by other tests were under-represented. And like said already in the article, the standard questions especially in a job related situation are presented in a way that could tempt to bias the responses as well - though by taking that into account one might be able to split the questionnaire into two parts such that the bias would have a chance of standing out, but only as long as this was unexpected.

I also think the descriptions (on a particular test site I visited, not from the wiki) seem a bit biased. To illustrate I turn them around, painting the positives in negative and other way around:

1.energetic vs reserved (people who waste time in meetings vs people who get things done) 2.friendly/trusting vs aggressive (sheeple vs independent) 3.methodical vs less careful (inflexible vs adaptive but not infallible) 4.relaxed vs neurotic (happy with status quo vs desiring better) 5.Openness AKA Culture or Intellect (since the tests may be interpreted relative to others responding and the questions are so biased, if you don't answer them in biased manner the computer will spit out a result indicating you are probably of "low intellect")

Reversal

This isn't explained anywhere and is obviously a psychological theory. Don't find a current article on it, presume it's from the late 19th early 20th century, but how a trait manifests as it's opposite needs some comment, ref, whatever. Too big a feature of the article to let go as implicitly clear because it's not. Compensation (psychology) is closest I could find and not the same thing. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Or what in fact is meant by "reversed" in the item lists. If it's just a survey technique, not a psych theory at all, that also needs to be make clear. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have a few suggestions for this article. First, I would consider making a major rearrangement of the sections. The explanations of the five TRAITS are fine, but then the measurements sections should explicitly define the FFM and other models. Then everything that is talking about the FFM or the other model should go in those sections. Other than that I would recommend just having links in the text not saying 'main article:' and give the link again. I also see quite a few quotes throughout the article. Swimmermroe (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, we are currently working on condensing or completely eliminating the long quotes throughout the article. We are also working on rearranging a few of the sections, I have added a 'Measurement of the Big 5 Personality Traits' that has the measurements sections for the traits and we are linking the FFM and other models to another article altogether to promote more clarity throughout the article. Villasa4 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! That will work well I think.Swimmermroe (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to rewrite some parts of the subchapter "Openness to experience". In my opinion there are to many recurrences of the same content. For example that open people have a higher appreciation respectively higher interest in art is written five times! In my opinion once would be enough. 2A02:1205:5010:78C0:ECA5:4D5D:D997:7E83 (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it.

1. Of the Big Five: are they all supposed to be good traits? It seems like neuroticism would be bad, so given that, shouldn't the Big Five personality traits be a list of DESIRABLE traits, with the last being something like 'anti-neuroticism'?

2. If 'some studies show that neuroticism and extraversion are negatively correllated' doesn't that imply that neuroticism and extraversion are not orthogonal? Wouldn't you want to list traits that are independent of each other?

Seems like a half-baked idea. 71.139.173.203 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The traits are not good or bad, they're just traits. Each end has positive and negative consequences for behavior.

2. Because there may be some common antecedents or origins for these traits (as with most psychological dimensions), full orthogonality is unrealistic. --JorisvS (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Misleading ?

The first and second sentence in this article are misleading:

" In psychology, the Big Five personality traits are five broad domains or dimensions of personality that are used to describe human personality. The theory based on the Big Five factors is called the Five Factor Model (FFM).[1] "

My comments: The Big Five are generally agreed public domain ideas based on analysis of words/language rather than directly psychology; and there are many theories stemming from the Big Five, not just 'one theory' the FFM. This sentence looks like a commercial promotion of one in particular: the referenced FFM.

Simon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.195.185.212 (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)