Talk:HEXACO model of personality structure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Advertising much?[edit]

Reads like blatant advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.181.192.40 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

With the additions by Fuzzybunnyhare, the article has achieved a greater scope and offers differing perspectives on the HEXACO model. This article adds to Wikipedia as a resource for psychology articles.Owleye769 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the Article[edit]

To anyone is keeping track of this wikipage- I plan on editing parts of this article to bring it more in line with wikipedia standards. Any help, thoughts comments are always greatly appreciated. I will also post a more detailed plan of what I would like to change, delete, add and emphasize. Thanks. - user:fuzzybunnyhare. —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

In general I would like to alter the language used to in this article. While informative, it reads just a bit too much like an introductory psychology text book. Specifically, I would like to remove parts of the "Classifying Personality Characteristics" while editing the rest of that section to make it sound more encyclopedic. I would like to add more the to "relations with B5" section and perhaps add more information about it's relation with other models (PEN and other big 6/7 theories). The theoretical basis and research studies involving the HEXACO model should be expanded as well. The H factor should get a little more attention here. Finally, I would like to add a criticism section. This would follow typical criticisms of the lexical approach to personality and to HEXACO specific criticisms that have been voiced recently in the literature. If anyone monitoring this has some input or concerns please I encourage you to jump in. I'll be hacking away soon and adding some information soon. -User: Fuzzybunnyhare —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC).

Added Some Stuff[edit]

As you can see I just added/replaced some paragraphs. Please feel free to edit or what have you! Please feel free to message me here or on my talk page. The more we edit the stronger this page will be. Thanks Fuzzybunnyhare (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Fuzzybunnyhare, nice work so far on the HEXACO article! I have made some grammatical/minor edits and have linked some terms to their respective wiki pages (in case people do not understand what they are or want to learn more on those topics). I have browsed your sandbox and you have some work in there that you haven't transferred over yet, like the limitations section. I think this section has good potential as there is a lot of debate about which inventory/factors to use when describing broad traits. Also, maybe you could include a few sentences or a short paragraph describing the various factor models, as a reference point for users. Just a suggestion! Kilgoretrout10 (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilgoretrout10 (talkcontribs) 14:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fuzzybunnyhare. I previously did some very minor edits in your sand box (just commas, etc.). Went throught the article in greater detail today. I think you did a great job. The Limitations criticisms section offers balance as well. I like the Dark triad section as well - as this section helps to capture the unique aspect of the H factor of HEXACO. I made some very minor edits today including commas and some minor sentence structure changes. These were all very small changes - The article is very well written in terms of structure, content/scope, and utilizing sentences and semantics to capture concepts and research findings. If you think that my edits helped to take away from what you were trying to say, please feel free to reverse them. Also, I do have three sentences that I wanted to ask your opinion on:

  • "The "dark triad" of personality consists of psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism. However, these traits are not necessarily fully represented in the BFF framework." I am wondering if psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism are personality types or traits?
  • "Some criticism has recently been directed at the HEXACO model. De Raad et al have argued that only three personality traits are found to fully replicate (show up in analysis) across cultures." I thought that maybe the first sentence, "Some criticism has recently been directed at the HEXACO model." could be deleted as this text belongs to the paragraph that is already under the criticism section. Just a thought.
  • "The "dark triad' personality traits tend to only correlate with disagreeableness on the BFF, otherwise they are represented inconsistently on measures of the Big Five." I thought it might be interesting to expand on how the H factor is represented inconsistently on the Big Five - with just one or two sentences.

Lastly, the Dark Triad section that you wrote really strengthens the article. It greatly helped me to identify how this model differs form other models. To this end, I am wondering if adding something that would capture the other extreme of the H factor - in terms of a "super-good" person, or how the average person would be explained by the H factor would also add to the article - if such literature exists on this? Lastly, if the literature supports such a notion, maybe it would be interesting to readers to have specific examples of historical figures who are thought to have been very high or very low on the H factor - like dictator Joseph Stalin, etc.? This might help to provide concrete examples to non-psychology readers to help them better relate and promote a better understanding. I am not sure that anything is written about this, though - so it is just a thought. All in all a tremendous job on a very interesting subject.Owleye769 (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing Update: Hello Fuzzybunnyhare: I revisted the article earlier today and left my comments/suggestions on your talk page.Owleye769 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reorganized the page a little bit. I plan on adding a few more sentences to the research section to round it out a little bit so please stay tuned. I would welcome any suggestions relating to these sentences, the structure and the titles of each section. Thanks Fuzzybunnyhare (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)