• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $550. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

More on the "Big Five" Five-Factor Model of Personality


Words on a chart derived by successive applications of factor analysis then putting words to resulting successive groupinga. Been there rejected that. This stuff is supported by method more than science therefore the warthog uselessness analogy.
 Factor analysis is a recognized statistical technique and  Principal component analysis is a common method of it.

If you think that the Big Five advocates are chasing statistical artifacts, then make your case. Like point to numbers that are easily in the range of random-number simulations.


Mazzie Daius
First, I'm much more comfortable with working with psychiatrists who apply neuroscientific methods, yano, this drug that hormone sorts of work, to clinical study. With this paper pencil, interview stuff, It's easy enough to follow up such with selective path analysis to show that intercorrelations among labels are way too high for statistical independence presumptions. Besides it's correlation, not deterministic method. What I enjoy is all the fictional reports, based on variance of interpretations, which are soooo different among users of such methods.

GIGO. For your enjoyment .... here is an academic 'free lunch' study on the subject.

From: What Do We Assess When We Assess a Big 5 Trait? : A ContentAnalysis of the Aff Analysis of the Affective, Behavioral, and, and Cognitive Processes ocessesRepresented in Big 5 Personality Inventories https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=psychfacpub

Assume for the moment that there is some very basic coreor-reality to Big 5–level traits, that the ABC dimensions are highly meaningful constructs for assessing that core, and that the operational definitions of traits on ABC dimensions in major inventories reasonably reflect those underlying latent traits. Given those assumptions, our findings suggest that abstract arguments (and conceptual definitions of traits, such as found in personality texts) about the basic nature of traitsmay miss the mark. The Big 5 traits seem to be very different from each other in basic dimensions of structure and substance, not merely in which facets they subsume. Abstract arguments about whether “traits” should include motivation orbe conceptualized as behavioral dispositions rather than as affective or cognitive in nature, and so forth, are largely irrelevant if these major broad traits are substantially different in underlying substance and structure.

In addition, if the Big 5 traits are vastly different from each other in underlying structure and substance, then different traits may require different types of measurement models and instruments (as previously noted by Hirschberg, 1978). For example, if observers are better judges ofbehavior and self-reports are most accurate for more covertthoughts and feelings (as argued by Johnson, 1997), then—judging from the current fndings— peer reports may bemore accurate assessments of Conscientiousness, whereasself-reports may be more accurate for assessing Neuroticismand Openness. Finer-grained analyses aimed at identifyingthe types or subsets of ABC constructs related to individual traits might be particularly useful for further reflectionon and refinement of trait assessments (Hirschberg, 1978).For example, the cognitive items used to assess Agreeableness may include more belief statements, whereas the cognitive items assessing other traits may focus more on cognitive processes (e.g., the tendency to be inclusive in one’sthinking [Openness]).

However, we remain conscious that the most obviouslimitation to this study is that although it describes how traitsare currently measured, it leaves unanswered the question ofhow traits should be measured. If we are right in identifyingthe importance of ABC constructs for defining the structureof traits, but wrong in assuming that the operational definitions of traits in the inventories we have studied reflect theunderlying traits, then the missing components, such as thecognitive components of Extraversion and Neuroticism andthe affective component of Conscientiousness, suggest thatmore balanced inventories need to be developed.

I get seasick with all the interlocking handwave technology here.
Last edited:


APA PsycNet - DeYoung_2007_BFAS_JPSP.pdf - "Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five"

Finds a split in two for each of the Big Five traits or domains.
  • Neuroticism
    • Volatility ... Get angry easily. ... Rarely get irritated. (R) ... Get upset easily. ... Keep my emotions under control. (R) ... Change my mood a lot. ... Rarely lose my composure. (R) ... Am a person whose moods go up and downeasily. ... Am not easily annoyed. (R) ... Get easily agitated. ... Can be stirred up easily.
    • Withdrawal ... Seldom feel blue. (R) ... Am filled with doubts about things. ... Feel comfortable with myself. (R) ... Feel threatened easily. ... Rarely feel depressed. (R) ... Worry about things. ... Am easily discouraged. ... Am not embarrassed easily. (R) ... Become overwhelmed by events. ... Am afraid of many things.
  • Agreeableness
    • Compassion ... Am not interested in other people’s problems. (R) ... Feel others’ emotions. ... Inquire about others’ well-being. ... Can’t be bothered with other’s needs. (R) ... Sympathize with others’ feelings. ... Am indifferent to the feelings of others. (R) ... Take no time for others. (R) ... Take an interest in other people’s lives. ... Don’t have a soft side. (R) ... Like to do things for others.
    • Politeness ... Respect authority. ... Insult people. (R) ... Hate to seem pushy. ... Believe that I am better than others. (R) ... Avoid imposing my will on others. ... Rarely put people under pressure. ... Take advantage of others. (R) ... Seek conflict. (R) ... Love a good fight. (R) ... Am out for my own personal gain. (R)
  • Conscientiousness
    • Industriousness ... Carry out my plans. ... Waste my time. (R) ... Find it difficult to get down to work. (R) ... Mess things up. (R) ... Finish what I start. ... Don’t put my mind on the task at hand. (R) ... Get things done quickly. ... Always know what I am doing. ... Postpone decisions. (R) ... Am easily distracted. (R)
    • Orderliness ... Leave my belongings around. (R) ... Like order. ... Keep things tidy. ... Follow a schedule. ... Am not bothered by messy people. (R) ... Want everything to be “just right.” ... Am not bothered by disorder. (R) ... Dislike routine. (R) ... See that rules are observed. ... Want every detail taken care of.
  • Extraversion
    • Enthusiasm ... Make friends easily. ... Am hard to get to know. (R) ... Keep others at a distance. (R) ... Reveal little about myself. (R) ... Warm up quickly to others. ... Rarely get caught up in the excitement. (R) ... Am not a very enthusiastic person. (R) ... Show my feelings when I’m happy. ... Have a lot of fun. ... Laugh a lot.
    • Assertiveness ... Take charge. ... Have a strong personality. ... Lack the talent for influencing people. (R) ... Know how to captivate people. ... Wait for others to lead the way. (R) ... See myself as a good leader. ... Can talk others into doing things. ... Hold back my opinions. (R) ... Am the first to act. ... Do not have an assertive personality. (R)
  • Openness/Intellect
    • Intellect ... Am quick to understand things. ... Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (R) ... Can handle a lot of information. ... Like to solve complex problems. ... Avoid philosophical discussions. (R) ... Avoid difficult reading material. (R) ... Have a rich vocabulary. ... Think quickly. ... Learn things slowly. (R) ... Formulate ideas clearly.
    • Openness ... Enjoy the beauty of nature. ... Believe in the importance of art. ... Love to reflect on things. ... Get deeply immersed in music. ... Do not like poetry. (R) ... See beauty in things that others might not notice. ... Need a creative outlet. ... Seldom get lost in thought. (R) ... Seldom daydream. (R) ... Seldom notice the emotional aspects of paintings and pictures. (R)
(R) means reversed


Some stuff on Big-Five supertraits: stability and plasticity.

Higher-order factors of the Big Five.
Estimated factor correlations from 14 studies supporting the 5 factor, Big Five model of personality trait organization—5 studies based on children and adolescents, 9 on adults—were factor analyzed. Two higher-order factors were clearly evident in all studies. One was principally related to the Big Five trait dimensions Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability; the other, the dimensions Extraversion and Intellect. Two models, one for children and adolescents, the other for adults, were tested by confirmatory factor analysis with generally excellent results. Many personality theorists appear to have considered one or both of these 2 metatraits, provisionally labeled α and β. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? - ScienceDirect - Higher-order_factors_of_the_Big_Five_pre20160116-9161-13v4vou.pdf
We present a biologically predicated model of these two personality factors, relating them to serotonergic and dopaminergic function, and we label them Stability (Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and Plasticity (Extraversion and Openness). Based on this model, we hypothesize that Stability will positively predict conformity (as indicated by socially desirable responding) and that Plasticity will negatively predict conformity. A structural equation model indicates that conformity is indeed positively related to Stability (university sample: β=0.98; community sample: β=0.69; P<0.01 for both) and negatively related to Plasticity (university sample: β=−0.48, P<0.07; community sample: β=−0.42, P<0.05). These findings suggest that there are pros and cons of conformity, such that the most thorough conformists will tend to be stable but also rigid, less able to adjust to novelty or change.
  • Stability - serotonin
    • Emotional: Neuroticism (R)
    • Social: Agreeableness
    • Motivational: Conscientiousness
  • Plasticity - dopamine
    • Extraversion
    • Openness/Intellect

APA PsycNet - Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five in a Multi-Informant Sample
The shared variance of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness appears to reflect the individual’s ability and tendency to maintain stability and avoid disruption in emotional, social, and motivational domains, whereas the shared variance of Extraversion and Openness/Intellect appears to reflect the ability and tendency to explore and engage flexibly with novelty, in both behavior and cognition (DeYoung et al.,2002; DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005).

... factors bearing an obvious resemblance to Stability and Plasticity appear in lexical studies when only two factors are extracted (Saucier, 2003; Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis, & Goldberg, 2005). These two lexical factors, often labeled Social Propriety and Dynamism, show greater cross-language replicability than do the Big Five (Saucier et al., 2005).

... Stability seems likely to make a child easier to socialize (and socialization may encourage Stability), whereas Plasticity seems likely (though not inevitably) to lead to personal growth (DeYoung et al., 2002, 2005).

... We have argued that Stability and Plasticity might be related to two fundamental human concerns (DeYoung et al., 2005): (a) the need to maintain a stable organization of psychosocial function and (b) the need to explore and incorporate novel information into that organization, as the state of the individual changes bothi nternally (developmentally) and externally (environmentally).

The Big Five personality traits, Big Two metatraits and social media: A meta-analysis - ScienceDirect - The Big Five Personality Traits, Big Two Metatraits and Social Media: A Meta-Analysis (PDF)
In the DeYoung’s cybernetic model, these two metatraits respectively fulfill two basic needs of any complex self-regulating organism existing in the unpredictable environment: plasticity is associated with exploration and goal creation, and stability with goal maintenance in the face of threat and distraction (DeYoung, 2015). To expand: the meta-trait plasticity, defined as the shared variance of extraversion and openness/intellect, appears to reflect an exploratory tendency and ability to actively engage with the possibilities of the environment, both generating and attending to novel aspects of experience (DeYoung, 2015). Plasticity can be described as the degree to which the personality system is prone to generating new goals, new interpretations of the present state, and new strategies to pursue existing goals. People high in plasticity are not only prone to respond to environmental anomalies more flexibly and eagerly, they also tend to seek out the unknown voluntarily. Plasticity should also be associated with dopamine because of the link to approach and reward. In terms of actual behavior, plasticity is associated with interpersonal warmth, parties, jokes, and travel (see Hirsh, DeYoung and Peterson, 2009 Table 2 for fuller account). Stability, in contrast, reflects the capacity to resist goal disruption. Following encounter with anomaly, people high in stability will resist replacing their operative goal with immediate goals (like expressing anger or pursuing a distraction) that interfere with longer-term goals; whereas people low in stability are frequently interrupted by emotions, impulses, and doubts. Stability should also be associated with serotonin because of the link to (low) anxiety and calm.In terms of actual behavior, stability is associated with resisting impulsive behaviors –it is associated with less anger and nervousness, less joking, less overeating and less sex (Hirsh et al., 2009).


I've even seen some reports of a "Big One" personality factor: a General Factor of Personality.

The General Factor of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study - ScienceDirect - The_General_Factor_of_Personality_A_meta20161123-19132-6ck0c6.pdf

  • +0.83 Stability
    • -0.63 Neuroticism
    • +0.60 Agreeableness
    • +0.68 Conscientiousness
  • +0.69 Plasticity
    • +0.82 Extraversion
    • +0.52 Openness/Intellect
It's not very clear what brain-structure correlates GFP might have.


Other-rated personality and academic performance: Evidence and implications - ScienceDirect
  • First meta-analysis of other-rated, FFM-specific measures with academic performance
  • FFM has some of the strongest correlations with academic performance ever reported.
  • GPA correlations with Conscientiousness exceeded those with intelligence.
  • Teacher-rated personality is as valid as parent- or peer-rated personality.
  • Teacher- and peer-rated personality should be used to guide education & development.

It used Emotional Stability, the inverse of Neuroticism. Order: Agr, Con, EmS, Ext, Opn

Correlations with academic performance:
  • Combined self-other: 0.10, 0.38, 0.18, 0.05, 0.28
  • (Different method): 0.11, 0.46, 0.24, 0.03, 0.36
  • Self: 0.06, 0.22, 0.00 -0.02, 0.09
  • Self-other correlation: 0.43, 0.54, 0.48, 0.55, 0.53
  • Est. other w/o self: 0.08, 0.31, 0.21, 0.07, 0.27
  • Correlation with intelligence: 0.10, 0.16, 0.12, 0.05, 0.37
  • Intelligence effects removed: 0.08, 0.35, 0.16, 0.04, 0.21
What do the results mean?

Conscientiousness has the highest correlation with academic performance, even more than intelligence. Being diligent is very helpful, it seems.

Next is openness. One has to be interested in ideas to do well in a lot of academia.

Next is emotional stability. Worrying over one's performance will get in the way of actually performing.

Next is agreeableness. Willingness to do one's assignments, but that effect is weak.

Least of all is extroversion. It has a little bit of correlation in the earlier grades, but not later.


If you want a very quick Big Five test, Sam Gosling has one for you: Ten-Item Personality Inventory-(TIPI) | Gosling

SG specifies this numerical scale:
1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly
But one can shrink it down to 5 or 3 items if one desires.

I see myself as:
1. _____ Extraverted, enthusiastic.
2. _____ Critical, quarrelsome.
3. _____ Dependable, self-disciplined.
4. _____ Anxious, easily upset.
5. _____ Open to new experiences, complex.
6. _____ Reserved, quiet.
7. _____ Sympathetic, warm.
8. _____ Disorganized, careless.
9. _____ Calm, emotionally stable.
10. _____ Conventional, uncreative.

Reverse every even-numbered score and average the scores as follows:
Extraversion: 1, 6R; Agreeableness: 2R, 7; Conscientiousness; 3, 8R; Emotional Stability: 4R, 9; Openness to Experiences: 5, 10R.

Emotional stability = reverse of neuroticism


Understanding the Dark Triad – From MindTools.com
The Dirty Dozen: A Concise Measure of the Dark Triad
  • Narcissism
    • I tend to want others to admire me.
    • I tend to want others to pay attention to me.
    • I tend to seek prestige or status.
    • I tend to expect special favors from others
  • Psychopathy
    • I tend to lack remorse.
    • I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.
    • I tend to be callous or insensitive.
    • I tend to be cynical.
  • Machiavellianism
    • I tend to manipulate others to get my way.
    • I have use flattery to get my way.
    • I have used deceit or lied to get my way.
    • I tend to exploit others towards my own end.


Mazzie Daius
Narcissism is not a peg or nail. It is an aggregated product of expectancies around certain behavioral parameters. Not something one can put down nail in and expect it to keep out weather. It's based on expectations not facts. As is everything factor analyzed, Big 5 is sorted into mindful coherence, a conceptual model, not even a simulation. When this kind of stuff becomes things then let's talk.


Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five

Of the 2643 participants, 69% were from "a large Canadian metropolitan area", 18% were from Eugene-Springfield, Oregon, United States, and the remaining 13% were recruited online with Amazon's Mechanical Turk service. By gender, 66% were female and 34% were mail. By racial/ethnic identity, 40% were White, 28% Asian, <1% others, and the rest unstated (about 30%).

The study used DeYoung's two-way split of each of the five factors. Here is Table 2 from their results:
Raw scoresResidualized scores
Ext - Enthusiasm3.400.663.560.680.23−0.130.590.060.590.32
Ext - Assertiveness3.340.643.280.68−−0.050.58−0.24
Agr - Compassion3.780.604.040.560.45−0.110.560.050.490.31
Agr - Politeness3.520.613.740.610.36−0.060.570.040.530.18
Con - Industriousness3.250.683.210.73−−0.030.66−0.15
Con - Orderliness3.380.613.490.630.18−0.080.560.050.570.22
Neu - Volatility2.630.752.860.770.30−0.030.600.010.610.06
Neu - Withdrawal2.730.693.020.710.40−0.100.550.050.560.27
OI - Intellect3.620.613.480.63−−0.070.58−0.36
OI - Openness3.570.613.740.600.27−0.140.560.070.540.39
The d is a statistical measure of (female) - (male) difference.

The two sexes show some differences, but not great ones, and they have a *lot* of overlap. This study's results are consistent with previous studies' results about gender differences for the five factors.


The study also examined correlations between each aspect, and gender differences were small: absolute values 0 to 0.12 with a median of 0.03 and a mean of 0.04, with correlations having a scale of -1 to 1 (perfect negative to perfect positive correlation).

The correlations were somewhat consistent with the plasticity-stability supertraits (P: E, O ... S: A, C, -N), and were consistent with a General Personality Factor (E, A, C, -N, O). Notice that Neuroticism is inverted, making Emotional Stability. It has negative correlations with the other factors, while those factors have positive correlations among themselves.

The factors' correlations I find to have a mean of 0.19 and a standard deviation of 0.05.


Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won't Die | HuffPost - from 2013

"My name is Adam Grant, and I am an INTJ." Something he learned from a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test. A few months after scoring as INTJ, he scored as ESFP -- the opposite. "I began to read through the evidence, and I found that the MBTI is about as useful as a polygraph for detecting lies."

As my inconsistent scores foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that as many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there’s around a 50 percent chance that you will fall into a different personality category.”

... Although there are data suggesting that different occupations attract people of different types, there is no convincing body of evidence that types affect job performance or team effectiveness. As management researchers William Gardner and Mark Martinko write in a comprehensive review, “Few consistent relationships between type and managerial effectiveness have been found.”
The article: Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to Study Managers: A Literature Review and Research Agenda - William L. Gardner, Mark J. Martinko, 1996


Ways where the MBTI fails:
  • Exhibit A: in the MBTI, thinking and feeling are opposite poles of a continuum. In reality, they’re independent: we have three decades of evidence that if you like ideas and data, you can also like people and emotions. (In fact, more often than not, they go hand in hand: research shows that people with stronger thinking and reasoning skills are also better at recognizing, understanding, and managing emotions.) When I scored as a thinker one time and a feeler one time, it’s because I like both thinking and feeling. I should have separate scores for the two.
  • Exhibit B: the feeling type is supposed to tap into my orientation toward people and emotions. But this lumps together three separate traits that capture a positive orientation toward others, the tendency to feel negative emotions, and the receptivity toward these emotions.
Consistent with earlier research and evaluations, there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types; instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions. The interpretation of the Judging-Perceiving index was also called into question. The data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it. However, correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality.


An ambivert is someone who is halfway between being an introvert and an extrovert. Introversion and extroversion are two extremes of a continuum with the middle being ambiversion and most people clustering around that state.
Why does the MBTI remain so popular in spite of these problems? Murphy Paul argues that people cling to the test for two major reasons. One is that thousands of people have invested time and money in becoming MBTI-certified trainers and coaches. As I wrote over the summer, it’s awfully hard to let go of our big commitments. The other is the “aha” moment that people experience when the test gives them insight about others — and especially themselves.


The article then got into the Big Five model of personality.

Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? - Barrick - 2001 - International Journal of Selection and Assessment - Wiley Online Library
Results support the previous findings that conscientiousness is a valid predictor across performance measures in all occupations studied. Emotional stability was also found to be a generalizable predictor when overall work performance was the criterion, but its relationship to specific performance criteria and occupations was less consistent than was conscientiousness. Though the other three Big Five traits (extraversion, openness and agreeableness) did not predict overall work performance, they did predict success in specific occupations or relate to specific criteria.
C'ness predicts academic and career success, and Rubenzer & Faschingbauer find most Presidents high in c'ness.

Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. - PsycNET
he strength of the team composition variable and team performance relationships was moderated by the study setting (lab or field) and the operationalization of the team composition variable. In lab settings, team minimum and maximum general mental ability and team mean emotional intelligence were related to team performance. Only negligible effects were observed in lab settings for the personality factor and team performance relationships, as well as the value and team performance relationships. In contrast, team minimum agreeableness and team mean conscientiousness, openness to experience, collectivism, and preference for teamwork emerged as strong predictors of team performance in field studies.


Personality Development: Stability and Change | Annual Review of Psychology

Testing predictions from personality neuroscience. Brain structure and the big five - PubMed
We used a new theory of the biological basis of the Big Five personality traits to generate hypotheses about the association of each trait with the volume of different brain regions. Controlling for age, sex, and whole-brain volume, results from structural magnetic resonance imaging of 116 healthy adults supported our hypotheses for four of the five traits: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Extraversion covaried with volume of medial orbitofrontal cortex, a brain region involved in processing reward information. Neuroticism covaried with volume of brain regions associated with threat, punishment, and negative affect. Agreeableness covaried with volume in regions that process information about the intentions and mental states of other individuals. Conscientiousness covaried with volume in lateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in planning and the voluntary control of behavior. These findings support our biologically based, explanatory model of the Big Five and demonstrate the potential of personality neuroscience (i.e., the systematic study of individual differences in personality using neuroscience methods) as a discipline.
They didn't find anything that covaried with Openness to Experience.

Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure - Michael C. Ashton, Kibeom Lee, 2007
Has a sixth factor: Honesty-Humility

The HEXACO Personality Inventory - Revised


Big Five or Big Six?

The HEXACO Personality Inventory - Revised
Has four facets for each factor:
  • Honesty-Humility -- Sincerity, Fairness, Greed Avoidance, Modesty
  • Emotionality -- Fearfulness, Anxiety, Dependence, Sentimentality
  • eXtraversion -- Social Self-Esteem, Social Boldness, Sociability, Liveliness
  • Agreeableness -- Forgivingness, Gentleness, Flexibility, Patience
  • Conscientiousness -- Organization, Diligence, Perfectionism, Prudence
  • Openness -- Aesthetic Appreciation, Inquisitveness, Creativity, Unconventionality
Has an additional combined factor: Altruism

Honesty‐Humility, the Big Five, and the Five‐Factor Model - Ashton - 2005 - Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library - In the Big Five model, some of H-H resides in Agreeableness.

On Measuring the Sixth Basic Personality Dimension: A Comparison Between HEXACO Honesty-Humility and Big Six Honesty-Propriety - Isabel Thielmann, Benjamin E. Hilbig, Ingo Zettler, Morten Moshagen, 2017 - assessing two possible versions of a sixth personality factor: Honesty-Humility and Honesty-Propriety. Of the two, H-H is better supported than H-P.

The Mini-IPIP6: Tiny yet highly stable markers of Big Six personality - ScienceDirect -- all six factors' scores are highly stable across retesting.

Comparative validity of Brief to Medium-Length Big Five and Big Six Personality Questionnaires. - PsycNET
" In this study, 3 popular brief to medium-length Big Five measures (NEO Five Factor Inventory, Big Five Inventory [BFI], and International Personality Item Pool), and 3 six-factor measures (HEXACO Personality Inventory, Questionnaire Big Six Scales, and a 6-factor version of the BFI) were placed in competition to best predict important student life outcomes."
with result
"Six-factor inventories demonstrated better predictive ability for life outcomes than did some Big Five inventories."


Recurrent Personality Dimensions in Inclusive Lexical Studies: Indications for a Big Six Structure - Saucier - 2009 - Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library
with reprint
untitled - Saucier 2009 JP Big Six Structure.pdf

This study worked on words from 7 languages (Chinese, English, Filipino, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, and Turkish), and not just English.

The Big Six:
  • Conscientiousness: Diligent, Precise (6); Conscientious, --Irresponsible (5); Disciplined, Orderly, --Lazy, --Reckless (4); Dutiful, Industrious, Meticulous, Organized, Thorough, --Absent-minded, --Careless, --Disorderly, --Frivolous, --Rash (3); Hard-working, Methodical, Scrupulous, Steadfast, --Chaotic, --Imprudent, --Inaccurate, --Inattentive, --Inconsiderate, --Inconstant, --Irrational, --Lax, --Negligent, --Undisciplined, --Untidy, --Wishy-washy (2).
  • Honesty/Humility: Honest (6), Sincere, --Hypocritical (5); Loyal, --Conceited, --Greedy (4); Just, --Boastful, --Calculating, --Dishonest, --Sly (3); Altruistic, Modest, Truthful, --Naughty, --Lying, --Pompous, --Pretending, --Pretentious, --Stingy, --Untruthful (2).
  • Agreeableness: Peaceful, Tolerant, --Aggressive, --Choleric (5); Mild, Patient (4); Agreeable, Good-natured, --Authoritarian, --Hot-headed, --Irritable, --Stubborn (3); Accommodating, Conciliatory, Kind-hearted, Lenient, Sympathetic, Tranquil, Warm, --Brusque, --Explosive, --Fierce, --Irascible, --Quarrelsome, --Quick-tempered, --Short-tempered (2).
  • Emotionality: Vulnerable (6); Emotional (5); Anxious, Sentimental, --Courageous, --Self-Assured, --Strong (4); Fragile, --Brave, --Imperturbable, --Independent, --Resolute (3); Delicate, Depressive, Fearful, Hypersensitive, Indecisive, Insecure, Melancholic, Oversensitive, Suggestible, Whining, Worrying, --Bold, --Intrepid, --Secure, --Stable, --Tough (2).
  • Extraversion: --Reserved (7); Sociable, --Introverted, --Silent (6); Lively(5); Cheerful, --Passive, --Quiet, --Shy, --Withdrawn (4); Extraverted, Talkative, Vivacious, --Solitary, --Taciturn (3); Exuberant, Hyperactive, Merry, Open, Vigorous, --Boring, --Distant (2).
  • Openness: Original (5); Creative, Intellectual, Intelligent, Sharp (4); Clever, Gifted, Ironic, --Conservative, --Conventional (3); Artistic, Bright, Critical, Educated, Inventive, Receptive, Smart, Talented, Wise, Witty; --Backward, --Ignorant, --Incompetent, --Obedient, --Uneducated, --Unintelligent (2).
The -- means negative loading. The number in ()'s is how many studies mentioned those keywords out of a selection of them.

Emotionality is close to Big Five Neuroticism. H-H has some of Big Five Agreeableness.


Looking beyond the Big Five: A selective review of alternatives to the Big Five model of personality - ScienceDirect - mostly says that we ought to do research into additional personality factors, and cites a sizable number of them.
  • HEXACO - "Big Six"
  • Supernumerary personality traits - Conventionality, Seductiveness, Manipulativeness, Thriftiness, Humorousness, Integrity, Femininity, Religiosity, Risk-Taking, Egotism
  • Reduced versions- Machiavellian, Traditional, Masculine-Feminine
  • Psychobiological model (Cloninger et al.)
  • Dark Tetrad: Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, Narcissism) & Everyday Sadism
  • Self-Defeating Personality Style
  • Emotional Intelligence

Higher-order factors of the Big Six – Similarities between Big Twos identified above the Big Five and the Big Six - ScienceDirect

The Big Two is alpha / beta or stability / plasticity.

Some studies find a Big One, a General Factor of Personality (GFP).

Big Five:
  • Alpha Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, (-) Neuroticism
  • Beta: Extraversion, Openness to Experience
  • GFP present: Alpha, Beta

Big Six:
  • Alpha Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Honesty-Humility
  • Beta: Extraversion, Openness to Experience, (-) Emotionality
  • No GFP

Why does Neuroticism jump from Alpha to Beta when it becomes Emotionality?


These are certainly traits.

And they might appear stable if the person is in a stable non-threatening environment.

But they in no way explain behavior or could be used to predict behavior.

They are like skin color. A trait seen. But a trait that can change as an emotional response.

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
These are certainly traits.

And they might appear stable if the person is in a stable non-threatening environment.

But they in no way explain behavior or could be used to predict behavior.

They are like skin color. A trait seen. But a trait that can change as an emotional response.

I think they are most useful in helping people understand themselves more than anything else. I would not use them to hire someone, for example, or to try to predict behavior, as you said.


Conscientiousness: A Structural Assessment and Development of the Facets of Control Scales
Identifies three facets of Conscientiousness:
  • A "proactive aspect defined by Grit, Determination, Industriousness and Productiveness"
  • A "robust and consistent facet of Order and Organization"
  • An "inhibitory aspect of the trait was identified which was captured by Self-Control measures from the Chernyshenko Conscientiousness Scales, Prudence from the HEXACO and Impulse Control from the Facets of Control measure"
That is, diligence, orderliness, and self-control.

Under "Main Content": "This item is under embargo until July 20, 2022."

Seems like good work in homing in on the facet composition of C'ness. It would be interesting to see how other Big Five / HEXACO factors fare in this kind of analysis.

Integrating the HEXACO model with the Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy - ScienceDirect
  • Boldness: -E +X
  • Meanness: -H +E
  • Disinhibition: -C
H = honesty-humility, E = emotionality (~ Big-5 neuroticism), X = eXtraversion, A = agreeableness, C = conscientiousness, O = openness


Is Hillary dishonest and Donald narcissistic? A HEXACO analysis of the presidential candidates' public personas - ScienceDirect
At ResearchGate: Is Hillary dishonest and Donald narcissistic? A HEXACO analysis of the presidential candidates' public personas - Visser20et20al.202016.pdf
As mentioned above, the HEXACO model offers several advantages over the Big Five model of personality including a plausible evolutionary basis (Lee & Ashton, 2012), replication in many languages and cultures (Ashton et al., 2006), and superior prediction of behavior, particularly deceitful, dishonest, and antisocial behavior (Lee & Ashton,2012), largely due to the inclusion of Honesty-Humility (de Vries et al., 2016). Further, in two large scale studies, the HEXACO has been shown to be an excellent predictor of particularly aversive personality types, namely psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sadism (Book et al., 2015; Book et al., 2016). More specifically, all of these personalities were predicted by low Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.

More generally, about HEXACO,
The HEXACO personality model (Ashton & Lee, 2007) proposes that there are six rather than five personality factors: Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), eXtraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O). A relatively new measure of personality, the HEXACO appears to have better theoretical, empirical, and cross-cultural support than the Big Five (de Vries, Tybur, Pollet, & van Vugt, 2016). In particular, the HEXACO delineates antisociality more clearly than the Big Five.

To begin with, people with low scores on Honesty-Humility are more likely to manipulate and exploit others, feel entitled and important, and are more likely to break rules for personal gain. There are 4 facets within the Honesty-Humility domain, namely: sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty.

Low Emotionality scorers are emotionally detached and low on empathy, making them less likely to be concerned with the effect of their willing behavior on other people. They are also less likely to be worried in stressful situations, which may improve their crisis management skills. Facets within this domain include fearfulness, anxiety, sentimentality, and dependence.

High scores on eXtraversion are correlated with confidence, charisma, and sociability. The four facets in the domain of eXtraversion are social self-esteem, social boldness, sociability, and liveliness.

Agreeableness relates to the ability to forgive, being tolerant, and willing to compromise/cooperate with others. Low scorers tend to be vengeful, stubborn, and are more likely to react to provocation with anger. This domain is exemplified by facets measuring forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility, and patience.

People who are high on Conscientiousness are organized, disciplined, and make thoughtful decisions, whereas low scorers are impulsive in their decision making and are less concerned with quality of work. Conscientiousness is further split into facets measuring organization, diligence, perfectionism, and prudence.

The final subscale, Openness to Experience, is related to intellectual curiosity and the tendency to be interested in new or unconventional ideas. This domain includes 4 facets measuring aesthetic appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity, and unconventionality.

There is also an interstitial scale directly measuring Altruism. People who score low on this scale are hard-hearted and less likely to engage in helping others.


PsyArXiv Preprints | Agreeableness in the HEXACO
We see little benefit to separating Honesty-Humility from the broader FFM Agreeableness domain. In our commentary, we summarize several studies showing that although lexically-based Big Five measures under-represent H-H content, the same cannot be said for FFM-based measures. We also indicate that contrary to claims by some advocates, FFM-based Agreeableness is more strongly related to the Dark Triad than H-H. Finally, we review a recent study examining the lower-order structure of FFM Agreeableness that failed to reveal a separate H-H factor, despite more than adequate representation of that content.
In other words, Big-5 Agreeableness includes HEXACO Honest-Humility along with HEXACO Agreeableness.

Uncovering the structure of agreeableness from self‐report measures - Crowe - 2018 - Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library
"A five-factor solution consisting of facets labeled Compassion, Morality, Trust, Affability, and Modesty was identified as most appropriate"

Reopening Openness to Experience: A Network Analysis of Four Openness to Experience Inventories: Journal of Personality Assessment: Vol 101, No 6
Our results (N = 802) identified 10 distinct facets (variety-seeking, aesthetic appreciation, intellectual curiosity, diversity, openness to emotions, fantasy, imaginative, self-assessed intelligence, intellectual interests, and nontraditionalism) that largely replicate previous findings as well as three higher order aspects: two that are commonly found in the literature (intellect and experiencing; i.e., openness), and one novel aspect (open-mindedness).
From the paper,
  • Intellect
    • Intellectual interests -- Engagement in philosophy and discussing abstract, theoretical ideas
    • Self-assessed intelligence -- Perceived ability to think quickly, solve problems, and process information
    • Intellectual curiosity -- Enjoyment of learning new things, thinking about complexity, and reflecting on thoughts
  • Open-mindedness
    • Nontraditionalism -- Receptiveness to new ideas, cultures, and perspectives
    • Variety-seeking -- Willingness to explore new environments and try new ways of doing things
    • Diversity -- Embraces a variety of attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyles
  • Experiencing
    • Aesthetic appreciation -- Engagement in the arts and perceptual experiences
    • Openness to emotions -- Sensitivity to aesthetic emotions, complex feelings, and strong moods
    • Imaginative -- Ability to have original thoughts and a desire to create
    • Fantasy -- Tendency to daydream and mind wander

    I can't find much on the lower-order structure of extroversion or neuroticism.


PsyArXiv Preprints | Evaluating the Big Five as an Organizing Framework for Commonly Used Psychological Trait Scales
That meant recruiting a lot of subjects and giving them several psychological tests. One can then look for correlations between them.

Thus, worry has N +0.85, E -0.12, C +0.10, A +0.04, O 0.00

Behavioral self-inhibition has N +0.78, while self-compassion has N -0.68

Fun-seeking has E +0.56, C -0.27, A +0.14, O +0.13, N +0.04

Impulsivity (non-planning) has C -0.75, self-control C +0.70, grit (perseverance) has +0.65

Empathy (empathic conern) has A +0.76 and Aggression (verbal) has A -0.61

Need for cognition has O +0.61

Some of these scales rather obviously describe facets of the Big Five traits, but others don't seem to. Some traits are "interstitial", having contributions from more than one Big Five trait. Some others have variation outside of the Big Five. These "peripheral" scales usually had at least one of two features.

"First, many of these peripheral scales were comprised of items that began with “when” or “if,” indicating that some condition had to be fulfilled before the main clause of the item would be relevant"

"Second, many of these scale items included a common word (or synonym) that was either not in any other items or only rarely featured."


Looking back at early evolution, I found some more papers on dopamine and serotonin across the animal kingdom, in addition to earlier Ancestry of neuronal monoamine transporters in the Metazoa | Journal of Experimental Biology | The Company of Biologists

Frontiers | The Roles of Dopamine and Related Compounds in Reward-Seeking Behavior Across Animal Phyla | Behavioral Neuroscience
Motile animals actively seek out and gather resources they find rewarding, and this is an extremely powerful organizer and motivator of animal behavior. Mammalian studies have revealed interconnected neurobiological systems for reward learning, reward assessment, reinforcement and reward-seeking; all involving the biogenic amine dopamine. The neurobiology of reward-seeking behavioral systems is less well understood in invertebrates, but in many diverse invertebrate groups, reward learning and responses to food rewards also involve dopamine. The obvious exceptions are the arthropods in which the chemically related biogenic amine octopamine has a greater effect on reward learning and reinforcement than dopamine. Here we review the functions of these biogenic amines in behavioral responses to rewards in different animal groups, and discuss these findings in an evolutionary context.

IJMS | Free Full-Text | Serotonin in Animal Cognition and Behavior
Serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT) is acknowledged as a major neuromodulator of nervous systems in both invertebrates and vertebrates. It has been proposed for several decades that it impacts animal cognition and behavior. In spite of a completely distinct organization of the 5-HT systems across the animal kingdom, several lines of evidence suggest that the influences of 5-HT on behavior and cognition are evolutionary conserved. In this review, we have selected some behaviors classically evoked when addressing the roles of 5-HT on nervous system functions. In particular, we focus on the motor activity, arousal, sleep and circadian rhythm, feeding, social interactions and aggressiveness, anxiety, mood, learning and memory, or impulsive/compulsive dimension and behavioral flexibility. The roles of 5-HT, illustrated in both invertebrates and vertebrates, show that it is more able to potentiate or mitigate the neuronal responses necessary for the fine-tuning of most behaviors, rather than to trigger or halt a specific behavior. 5-HT is, therefore, the prototypical neuromodulator fundamentally involved in the adaptation of all organisms across the animal kingdom.
  • Dopamine -> reward systems -> Big Two plasticity
  • Serotonin -> modulation systems -> Big Two stability
both go back a long way, likely to the common ancestor of Bilateria and Cnidaria. So both mechanisms and their neurotransmitters are almost as old as nervous systems themselves.

The remaining animals with nervous systems are comb jellies, and there is the serious possibility that their nervous systems were the result of separate evolution.


More on different species:

  • Dog: Energy (Extraversion), Affection (Agreeableness), Emotional Reactivity (Neuroticism), Intelligence (Openness/Intellect). No counterpart of Conscientiousness, however.
  • Cat: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Dominance, Impulsiveness and Agreeableness.
  • Horse: Agreeableness, Extraversion, Neuroticism.
  • Parrot: Curiosity/neophilia (Extraversion), Anxiety/vigilance (Neuroticism)
Dominance and Impulsiveness seem related to Extraversion.


  • Old World simians (Catarrhini): (((human, chimp), gorilla), (rhesus monkey, vervet monkey))
  • Boreoeutheria: ((OWS, rat), ((dog, (hyena, cat)), (horse, donkey)))
  • Amniota: (Boreo, parrot)
  • Osteichthyes (Euteleostomi): (Amniota, guppy)
  • Eubilateria: (Oste, octopus)
Extraversion and neuroticism are found in all of them. Agreeableness was found among Boreoeutheria (northern-origin placental mammals).

I did a lot of searching for papers on personality variation in chickens, iguanas, and the like, but without much success. So finding papers on parrots was a big success -- they help fill the Boreo - fish gap.



The performance of rooks in a cooperative task depends on their temperament | SpringerLink
In recent years, an increasing number of studies demonstrated the existence of consistent individual differences in behaviour, often referred to as differences in temperament or personality, in a wide range of animal species. There notably is a growing body of evidence showing that individuals differ in their propensity for risk taking or reacting to stressful situations.
Rook = Corvus frugilegus (crow-like bird) Roughly extraversion and neuroticism.

An experimental test of density‐dependent selection on temperament traits of activity, boldness and sociability - Le Galliard - 2015 - Journal of Evolutionary Biology - Wiley Online Library - tests on a common Eurasian lizard, Zootoca vivipara - activity, boldness and sociability

Dynamics of among-individual behavioral variation over adult lifespan in a wild insect | Behavioral Ecology | Oxford Academic - the cricket Gryllus campestris - tendency to leave a refuge, shyness, activity, and exploration

Personality variation in a clonal insect: The pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum - Schuett - 2011 - Developmental Psychobiology - Wiley Online Library - "Here we show that individuals of clonal pea aphids exhibit consistent behavioral differences in their escape responses to a predator attack (dropping vs. nondropping off a plant)."

Polistes metricus queens exhibit personality variation and behavioral syndromes | Current Zoology | Oxford Academic - paper wasp - boldness, aggressiveness, exploration, and activity

Consistent crustaceans: the identification of stable behavioural syndromes in hermit crabs | SpringerLink - startle response, exploration and aggression

Most of these traits seem like versions of extraversion, but dropping/non-dropping and startle response seems like versions of neuroticism. As a comparison, Gosling et al. scored guppy fear-avoidance and octopus reactivity as neuroticism, and guppy approach and octopus boldness-avoidance as extraversion.


I found some personality research for a non-boreoeutherian mammal: Wild female African elephants (Loxodonta africana) exhibit personality traits of leadership and social integration. - PsycNET
Animal personalities have been demonstrated for almost 200 species, with stable dimensions of responses (aggressive to fearful; shy to bold) across contexts and with a heritable basis to these traits. As a long-lived and highly social species, elephants (Loxodonta africana) were expected to demonstrate complex dimensions to individual characteristics or personalities, which would be obvious to human observers and validated by behavioral observations. We used principal-components analysis of ratings on 26 behavioral adjectives applied to one social unit, coded as the EB family, which has been observed for 38 years. Eleven adult females were rated by four observers and found to have individually variable traits on four dimensions described by principal-components analysis. The first component was associated with effective and confident family leadership. Component 2 was age-related, and defined by playfulness, exploration and high levels of activity, suggesting both an experience and an age-related element to its structure. Component 3 represented gentleness and at its other extreme, aggression, and Component 4 was related to constancy (predictability and popularity), with both of these latter components reflecting social integration.
Evidence of extraversion, agreeableness, and likely openness.

A non-placental mammal: Individual traits influence vigilance in wild female eastern grey kangaroos | CSIRO PUBLISHING | Australian Journal of Zoology - neuroticism

Another reptile: Individual variation in boldness in turtles is consistent across assay conditions and behavioural measures in: Behaviour Volume 156 Issue 10 (2019) - extraversion

Another mollusk: Individual boldness is life stage-dependent and linked to dispersal in a hermaphrodite land snail | SpringerLink - extraversion


A lot of the animal-personality measures may be unfamiliar by human standards, but some of them may be interpreted as facets of extraversion, neuroticism, etc. For extraversion: activity, dominance, exploration (possibly also openness) etc. For neuroticism: the  Startle response is found over a wide range of species.
The startle response is a response to possible threats, and serotonin being involved makes it fit with neuroticism.


So I find this phylogeny:
  • Mammalia: (marsupials: kangaroo, placentals: (Afrothera: elephant, Boreoeutheria: all the others))
  • Amniota: (Synapsida: Mammalia, Sauropsida: (turtle, lizard, birds: Neoaves: (rook, parrot)))
  • Osteichthyes (bony vertebrates): (ray-finned (Actinopterygii): guppy, lobe-finned (Sarcopterygii): Amniota)
  • Arthropoda: Pancrustacea: (Hexapoda: Pterygota: (cricket, aphid, paper wasp), Malacostraca: crab)
  • Mollusca: (Gastropoda: snail, Cephalopoda: octopus))
  • Eubilateria: (Deuterostomia: Vertebrata: Osteichthyes, Protostomia: (Ecdysozoa: Arthropoda, Lophotrochozoa: Mollusca))
I looked again at the highest-level phylogeny of the animal kingdom. It's still in an unsettled state, but some results seem evident.

Bilateria and Cnidaria are relatively close to each other, with Placozoa close to them, as clade Eumetazoa:
(Placozoa (Cnidaria, Bilateria))
((Placozoa, Cnidaria), Bilateria)

Placozoans are flattened blobs about 1 mm across. They have outer layers and an in-between part, but no nervous system, though they have plenty of cell-cell signaling. They feed by engulfing their food on one side.

Glycine as a signaling molecule and chemoattractant in Trichoplax...: Ingenta Connect -- Trichoplax adhaerens is a placozoan -- glycine is the smallest amino acid.
But neither dopamine nor serotonin was detected.

So we have:

(Placozoa --, (Cnidaria DS, Bilateria DS): DS)
(Placozoa lost DS, (Cnidaria DS, Bilateria DS): DS): DS
((Placozoa lost DS, Cnidaria DS): DS, Bilateria DS): DS

Looking further, we have
(Porifera, (Ctenophora, Eumetazoa))
(Ctenophora, (Porifera, Eumetazoa))
Porifera with offshoot (Ctenophora, Eumetazoa)

Ctenophores (comb jellies) seem to lack dopamine and serotonin, so D and S are likely only to eumetazoans.


Having shown that extraversion and neuroticism go back to very early in the history of nervous systems, let us return back to where we started: our species.

Physical Strength Partly Explains Sex Differences in Trait Anxiety in Young Americans - Nicholas Kerry, Damian R. Murray, 2021
Among the most consistent sex differences to emerge from personality research is that women score higher than men on the Big Five personality trait Neuroticism. However, there are few functionally coherent explanations for this sex difference. The current studies tested whether this sex difference is due, in part, to variation in physical capital. Two preregistered studies (total N = 878 U.S. students) found that sex differences in the anxiety facet of Neuroticism were mediated by variation in physical strength and self-perceived formidability. Study 1 (N = 374) did not find a predicted mediation effect for overall Neuroticism but found a mediation effect for anxiety (the facet of Neuroticism most strongly associated with grip strength). Study 2 (N = 504) predicted and replicated this mediation effect. Further, sex differences in anxiety were serially mediated by grip strength and self-perceived formidability. These findings add to a nascent literature suggesting that differences in physical attributes may partially explain sex differences in personality.
So if one is weaker and feels more vulnerable, one is more likely to be anxious.

Extroversion also had a correlation, with more perceived formidability correlating with being more assertive and energetic.


The impact of childhood lead exposure on adult personality: Evidence from the United States, Europe, and a large-scale natural experiment | PNAS
Childhood lead exposure causes lifelong psychological problems, which may be more extensive than previously thought. In a sample of over 1.5 million people, we found that US and European residents who grew up in areas with higher levels of atmospheric lead had less adaptive personality profiles in adulthood (lower conscientiousness, lower agreeableness, and higher neuroticism), even when accounting for socioeconomic status.

Childhood lead exposure has devastating lifelong consequences, as even low-level exposure stunts intelligence and leads to delinquent behavior. However, these consequences may be more extensive than previously thought because childhood lead exposure may adversely affect normal-range personality traits.

... Adjusting for age and socioeconomic status, US adults who grew up in counties with higher atmospheric lead levels had less adaptive personality profiles: they were less agreeable and conscientious and, among younger participants, more neurotic.

... Participants born after atmospheric lead levels began to decline in their county had more mature, psychologically healthy adult personalities (higher agreeableness and conscientiousness and lower neuroticism), but these findings were not discriminable from pure cohort effects.

... European participants who spent their childhood in areas with more atmospheric lead were less agreeable and more neurotic in adulthood.
The Big Five traits have Big Two supertraits: plasticity (extroversion, openness) and stability (conscientiousness, agreeableness, and inverse neuroticism (emotional stability)).

So lead exposure causes less mental stability, something manifested in all three of its Big Five subtraits.


SimilarMinds.com > Big 5 / Global 5 / SLOAN Multidimensional Typing System
  • Extroversion - Social and Reserved type
    • Social types feel at ease interacting with to others
    • Reserved types are uncomfortable and/or disinterested with social interaction
  • Emotional Stability - Limbic and Calm type
    • Limbic types are prone to moodiness
    • Calm types maintain level emotions
  • Orderliness - Organized and Unstructured type
    • Organized types are focused
    • Unstructured types are scattered
  • Accommodation - Accommodating and Egocentric type
    • Accommodating types live for others
    • Egocentric types live for themselves
  • Intellect - Non-curious and Inquisitive type
    • Non-curious types are less intellectually driven
    • Inquisitive types are insatiable in their quest to know more
These are very obviously the Big Five traits under other names: extraversion, inverse neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness.


Chapter 3. Avian Personality from a book, "Animal Personalities" - Animal Personalities: Behavior, Physiology, and Evolution - vanOersandNaguibAvianPersonality2013.pdf
Here are all the species mentioned, along with rooks and parrots:
  • Palaeognathae > Struthioniformes > greater rhea (Rhea americana)
  • Neognathae:
    • Galloanserae:
      • Galliformes > domestic chicken (Gallus gallus), domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica)
      • Anseriformes > domestic goose (Anser anser), barnacle goose (Branta bernicla), domestic duck (Anas platyrhynchos)
    • Neoaves: many
  • Aequornithes
    • Ciconiiformes > European white stork (Ciconia ciconia)
    • Sphenisciformes > Yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes)
  • Telluraves > Australaves
    • Falconiformes > European kestrel (Falco tinnunculus)
    • Psittaciformes: parrots
    • Passeriformes: many
  • Corvides > Corvidae > common raven (Corvus corax), rook (Corvus frugilegus)
  • Passerides
    • Sylviida
      • Sylviidae > garden warbler (Sylvia borin), Sardinian warbler (Sylvia melanocephala)
      • Acrocephalidae > sedge warbler (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus)
        • Poecile > black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli)
        • Blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus)
        • Great tit (Parus major)
    • Muscicapida
      • Muscicapidae > collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis)
      • Turdidae > Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana)
      • Sturnidae > starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
    • Passserida
      • Fringillidae > chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs)
      • Estrildidae > zebra finch (Taenopygia guttata)
      • Icteridae > brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscala), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)


Most of the experiments were done on versions of extraversion: boldness, exploration, risk-taking, and aggressiveness. Some were done on versions of neuroticism: complacency, neophobia, and fearfulness, and one was on agreeableness: sociability. Some were done on handling (neuroticism?) and feeding habits (?).
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the Big Five is not really a true inventory.

A true personality inventory should lead to results that actually sound to the subject of that inventory like the most ideal possible personality.

When a particular score is seen as inherently negative, people tend to cheat, which requires weights to be added in an attempt to improve the accuracy of those scores. However, the weights themselves lead to problems for people that tend to give profoundly honest answers: the honest subject, who has a high degree of straightforwardness, might be more prone to acknowledging fault.

I think this is why the MBTI still beats the Big Five in some ways.

In this paper we provide for the first time a com-
parison of Big Five and MBTI from a personality
computing perspective. To do so we use two mul-
tilingual Twitter datasets, one annotated with Big
Five classes and one with MBTI classes. For the
first time, we provide an evidence that algorithms
trained on MBTI could have better performances
than trained on the Big Five, although the Big Five
is much more informative and has great variability
in performance depending also on the algorithm
used for the prediction. We let available the files
used for the experiments2, in order to grant the
replicability or improvement of the results.

Elena Cabrio, Alessandro Mazzei and Fabio Tamburini (dir.)Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference onComputational Linguistics CLiC-it 201810-12 December 2018, Torino

The problems with the Big Five could be remedied simply by making it appear, to the subject, to be a true inventory. Lead the subject to believe that low scores for agreeableness reflect personality characteristics that would be viewed as ideal by someone that really was a raging asshole. Just go along with how unpleasant people tend to explain away their behavior, and let them think that the same scores that prove they are assholes really prove what wonderful people they are.

If you must know, I get the highest possible scores on openness, and I get the lowest possible scores on neuroticism. I tend to get moderately high but not extraordinary scores on extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

At one point in my life I had shockingly low scores on the dimension of agreeableness, but I have mellowed out substantially as I have gotten older.

If you understand the relationships between the Big Five and the MBTI, then it would make sense to you that I was also a strong ENTP personality type when I was younger, but I have become more of an ENFP as I have gotten older. The thinking v. feeling dimension is linked with agreeableness.

This study sets out examine the relationship between two personality measures—most popularly used measure in the consultancy and training world (the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and one of the most heavily used measures in the academic research area on personality (the five factor NEO-PI). One hundred and sixty adults completed the NEO-PI and the MBTI. The NEO-PI Agreeableness score was correlated only with the thinking-feeling (T-F) dimension; the NEO-PI Conscientiousness score was correlated with both thinking-feeling and judging-perceiving (J-P) dimension; the NEO-PI Extraversion score was strongly correlated with the extraversion-introversion (E-I) dimensions, while the Neuroticism score from the NEO-PI was not related to any MBTI subscale score. The openness dimension was correlated with all four especially sensing-intuitive. These results were related to two other similar comparative studies. Results are discussed in terms of recent criticisms of the MBTI.

Personality and Individual Differences

Volume 21, Issue 2, August 1996, Pages 303-307

I did a tremendous amount of research on the tests after a professor docked my grade for mentioning, on an essay, that I felt that the MBTI was really more like a true inventory. After I had fully demonstrated to her how wrong she was, she offered to regrade the paper. I had all but forgotten about the excremental grade over the course of the conversation, and when she brought the grade up, I was like, "You mean you're still on that?" I had gotten so caught up in the subject that I had all but forgotten about the grade.

Anyhow, all the creators of the Big Five thing have to do is phrase the "negative" result in a way that flatters the egos of the subjects that receive those scores. They will answer a lot more honestly, that way.


I don't know which MBTI description that SigmatheZeta was using, but I suspect the Forer effect. That's how horoscopes work. One makes general but flattering assessments of one's subject, and one's subject then finds it a very good fit for their personality.

It might be possible to induce the Forer effect by by making the Big Five binary or ternary, then coming up with general and flattering descriptions of each factor value. Ternary? That's to include states between the extremes. For extroversion, an ambivert is someone halfway between being an extrovert and being an introvert.
Top Bottom