<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Personality Research &#187; personality descriptions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://research.similarminds.com/tag/personality-descriptions/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://research.similarminds.com</link>
	<description>articles on personality</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:09:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>SimilarMinds Personality Descriptions are TOO Negative!?</title>
		<link>http://research.similarminds.com/similarminds-personality-descriptions-are-too-negative/59/ </link>
		<comments>http://research.similarminds.com/similarminds-personality-descriptions-are-too-negative/59/ #comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:29:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big five]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mbti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[myers briggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personality descriptions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personality psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personality traits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personality types]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sloan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.similarminds.com/?p=59</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I occasionally get angry missives from people complaining about how negative some of the personality descriptions on SimilarMinds are.  
All the personality type descriptions on this site are entirely composed of personality items each type self rated highest on compared to the average. To clarify further, one of the descriptions on the RLUEI page [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I occasionally get angry missives from people complaining about how negative some of the personality descriptions on SimilarMinds are.  </p>
<p>All the personality type descriptions on this site are entirely composed of personality items each type self rated highest on compared to the average. To clarify further, one of the descriptions on the <a href="http://similarminds.com/global5/rluei.html" target="_blank">RLUEI</a> page is "not usually happy".  The source of the description is the personality item "I am unhappy". 645 test takers that scored as RLUEI had a self rating average of 2.34 (on a 0-4 likert scale) on that item. The average of all test takers was 1.32, so RLUEIs scored significantly higher on that item.</p>
<p>In fact that item had one of the highest type vs. average differences (D-score), hence it's inclusion at the beginning of the description. (The order of descriptions is entirely determined by D-scores.)  This can mean that an item with a seemingly average score of 2.0 for example could show up first, if the D-score is sufficiently high. On the personality item "I don't like happy people" RLUEIs self rate as 1.51. That number could be described as low, but the average score on that item is .7, much lower, resulting in a D-score of .81. So despite a seemingly low score, that is a very meaningful  RLUEI item.</p>
<p>The highest scoring item for RLUEIs is "I love music". The average score is 3.58 on that item. That undoubtedly is very high. It's not included in the RLUEI description though. The reason is every one else apparently also likes music. The average score overall on that item is 3.62, so the RLUEI D-score of that item is very low. Liking music is just not very descriptive of the unique personality of RLUEIs.</p>
<p>I've added a note on the description pages to hopefully minimize confusion and I'll try to make sure when transcribing description items that they reflect both the D-score and the raw score (i.e. that when an item has a large D-score but a low raw score that is conveyed). Based on the D-score, RLUEIs are not huge fans of happy people, but as the raw score reflects, they don't, on average, dislike happy people.</p>
<p>Additionally, recently I've been working on a new personality system which profiles people's perceived reward drives, what they think makes them happy. One of the drives involves having a sense of identity. Interestingly, I've found that people who score high on introversion (or Reserved on the SLOAN test) are more likely to have a weak sense of identity and are more likely to hate themselves. They are also more likely to be bitter, defensive, and self deceive. This alone would account for both the more negative introvert self descriptions and the vitriol I occasionally get about that. </p>
<p>As an introvert myself historically, I have to admit to my own history of self uncertainty and self hatred. Of course the MBTI offered self hating introverts a more positive sense of identity, your money is as good as any other client and they want it (also the MBTI developers were probably Feelers/Irrational who value what feels right over what makes sense so they are unlikely to criticize even a serial killer if doing so would make them feel sad). So they tell introverts - you are just different, you recharge alone, you are just pickier about who to be friends with, it's perfectly normal to have anxiety in a crowded area.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, based on the actual evidence, I have to conclude that many aspects traditionally associated with introversion are in fact serious psychological dysfunctions (not that excessive extroversion isn't also rife with issues). For example, being private can mean being afraid to show others who you really are (often because you don't even know who you are). How anyone could spin that as a positive is testimony to the marketing greed of personality test companies or good intentioned people pleasing of the Accommodating disposition.  </p>
<p>Which brings up another flaw regarding introversion (and extroversion as well). It's not a distinct type, it's, at best, a classification of a superficial shared behavioral pattern. A useful personality type has one shared motive, a classification is merely a grouping of superficially similar behaving people who lack a shared motive for that superficial behavior.</p>
<p>The introvert 'class' behave the way they do (quiet, shy, private, etc.) because they...</p>
<p>A. don't know who they are</p>
<p>and/or</p>
<p>B. intentionally want to hide who they are from others (because who they are is unattractive/offensive/etc. to others in perception and/or in reality AND/OR because they perceive some tactical advantage over others by not revealing their 'hand')</p>
<p>and/or</p>
<p>C. are afraid of / don't trust others</p>
<p>Some are A, some are B, some are C, and some are a combo of the three. This is just another reason why no introversion description is likely to satisfy many of the people who score as introverts.</p>
<p>Typology flaws aside, it's unlikely for an individual to ever improve as a person or respond well to criticism about who they are if they've religiously embraced the notion that...</p>
<p>A. Personality type is fixed/unchangeable<br />
B. Their personality type is healthy (when it's actually not)</p>
<p>This site is devoted to objective research and honest deconstruction of human personality. I'm interested in helping people to become happier in an honest way. Informing someone they are great when they are troubled is a good way to make money as a personality consultant or author, but I really don't see any other benefit to it long term (for them or the world). Most personality type descriptions you read on the web are not compiled in any remotely scientific way. They are based on and/or borrowed from books which themselves are based on a lot of subjective personal opinion or insufficiently small sample size personality testimonials, not to mention the inherent flaws in many of the personality systems themselves (Enneagram, Jung/MBTI, and even the Big 5).</p>
<p>Beyond the above, personality descriptions are never going to be one hundred percent accurate for each person (at best, they are pretty accurate for most people). Not everyone reads items to mean the same thing and not everyone is honest (consciously or unconsciously) about who they are. Also, the more you score between types the less accuracy you are going to find in the Jung and SLOAN descriptions.</p>
<p>Relevant Links:</p>
<p><a href="http://similarminds.com/personality_types.html">Personality Type Descriptions</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://research.similarminds.com/similarminds-personality-descriptions-are-too-negative/59/ /feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

