The MOTIVES Personality System

“Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way.” — Aristotle

Abstract / Summary

There are seven personality traits or motivations that explain much of human personality: admiration-seeking, experimenting, planning, helping, being positive, relaxing, and tribal defense. Healthy people appreciate and are developed in one or more of these seven traits. Unhealthy people overvalue, undervalue, or lack development in one or more of those same traits.

To explain things through metaphor, if the whole world were a single city:

All of the above roles or personality types are—or at least were at some point—needed and have a place in human culture and evolution. That's why they developed. Despite my personal opinions and biases, my data suggests it is possible for some people to be happy and healthy while following any of the above strategies.

I'm not sure I can say all of the above traits are positive for the health of the world, particularly the Materialist and Sectarian traits, but that's something I'm still researching.

Despite Vitality being independent of the other six drives overall, when you look at average Vitality (happiness) scores in a large sample, high—but not extremely high—Offbeat and high Thinking types are the happiest. On Materialism, Interpersonal, Easygoing, and Sectarian, the happiness sweet spot appears closer to the middle. Being very high on Materialism and Interpersonal is associated with the lowest happiness in those grouped comparisons.

This is not as clean as a system that says every type is equal, every type has strengths, and every behavioral tendency is good. I think it reflects the more complex and nuanced reality of human personality better than cartoonishly clean typologies do.

The core purpose of this site is to present what I think is the most scientifically accurate and neutral architecture of human personality I can build from the data, then let you decide which aspects of personality you think are healthy or unhealthy and which traits you want to reinforce or change. MOTIVES should also help you understand other people better and make better choices about the people you associate with.

The MOTIVES System

MOTIVES is a refined hybrid of previous notions of personality—Big Five, Jung, Freud, and Golden Rule-type social psychology. It proposes seven independent, alterable, empirically testable personality motivations or strategies.

The Big Five is a lexical personality model. In simple terms, it is based on the premise that language is a useful representation of reality: words are intellectual tools created to describe what people observe. This makes the Big Five something like a wisdom-of-crowds approach to describing personality. The limitation is that the model can inherit whatever biases exist in the crowd's understanding of personality.

Jung and Freud represent more of an expert approach: intelligent individuals with extensive clinical experience. But their samples were more disturbed and wealthy than average, and their work was limited by a lack of empiricism. They spent more time formulating concepts than vetting those concepts with large-scale data. I don't think any individual, no matter how intelligent, can produce a flawless personality theory solely from instinct, logical judgment, and unempirical observation.

The solution, as I see it, is a system that applies to both the general and clinical population, accounts for as much personality as possible, and can be tested empirically. MOTIVES is built around seven central reward drives. These can be understood as evolutionary hard-wired tendencies, environmental adaptations, or some combination of the two.

High preferences and low preferences

Originally, I thought there were—or, as theories often arise, “should be”—seven equally strong counter-preferences. After testing that idea, I found that this is not exactly the case. Someone who scores low on Offbeat, for example, does not necessarily fixate on conventional behavior. They may simply dislike unconventional behavior or not expend much effort being unconventional.

In general, high scorers tend to be heavily invested in or fixated on the behavior represented by the trait. Low scorers are often characterized more by the absence of that fixation. Vitality is somewhat different because the Depressed counter-orientation can be equally strong or stronger.

Each person's distinct mix across these seven spectrums produces a large number of possible orientations: 128 if you only consider high/low preferences, 2,187 if you consider high/middle/low preferences, and many more if you include degree. Most people seem to have one or, at most, two clearly dominant MOTIVES orientations.

Example simple code: MCHIDEG
Example high/middle/low code: XOTWXES
Example dominance notation: Mox|I|drS

Another useful way to look at MOTIVES is as six behavioral drives, with Vitality functioning partly as a scoreboard reflecting how well the other preferences are working for the person.

• Materialistic vs. Ascetic: I want preferential or special attention vs. I'm relatively unconcerned with image or attention.
• Offbeat vs. Conventional: I want to try new things and new ways vs. I'm not a big fan of change.
• Thinking vs. Haphazard: I want to live life by a mental plan vs. I am unplanned or disorganized.
• Interpersonal vs. Withholding: I want to help others vs. I'm not compelled to help others.
• Easygoing vs. Rigid: I want to take it easy vs. I don't prioritize relaxation.
• Sectarian vs. Globalistic: I put my tribe, culture, or nation first vs. I don't prioritize nationalism.

Your preference profile across those six spectrums is associated with a certain level of happiness or unhappiness, which is a major aspect of the Vital score. For some people Vitality may be a drive in itself; for others it may be more a reflection of whether their other preferences are working.

Examples of Drive Salience

To get a better sense of how significant these drives are, consciously or unconsciously, I explored different ways people self-rated on MOTIVES traits. These are examples of items with strong factor scores:

The seven MOTIVES drives result in distinctly different motivations, preferences, values, and self-identities that can have real-life effects on behavioral choices, relationships, and life paths. If you don't value generosity and don't want to change that about yourself, you are less likely to enjoy a career that requires a lot of it. If one person wants an exploratory existence and the other strongly dislikes change, that difference is likely to matter.

The same applies to preferences around status, order, helping, relaxation, and group loyalty. A useful personality framework gives people a vocabulary for discussing those differences and, when possible, finding workable compromises.

MOTIVES Ultra-Short Form

Answer key: left item is very me / left item is somewhat me / I'm in between / right item is somewhat me / right item is very me.

Answer the seven items with the appropriate letter, then select whichever item fits you most and put that letter in brackets.

Sample result: aOhxx[E]g

Factor Analysis

MOTIVES is the macro, wide-angle companion to the R-Drive personality system, which takes a more detailed, zoomed-in approach. The individual R-Drive motivations—and, in my view, many characteristics from other personality models—can be described as combinations of high, neutral, and low preferences across the seven MOTIVES drives.

A broader chart of MOTIVES loadings for other personality traits and types is available on the MOTIVES correlations page.

Sample size: 6,675 (2,308 men; 4,367 women).

Sample size: 3,189; 10 test items from the TIPI Big Five test.

Sample size: 2,888; 44 test items from the BFI Big Five test.

Based on these correlations, Open-mindedness is analogous with Offbeat, Accommodation is analogous with Interpersonal, Emotional Stability and Extroversion are analogous with Vitality, and Conscientiousness is analogous with Thinking. I think the fact that multiple Big Five traits also load on Vitality reflects a misalignment in the Big Five structure.

Sample size: 1,200; test items from a Jung/MBTI-analog test on SimilarMinds.

The standout issue for me is that a person can have a high Materialistic orientation and a low Vital orientation, but that distinction is harder to see in a single MBTI/Jung Extroversion score because Extroversion loads positively on both Materialistic and Vital traits. I discuss this issue in more depth in the introversion analysis.

MOTIVES Drive Architecture

Materialistic vs. Ascetic — Vanity vs. Austerity

The Materialist is oriented toward wanting to be attractive and impressive to others. They are often externally focused, seeking to become whatever the external world considers desirable. Physical attractiveness is one efficient route, but status, money, prestige, fashion, expensive objects, career rank, and other visible signs of value can serve the same function.

A less healthy Materialist may pursue a career mainly for its prestige or borrow their tastes from whatever society currently rewards. The desire is to resemble a mirrored reflection of what other people or a subculture consider ideal. Money, which is basically a social IOU, naturally becomes important because more money can feel like more externally recognized value.

Healthy Materialists can also use their social desirability constructively. Entertainment is an obvious example: if nobody enjoyed attracting attention, entertaining others, and being applauded, there would be much less of an entertainment industry.

The Ascetic counter-orientation puts more weight on internal value and less on public opinion, material display, social rank, or conventional prestige. That can free attention for internal interests, but excessive detachment from society can also limit social connection, feedback, influence, and access to other people's ideas. The underlying spectrum is how much one values social rank, status, society, and what society deems valuable.

Offbeat vs. Conventional — New Ways vs. Old Ways

Evolution and change are the norm in human existence. The chase for the new—innovation, invention, exploration—is a driving force in human development. The Offbeat mindset seeks to live on the vanguard of existence and step into the unknown.

There are dangers to that approach. Exploration can fail, and experimenting with unknown risks can be costly. The Conventional orientation is more likely to fear change or prefer older, simpler, proven ways. Some conventions clearly have value; you cannot reinvent every process every minute. But erring too strongly on the side of convention can become stagnant or regressive when there is still a lot left to discover and improve.

My ideal on this spectrum is to be as unconventional as you can be without taking foolish risks with your physical existence.

Thinking vs. Haphazard — Planned vs. Unplanned

The Thinker's prime motivation is to have a planned, orderly life and to know where they are headed. They want predictability, security, certainty, and order. It is not enough that something merely feels good or seems to work; the Thinker wants a rational model so results can be repeated reliably.

This mentality, especially when paired with Offbeat, is part of the foundation of science. The downside is getting too stuck in a plan, requiring too much certainty, or spending more time analyzing a decision than the importance of the decision or available information warrants.

Haphazard types resist or struggle with structure, order, and long-term planning. That can make them less rigid, but it can also leave them meandering or overly dependent on chance. My ideal, as with Offbeat, is to be strongly Thinking without becoming so narrow or over-planned that new information cannot change the plan.

Interpersonal vs. Withholding — Other-centric vs. Self-centric

Interpersonal types care deeply about the needs, feelings, and happiness of others. They do not necessarily help because they expect something back; helping itself is rewarding. A lot of charitable and humanitarian behavior grows out of this orientation.

But selflessness can be taken too far. A society of highly selfless people can become fuel for selfish people to exploit, and a person can neglect their own life while becoming overly devoted to someone else's. Healthy helping should actually help; it should not simply enable destructive or entitled behavior.

Withholding types put more weight on their own interests and are less compelled to accommodate or help. At the extreme, the orientation involves a profound lack of empathy. A more ordinary version is simply someone who looks out for their own interests a little more than they look out for other people's.

The wise approach, in my view, is to look out for your interests and the interests of the world. Reciprocity matters. Cooperation that continues indefinitely after repeated betrayal tends to reinforce bad social behavior rather than improve the social ecosystem.

Vital vs. Depressed — Optimism / Happiness vs. Pessimism / Apathy

This is one of the most important MOTIVES dimensions: the desire to be alive. Vital types self-report liking who they are, enjoying life, being optimistic, having a strong will to live, and being self-motivated. Depressed types are more likely to report the opposite.

Some research on naturally short sleepers has described a small group who are unusually upbeat, resilient, energetic, and tolerant of setbacks. I see that general pattern—not the short sleeping itself—as illustrative of the Vital orientation: obstacles occur, but the person repeatedly picks themselves up and keeps going.

Physical fitness is one of the actionable behaviors I have repeatedly found associated with the Vital disposition. My interpretation is that a strong internal will to live makes it easier to consistently do the things required to maintain a functional life, while a weak one makes that consistency harder.

The Depressed orientation can become fixated on unhealthy patterns, old attachments, trauma, self-negating thinking, or the idea that some external person or thing must provide the motivation that is missing internally. I think the healthiest direction is to build internal momentum through actionable behaviors: exercise, interests, planning, productive work, helping others in constructive ways, and replacing dysfunctional habits with healthier ones.

Genetics are not destiny, but they matter. Some people clearly start with more favorable genes, environments, parents, health, or momentum than others. My point is not that everyone starts in the same place; it is that the direction of change still matters.

Easygoing vs. Rigid — Calm vs. High-Strung

The Easygoing trait is linked to a drive to maintain calm and avoid discord. The trait has fewer active behaviors associated with it than many of the other MOTIVES dimensions, which makes sense: it is largely about turning things down cognitively and entering or remaining in a more restful state.

Some people are good at relaxing and really enjoy it; Rigid types are much worse at it or do not see the point. You can certainly relax too much, but relaxation is a necessary part of a healthy life. The goal is to relax as much as you need to, but no more.

Sectarian vs. Globalistic — Nationalistic / Tribalistic vs. Cosmopolitan

This trait concerns whether you prioritize the welfare of your people, kind, culture, or country, or put more emphasis on the welfare of people globally. In earlier human environments, when people lived in more disconnected tribes, prioritizing the tribe had obvious evolutionary value. In a highly interconnected world, both the benefits of cooperation and the consequences of failing to cooperate are larger.

High Sectarian scorers tend to be more conservative, more concerned with preserving a country or culture, more attracted to strong leaders, more skeptical of immigration and outsiders, and more comfortable with hierarchy. They tend to display a bias toward the similar and against the dissimilar.

Globalists tend to favor multiculturalism, diversity, international cooperation, peaceful solutions to international disagreements, and greater sympathy for minorities or groups they see as disadvantaged. They are more likely to be politically liberal and skeptical of rigid hierarchy or nationalism.

Like several MOTIVES traits, I think a middle preference may often be more realistic. A world with no group loyalty is probably unrealistic, while extreme nationalism has obvious historical dangers.

Concluding Thoughts

None of the six non-Vital MOTIVES traits individually correlates with Vitality across the entire dataset. In other words, simply being high on Materialistic, Offbeat, Thinking, Interpersonal, Easygoing, or Sectarian does not, by itself, tell you whether someone will be high on Vitality.

However, I have found individual high-scoring items on each of those traits that are associated with Vitality. When people are grouped by preference subtype, Offbeat and Thinking groups stand out as having higher average Vitality, while on several other dimensions the middle tends to look better than either extreme.

That leads me to speculate that developing Offbeat and Thinking traits while moderating Materialistic, Interpersonal, Easygoing, and Sectarian tendencies may improve the odds of happiness for some people. Vitality is an essential check against doomed paths and plans: if a new idea or plan does not improve health, happiness, prosperity, or life enthusiasm in the long term, it should be reconsidered and something else tried.

Below are examples of items associated with the XOTXVXX orientation in my data. Many of them are actualizable behaviors rather than static labels:

Tests, Descriptions & Research Resources