What traits do you think are missing?
It consist of:
- Openness to experience
- Conscientiousness
- Extroversion
- Agreeableness
- Neuroticism
Other psychologists have suggested: religiosity, manipulativeness/machiavellianism, honesty, sexiness/seductiveness, thriftiness, conservativeness, masculinity/femininity, snobbishness/egotism, sense of humour, and risk-taking/thrill-seeking.
My picks:
Pessimism -/- Optimism
High trust -/- Low trust
Note: I am somewhat skeptic of the Big Five but it seems to be the best we have so far.
>>1383913
OP here, shameless bump. No love for psychology aye? I think that snobbishness/egotism is too similar to agreeableness. The other ones seem good.
I myself thought of risk averse -/- risk-taking too. A book on animal personality talks of bold vs shy, I would consider that risk averse vs risk-taking.
> it it seems to be the best we have so far
Socionics is better as it tends to focus on traits more objectively unified by neural system works than on unified by lingustic descriptions.
> What traits do you think are missing?
The point of factor analysis isn't to find quadrillion psychological traits, but to simplify quadrillions of them into a small number of properties. That way each trait and its impact could be proven without huge doubt. For example, conservativeness could be factored with closeness to experience, as you are close to changes as conservative person, you can add here risk-aversion also. Now you got just one quality to work instead of three. So, question here isn't about what missing, but about what can't be reduced to what is already here.
>>1384181
>Socionics
Bit spooky to be honest as it incorperates Carl "Spooky boy" Jung. I see it catched on in Russia. Something to look into anyway.
>So, question here isn't about what missing, but about what can't be reduced to what is already here.
Interesting. I suppose you are right and the Wikipedia also mentioned this.
So instead of expanding it, one should see if alternative traits do not instead correlate with the ones already there. If not, perhaps they do deserve to be added?
>>1384319
> It incorperates Carl "Spooky boy" Jung
It is less spooky as it is post-Jungian theory. Most scary things are on the natural philosophy levels of crazy, not on literal spiritualism levels like for Jung.
> If not, perhaps they do deserve to be added?
Yes, if there are zero correlations that it should be threated as free variable and could be added to the basis. Some authors add some new ones, IIRC.
>>1384348
>Most scary things are on the natural philosophy levels of crazy, not on literal spiritualism levels like for Jung.
That "literal spirtualism" is what I was worried of. Thanks for unspookifying me.
