Big Five personality model

[user23974865]

The internet wouldn't be the internet without personality quizzes, would it? 😁

 

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/IPIP-BFFM/

(50 questions)

 

Here's the Wikipedia article on it, for convenience.

 

It has a similar principle as the MBTI (separate personality variables/"dimensions"), but the variables have no hierarchy, and they were chosen based on statistical analysis, so it's the model normally used in psych research. It's also known as "OCEAN" (Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism), but sometimes other names are used for each variable (in the test above: neuroticism = [reverse] "emotional stability"; openness to experience = "intellect/imagination"), and they're not always listed in the same order.

 

The raw score given is a regular bar graph of your scores on their own. The percentile is a comparison to everybody who has taken the test (0 = lower than everybody else; 50 = lower/higher than half of everybody else; 100 = higher than everybody else). Or maybe their sample population is bigger than their online-respondent pool, I'm not sure. But you get the idea.

 

(If you want to paste your results here, you can right-click and copy-paste the image address, no need to capture the screen.)

[user23974865]

The variables are pretty intuitive to understand once you're familiar with them, but "conscientiousness" always gets me. I'm essentially "a haphazard stickler", so... ❔ It feels like it should be two separate variables instead. But I guess that's an inherent limitation of an "independent variables" type of model. In the end, the result I got makes sense (even if it's not particularly informative about me): right in the middle. No surprises overall.

 

[Grumpy Alien]

 

So basically, I'm a bitch.

[user23974865]

1 minute ago, disGraceful said:

So basically, I'm a bitch.

 

I guess they forgot to include sense of humor as the sixth variable.

[user23974865]

@disGraceful

 

On another note, 1% at factor V with a raw score that high? That's suspicious... Something's off.

 

I wonder if it's a flaw in their methods/sample population or if it's more like everybody lies...

[Grumpy Alien]

Just now, burobu said:

@disGraceful

 

On another note, 1% at factor V with a raw score that high? That's suspicious... Something's off.

 

I wonder if it's a flaw in their methods/sample population or if it's more like everybody lies...

I think I put neutral for both I have a vivid imagination and don't have a vivid imagination because I think my imagination is particularly average in vividness. Shrug.

[TheAP]

[Goonie]

Low, medium, low, low, medium. 

 

I'm a disorganized introvert? Probably is mostly correct given the questions

[Sage Raven Domino]

 

I'm a b****, but a smart one 

[LeChat]

22 minutes ago, burobu said:

@disGraceful

 

On another note, 1% at factor V with a raw score that high? That's suspicious... Something's off.

 

I wonder if it's a flaw in their methods/sample population or if it's more like everybody lies...

I received a 1% for Extroversion (which, for me, is correct, as I've always known I was very introverted, compared to others I've come across), with a tiny sliver of green at the left (in the correct amount shown on the graph, compared to my other, higher numbers for the other categories.)

 

So, I'm wondering if that number for disgraceful was supposed to be a number in the teens (perhaps something like 19) and that it might've been a computer program error that left off a number that was supposed to be there, since, on the colored graph, it's only a little lower than the 22 number above.

[user23974865]

26 minutes ago, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

So, I'm wondering if that number for disgraceful was supposed to be a number in the teens (perhaps something like 19) and that it might've been a computer program error that left off a number that was supposed to be there, since, on the colored graph, it's only a little lower than the 22 number above.

I think it's very unlikely that there would be a software error of that level on that kind of website. Remember that the percentile is only a comparison to other people, it's not your actual score. So what @disGraceful's results are saying is that, with a raw score of something like 40% or so (the green bar), she scored lower than 99% of all respondents. Which is... a little strange.

[McKayla]

 

That very low emotional stability is worrying, but not surprising... 

I had no idea I was so agreeable.

[Grumpy Alien]

I either fucked up on my answers or am fucked up in my answers 

[fuzzipueo]

[daveb]

I guess even though the raw score might look higher on the graph the percentile compared to other people might still be low.

My numbers (based on the answers I gave at this time) are: 

Extroversion 1

Emotional Stability 81

Agreeableness 11

Conscientiousness 62

Intellect/Imagination 93

(so what does that make me? )

 

 

I don't care for some of the descriptions of the traits.

Quote

Individuals who score high on Factor I one are outgoing and social. Individuals who score low tend to be shut ins.

Outgoing and social vs "shut ins", sounds like a bit of a value judgement that an extrovert might put forth.

 

Quote

A person high in agreeableness is friendly and optimistic. Low scorers are critical and aggressive.

I may not be friendly, but I am optimistic. And I don't think I am aggressive. (critical, maybe, if they mean I look at thinks analytically - like this assessment  )

 

Quote

Individuals who score high on this factor are careful and diligent. Low scorers are impulsive and disorganized.

Looks like another value judgement.  

 

Intellect/Imagination, aka Openness to Experience, also seems like it has problems. Someone can be intelligent and/or have a great imagination but may not be open to new experiences, for example.

[user23974865]

2 minutes ago, daveb said:

Intellect/Imagination, aka Openness to Experience, also seems like it has problems. Someone can be intelligent and/or have a great imagination but may not be open to new experiences, for example.

Seems like the worst offender to me, actually. I thought about looking for a different test because of that alone. "Intellect/imagination" just doesn't sound right. It's supposed to be about "orthodox versus unorthodox". But I figured there would always be something equally iffy no matter what site I picked, and this one was pretty convenient technically speaking.

 

About the other stuff: yep, pretty much agree.

[OmegaTheMetamorphicDreamer]

I couldn't help but laugh at seeing the poll results for "extroversion". (100% Low)

[user23974865]

1 minute ago, Omega the Shadow said:

I couldn't help but laugh at seeing the poll results for "extraversion". (100% Low)

Yep. 16 and counting.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, daveb said:

don't care for some of the descriptions of the traits.

Agreed.

 

[Gloomy]

[Guest]

[user23974865]

Huh, this is curious. I couldn't help but notice: with a sample size of 18 so far, if you take the most voted range from each trait and combine them all, you get exactly my results (low, low, low, mid, high). Did anyone else get this exact combo?

[Horse Ham Radio]

 

I agree with the latter four, but the first seems wrong. I usually come up fairly ambiverted in all other tests I have done. Ambivert feels right for me because I do like to mix fairly social days with frequent quiet days where I literally don't see another person all day. I don't agree that I'm an extrovert.

[kiaroskuro]

Very low, very low, very low, median, very high. No surprises here, either.

 

Did anyone else sign up for the Global Matching Project? After completing the test, this link showed up:

https://global.peoplematching.org

I'm curious to find out who my 'best fit match' is going to be. On the other hand, maybe I ought to be scared to meet someone like me ...

 

[Grumpy Alien]

@daveb I agree. I don’t see myself as aggressive, impulsive, a shut in, etc. But I don’t take personality tests seriously.

[iff]

 

8 hours ago, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

I received a 1% for Extroversion (which, for me, is correct, as I've always known I was very introverted, compared to others I've come across), with a tiny sliver of green at the left (in the correct amount shown on the graph, compared to my other, higher numbers for the other categories.)

 

So, I'm wondering if that number for disgraceful was supposed to be a number in the teens (perhaps something like 19) and that it might've been a computer program error that left off a number that was supposed to be there, since, on the colored graph, it's only a little lower than the 22 number above.

The results on the side are in percentiles so it is comparing your results to other takers. For example, you might score 90% in a test but if the other 9 takers, scored 96%, you're in the bottom 10% percentiles

 

But if you score 65% but of 8 of the 9 other takers scored less, you are in the 90% percentile 

 

----

My results:

Low median median high low

 

 

I wish there was a n/a answer to the party question because I don't get invited to parties and never did.

[user23974865]

7 hours ago, kiaroskuro said:

Very low, very low, very low, median, very high. No surprises here, either.

Probably the first time you or I ever have "an average* personality", right? 

 

* mode, technically, sort of

[Life With Masks]

[kiaroskuro]

1 hour ago, burobu said:

Probably the first time you or I ever have "an average* personality", right? 

 

* mode, technically, sort of

Haha, yes, I was thinking the same thing 

 

Who'd have thought?

[Joel.]

 

why do they put intellect and imagination in the same category, my intellect is okay, but I don't even have Imagination.

And about that emotional stability; It just means I'm as fucked up as I used to be, not that I have my live together or anything.