A while ago I polled my family and friends to get a list of values that they think I hold. The list my method produced was obviously not orthagonal: some values, such as order and neatness, were obviously close to synonyms. I experimented a bit with using Google hits to calculate orthagonality (eg: hits for “order” + hits for “neatness” / hits for “order AND neatness”) but got some nonsense results.

The five personality factors were extracted from adjectives of language using factor analysis: a statistical method for finding orthagonal factors. I looked into using that analysis of language on my values. The first issue is that the factor analysis is not trivial: most adjectives are loaded on more than one factor, suggesting that a model called “the Abridged Big Five-Dimensional Circumplex” (AB5C) is more appropriate. I am nowhere close to understanding it, but I think the model basically says that five-dimensional personality space is not Euclidean but Elliptic.

Applying personality results to values also raises the question: what’s the difference between values and traits? It turns out there is some research that finds very definite links. I haven’t had time to read this research yet, but I’m guessing that traits drive non-conscious behaviour and values drive conscious behaviour – the gap between them is cognitive dissonance.

Related to both values and traits are the 24 character strengths that are one of the foundations of positive psychology. The strengths were generated from factor analysis of the values of many cultures and are experimentally supported. They get organized into six virtues that I’ve heard do not hold up under factor analysis, although I haven’t gotten around to reading the studies (so think of them as mnemonics).

Playing to your strengths is one of the best ways to be happy. So focusing on your strengths is probably more useful than traits or values. I have a bunch more research to do (and maybe some movies to watch) before I figure out where to go from here…

Myers-Briggs is basically some stuff Jung made up off the top of his head. Since it was invented, research has found it to be kind-of scientific. It’s not concise: the factors are correlated (eg: Intraversion and Thinking) so it could be that a different set of factors would describe a person in less variables. It’s not complete: emotional stability is intentionally left out of Myers-Briggs so nobody’s feelings get hurt.

So to develop a new trait model, psychologists took all the words that are used to describe peoples’ personalities and checked which ones were correlated: they fall into five piles (all the armchair theorists in history were wrong). The Five Factor Model is concise, complete and precise: different ways of measuring yield the same result. The problem is that it’s always presented with a normative interpretation: you are a better person if you score higher on each factor (even though high scores are correlated with some negative things). A Five Factor terminology called “SLOAN” gives more neutral names, I’ve adapted them here:

* Researchers are divided on what factor V actually represents: “openness”, “intellect”, “imagination” and “culture” are some terms. In general, the terms hide the nuance in each factor, so don’t confuse the popular meaning of the term with its operational definition.

To my knowledge, no one has come up with cutesy names for the 32 poles in five-factor space. This apparently-first-year psychology paper provides a good overview of extensions and criticisms of the model.

One definition of extroversion/introversion is that extroverted people gain energy from social interactions and introverted people spend energy. Introverted people may enjoy socializing and be willing to spend energy on it, but eventually the tank will run dry and they’ll need to recharge.

Growing up I definitely considered myself an introvert, but in the last few years I’ve suppressed that part of my personality to build social skills. I’ve worked on “being Alpha” and getting attention.

I’ve recently become friends with a few people recently who are very in touch with their introversion: they are socially adept and enjoy doing stuff, but quite deliberate to schedule “Me Time”. They’ve inspired me to accept my introvert tendencies.

My all-time favorite Cary Tennis article is this one where he, as an extrovert, extols the virtue of introversion:

Have physical presence. I’ve heard this behaviour described as “being Alpha”. It can be more socially effective to have quiet physical presence than verbal presence (to misquote: “sound and fury signifying nothing”).
…
“Oh, to be an introvert, full of impenetrable depths!” Playing with your cards close to your chest is an asset. If you open your mouth less, people should treat your words as more important when you do (provided you retain the ability to make yourself heard). It’s okay if people get the impression that you’re judging them if you seem to be doing so without an agenda.
…
Are you jealous of the interaction extroverts get, or the attention? Introverts can get interaction. Introverts probably don’t actually have a use for attention.

His advice to a stepmother who needs time away from her stepkids is also excellent.