When it comes to perspectives on personality traits, I am a friendly, not a hater. I sort of like the little boxes and charts. I am a Myers-Briggs INTP/J. (I have probably taken variations of it 20 times, and am always an INT but score about 75% P and 25% J. The Myers-Briggs categories do not like this, but I apparently waver.) I’ve done Gallup’s Strengthsfinders (Rath, 2007), and the Birkman Personality Assessment (“Birkman,” n.d.; Fink & Capparell, 2013), and the Highlands Skills Battery (Company, 2018). At the recommendation of several friends, I have even experimented with the enneagram, which appears to be as fun and useful as phrenology (Palmer, 1991; Riso & Hudson, 1999). The point, though, is that I am well-analyzed. Moreover, the different tests all point to the same general description: quiet but articulate, thoughtful but active, sincere and value-driven, with a long-term perspective. They all indicate that I should avoid jobs in sales or marketing, avoid jobs with a lot of routine activity, and work on a team.
But then, just as I’m getting comfortable with my identification boxes, along comes the Big 5. All the analytics I’d taken before tucked me into a box with a warm reassurance that everyone has a purpose and God made me special. But the Big 5 claims that traits are not entirely genetic and static (Myers, 2011). It says that we may be different people in different situations. It says we can, and maybe should, change.
The Big 5 defines personality in terms of five dynamic categories: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN). The first four of these factors are positive, both in standard perception of the term and in scientific correlations with mental health. Neuroticism, however, is associated with anxiety and depression (Myers, 2011). When preparing to teach an AP® Psychology course several years ago, I led my students through several online tests for the Big 5, and was surprised to find my extraversion score in the 65-70th percentile. According to Myers-Briggs, I was a consistently strong introvert, so why would my scores be so different on the Myers-Briggs, especially if the population was evenly divided between introverts and extroverts (Hucles, 2016)?
The simple reason is that the Big 5, and the studies based on it (Northouse, 2015), define extroversion differently than Myers-Briggs. Myers and Briggs based their categories on Carl Jung’s belief that introversion and extroversion are based on the sources from which we derive energy. They readily admit that “These words have a meaning in psychology that is different from the way they are used in everyday language” (“The Myers & Briggs Foundation – Extraversion or Introversion,” 2018). The Big 5, however, defines terms in accordance with standard usage: introversion does not mean “finds energy from being alone,” but being “retiring, sober, reserved”; extroversion does not mean “rejuvenated by parties,” but “sociable, fun-loving, affectionate” (Myers, 2011, p. 552). When tired or stressed, I would usually rather have a night with my family or a book than a large group of strangers, but according to the Big 5 tests, I enjoy people as much or more than about two-thirds of the population.
Returning to the standard definition of extroversion instead of the Jungian definition should give hope to the 50% of the population who Myers-Briggs labels introverts. Standard-definition extroversion is correlated strongly with leadership because people tend to follow people who like them. Interaction in the past usually depended on being close enough to someone to smell them, implying that leaders, to demonstrate their sociability and affection, needed to be physically close to their followers. However, with the growth of Internet communication is making it possible for sociable, affectionate people – people who enjoy others but are also like their space – can interact effectively without needing to be physically in the group.
The Internet will not make it easier for anti-social people to become leaders. It will allow them to write grumpy blogs and snarky comments, so they may have access to a larger audience than they would have had before. However, it is still unlikely that they will be able to gather true followers and implement change. The people, though, who want to connect with others positively but find themselves awkward in large groups may be able to use technology to influence others in ways that would have been impossible before.
References
Birkman: Experts in Occupational & Behavioral Assessments. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from https://birkman.com/
Company, T. H. (2018). The Highlands Co. – Career Aptitude & Natural Abilities Test. Retrieved January 27, 2018, from https://www.highlandsco.com/
Fink, S. B., & Capparell, S. (2013). The Birkman Method: Your Personality at Work (1 edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, H. (1991). The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others In Your Life (1 edition). San Francisco: HarperOne.
Rath, T. (2007). StrengthsFinder 2.0 (1 edition). New York: Gallup Press.
Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1999). The Wisdom of the Enneagram: The Complete Guide to Psychological and Spiritual Growth for the Nine Personality Types (57793rd edition). New York: Bantam.
The Myers & Briggs Foundation – Extraversion or Introversion. (2018). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/extraversion-or-introversion.htm
