FiftyTwo comments on Calibrate your self-assessments - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (117)
I've always had this problem when asked to self assess on personality traits. E.g. 'Are you extroverted?' Compared to what baseline? My friends? Some hypothetical average person?
Not a problem: you have correctly identified a meaningless question. The correct answer is "mu".
I have read, and maybe don't take my word for it, that so called "personality traits" don't reliably correspond to objective properties of a person. Or rather, that we apply them as labels to a person on seeing one set of behaviour we associate with it, but they aren't predictors of any of the other kinds of behaviour that typically get assigned the same label.
I don't have a reference to it here at work, but at home I have a psychology book which contains a paper about it. Maybe someone else here will have a clearer memory of what I'm talking about?
Anyway, that's my main objection to so-called personality tests that give you a numeric personality score on one or more axes. I just want to ask "what are the units on that number?", "how was this calibrated against objective measurements?". The Myers-Briggs test goes one step further and combines 4 uncalibrated numeric scores into a "personality type". Might as well be a horoscope.
This paper by Borsboom (pdf) maybe? (Specifically attacking the Big Five.)