- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
@rondo – Yes. Not only does the Big Five not provide any comprehensive theory of mind, but it also seems to posit these traits as “mostly stable” across life, yet not necessarily so. In contrast, CT measures something which appears to be intrinsic even across twins and decades – while accounting for shifts in development, yet remaining the same type.
But what’s the real bummer for me is the foundation itself being based on a statistical factor analysis of adjectives/language. I think this is simply the wrong bedrock to work from. You can only go so far with that. It’s already “non-central” from the start. It’s a description of patterns in trait clusterings, so it’s a side effect of something else… yet unknown. That unknown thing is the actual theory that gives rise to Big Five, so Big Five sits atop of something more mechanistic.
In this way it’s almost gone full circle, and it seems Big Five plays the role of the (4) letter-code but with more careful boundaries, and DeYoung appears to be looking for the “functions” that create that 5-letter-code. But I don’t think he’ll find it there because the phenomenon is coming from a different place.