Scientists have decided that there are four types of personality. They are wrong – Quartz

Psychologists have a new way of classifying personalities, and that is something that is depressing. Researchers at Northwestern University analyzed the questionnaires of 1.5 million respondents and proposed four distinct personality types: "average", "reserved", "egocentric" and "model".

All but one seem an insult to me, and none is an appropriate description for me or anyone I know.

The team of researchers, led by Luís Amaral, a professor at the McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University, drew data from 1.5 million personality questionnaires based on five broad personality traits: openness, awareness profession, neurosis, pleasure and extraversion. This data comes from Penn State University psychologist John Johnson, IPIP-NEO, the myPersonality project, and the BBC Big Personality Test websites, which allow users to take online personality tests.

Among the many personality assessments that have been encouraged in recent years, the "Big Five" are considered to be the most scientific because the results of the questionnaires have been shown to predict certain behaviors. For example, those who get the most awareness in the big five tests tend to work harder according to the research, while those who are neurotic are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.

Northwestern researchers then used algorithms to identify four groups among the dataset. It turns out that the majority of people present one of four combinations of the big five characters, they write:

• "Medium" people are rich in neurotism and extraversion, and not very open;
• "Egocentric" people have a high extroversion and are below average in terms of openness, conviviality and professional conscience;
• "Role models" are weak in neurotism and rich in all other traits; and
• "Reserved" people are neither extrovert nor neurotic and are pleasant and conscientious above average.

But while these categories may be statistically valid, they have no significant impact on anyone who cares about the personality in everyday life. The northwestern psychologist, William Revelle, who worked on the study, recognized him. "What is the real utility of these?", He told the Washington Post. "I do not think we really answered that."

To a certain extent, the researchers behind these categories are responsible for their poor choice of framing. They could surely find a better name than "average" to describe certain characteristics of the personality. But the shortcomings of later personality types also reflect broader problems that tend to emerge as scientists attempt to diagnose and define personality.

Those who buy personality tests (from the less scientific, such as Myers-Briggs and the astrological signs, to the greatest number, like the big five), are likely to claim that they are supported by science. The truth is that science is inherently ill-suited to analyzing nuances of personality. While science wants to be definitive and categorical, seeking to prove facts such that the same experimental conditions can be recreated to produce the same results, the personality is intrinsically soft, nebulous and ever-changing.

The American Psychological Association describes personality as "individual differences in patterns of thought, feeling and behavior," a definition broad enough to be interpreted differently by different psychologists. "[P]Psychologists borrow the concept of personality traits from ordinary language, which reflects the way ordinary people think about each other, "said Johnson of Penn State earlier this year on sexism in the world. personality tests. "All of this is rather subjective, even though people who grow up together in the same culture will tend to agree on what is more or less pleasant because of their common social norms."

In other words, psychologists try to use the scientific method to create a clear understanding of the personality, while basing their understanding of what constitutes the personality on the popular design. It gets pretty confusing.

This confusion within the research community can lead to public misunderstanding of how to interpret scientific studies on personality. Several large publicly available personality test websites – including one created by Johnson – tell women that they are more uncomfortable than men who give exactly the same answers on their personality questionnaires. Indeed, those who created the websites chose to calculate the scores as a percentile compared to the others of the same sex. In other words, women are not really more disagreeable than men – they are perceived as more uncomfortable for the same behavior. This, in turn, raises the question of whether psychologists study the innate personality or simply the perception of the personality. (Amaral, the researcher behind the latest findings on personality type, said that although his research relied on respondents' responses to Johnson's questionnaires, he did not evaluate the results by sex.)

Scientists sometimes recognize the fluctuating nature of the personality. When I spoke about personality tests in the past, psychologists have noted that they often ask different people to rate a person's personality and that they expect results that are very different from those of their peers. colleagues in relation to family or self-assessment. This reflects a truth that many people know instinctively: we are not the same person at home as we are at work. We do not have a coherent self, but many modes of expression as we move in different contexts.

Nor are we coherent in time. In fact, researchers have found that the personality of the "big five" can change dramatically over the decades. But most people should not need a scientific study to recognize that their personalities are changing at different stages of their lives. We are shaped by our environment, events and maturity. Of course, at age 45, few people have exactly the same personality and are surrounded by friends as they would at 22 and work in a hostile office.

And yet, even though psychologists sometimes admit that the personality is far from stable, they continue to publish studies aimed at applying a definitive scientific paradigm to personality studies. The last four types of personality are just the last example.

The popular interest in personality testing reflects an understandable desire to know each other and to know our surroundings. But, like all those who have spent time with their peers, the most gregarious person is sometimes shy and the sweetest people can lose their temper. People are sarcastic and confident and warm to different degrees depending on the day. Ultimately, there is an infinite spectrum of human personalities and any attempt at diagnosis of only four people will be largely meaningless for those who attempt to understand the nuances of the personality. Nobody is really 'average'.