Shadowing Practice: 2017 Personality 14: Introduction to Traits/Psychometrics/The Big 5 - Learn English Speaking with Video
Kies een oefenmodus
Elke modus opent een volledig scherm oefenruimte.
643 zinnen
Als zinnen te kort of te lang zijn, klik op Bewerken om ze aan te passen.
1
Intro Music So, I want to tell you,
2
I'm going to make a little announcement first.
3
I'm going to do a series of lectures, I think, starting in May, maybe at the Isabel Bader Theatre.
4
We're trying to look into booking that.
5
I'm going to do a psychological interpretation of the Bible from beginning to end.
6
That's the plan anyway, so I'm going to do that once a week.
7
So if you're interested in in that I would recommend that you men.
8
Maybe you're not and that's fine obviously But if you go onto my Twitter account, you could just there's a place you can sign up It doesn't mean
9
that you'll attend I'm just trying to see
10
if there are people who are interested in I've been interested in doing
11
that for a long time And so I think I'm going to try it.
12
So anyways That's the announcement and then is that about it?
13
I guess so okay, so look we're going to switch gears today
14
The first half of this course as you've no doubt already
15
gathered is
16
Because it's grounded essentially in clinical theories of personality it tends more towards the philosophical
17
and I told you that the reason for that was
18
that I regard clinical psychology as a branch of engineering rather than a branch of science It's human engineering obviously
19
and because of that it's an applied science and so that means it straddles the the ground between
20
a science and a practice and it and
21
because it's it involves human beings It necessarily involves value because we live inside value structures and so
22
the logical consequence of that is that Investigation into the philosophy of value is necessary in order to understand clinical
23
Psychological theories
24
because really what you're trying to do as a clinician you
25
could say you're trying to do two things One is to help people have less terrible lives, but you're also trying to help them have BETTER lives,
26
and there's obviously a value structure that's inherent in that attempt
27
because you're moving from something of less value to something of more value, and so.. and it's best to just,
28
you know, face that and all the complexities that come along with that head on.
29
Now, I think what you do as a clinician
30
to overcome whatever tendency you might have to impose your value structure on someone is you do an awful lot of listening,
31
and so my basic practice with people is to say to them Well, obviously you're here because you would like things to be better
32
But that's okay We can use your definition of what constitutes better We can use your definition of what constitutes worse
33
Or we can establish that through dialogue and negotiation What are you aiming at?
34
How would you like things to be better a year from now, say If you could have what you wanted If your life was put together, what would that look like?
35
And you can have a very straightforward discussion with people about
36
that if you're not trying to cram the way that they're orienting the world into your particular perspective.
37
Now, that's one of the dangers of being the adherent of a given psychological school.
38
Now, having said that, it's also...
39
There was research done many years ago showing that if you were an eclectic psychotherapist, which means that you sort of pick and chose from different psychotherapeutic schools,
40
you tended to not be as effective as you were if you were the dedicated adherent of a given school.
41
And I think the reason for that is that there's
42
so many schools of psychological thought That if you say
43
that you pick and choose from all of them What
44
that really means is that you don't know anything about any of them And then there's also the additional Factor, maybe you might call it
45
That if someone comes to you and they're very chaotic and confused
46
Helping them impose any structure onto their life Is likely to be an improvement over no structure at all
47
And you could think about that in a Piagetian sense is
48
that you know you're going to be happier playing a game rather than no game
49
and there's many games that you could play
50
that are better than no game and so
51
if you go to a therapist that has a particular viewpoint
52
and they help you structure your understanding of the world within the confines of a given clinical model
53
and you came in there very chaotic
54
and uncertain then maybe that's going to be a lot better for you than just floundering
55
and i and i think there's some real truth in that
56
and I think that that's part
57
and parcel of the same of another what you might call it reasonable observation about maturation is
58
that it's very necessary for people at some point in their
59
life to dedicate themselves to a single game of some sort
60
which is kind of what you're doing in university you know
61
you have to become one thing at some point in your life
62
and the sacrifice of course is that you give up all the other things
63
that you could become but the you don't really have a choice because if you don't decide voluntarily to become one thing,
64
you know, to become a disciplined adherent of some specific practice or profession or viewpoint,
65
then you risk just aging chaotically and You don't get away with not aging, so you might as well age into something that's actually something,
66
rather than just remaining Or than just becoming an old child, which is really not a good thing It's not a good thing to see,
67
especially by the time people hit about 40 It's not pretty for them or anyone else And even at 30,
68
it's getting pretty old at that point 40, it's like it's almost irreparable at 40 And the reason for
69
that is you start running out of opportunities When you're young and stupid, people don't care, because they think,
70
well, you know, whatever, you've got decades of possibilities still ready to unfold in you,
71
but if you're in the same unspecified position at 40, people are much less forgiving,
72
especially because if they're going to hire someone who doesn't know what's going on, or employ them, or sorry, or engage them in some sort of productive activity,
73
they might as well take a chance on someone young and full of potential, rather than someone who doesn't know what's going on who's really lived more than half of their life already
74
because of course you have by the time you're 40 okay, so, anyway, so that's with regards to putting the first half of the course to bed,
75
so to speak the second half is more scientific
76
and there's a bit of a gap, eh?
77
and it's a gap I'm trying to resolve conceptually
78
because now we move into more biological models and into models
79
that are psychometric and psychometrics is the psychological study
80
Or the study of psychological measurement and now
81
if you're a scientist you're there's a couple of things
82
that you're obliged to do If you're a scientist one is to utilize the scientific method.
83
That's usually the experimental method where you take two groups
84
randomly selected apply a Manipulation to one of them and not and an equivalent manipulation of a different sort to another
85
Hypothesize about what the outcome is likely to be and then test it That's the technical experimental model, anyways, you're also obliged, as a scientist,
86
to come up with a measurement of your...
87
To come up with a measurement, let's just put it that way, that's reliable and valid.
88
Okay, and what a reliable measure is one that measures the same way across multiple measurements.
89
So, for example, you wouldn't want to take a ruler that's made out of flexible rubber to measure things with, because it wouldn't give you the same measurement if you put it in different situations.
90
That's reliability, and it's a term you need to know.
91
It means that the measurement tool produces stable results across different instances of the measurement.
92
Without that, you don't have a measurement.
93
The other critical factor with regards to a measurement is that it has to be valid,
94
which means that it actually has to measure what it purports to measure,
95
And it has to be usable for an array of different purposes as a consequence And so you might think,
96
well, the purpose of scientific endeavor is to predict and to control You could say understand, predict, and control But understanding,
97
prediction, and controls are all manifestations of the same underlying thoroughly designed comprehension Now,
98
here's what's happened with the measurement of personality It's a funny story in some sense, a peculiar story,
99
because in many ways what we've come to understand about personality from a scientific perspective developed in a very atheoretical manner.
100
It's not very common in scientific endeavour that that occurs, is that what we know about personality emerged from,
101
I would say, statistically rigorous observation without it being the consequence of any real model.
102
So often what happens in scientific endeavor is that someone generates a model first, a theoretical understanding And then they generate measurement tools based on
103
that theoretical understanding And then they test the measurement tools to see
104
if the measurement tools perform properly And
105
if they fail at least to invalidate the underlying theory That isn't what happened with psychometrics
106
Except in a loose way So here's the loose theory
107
And you've got to get this exactly right To understand this properly You've got to get it exactly right
108
And it's really important
109
Because insofar as you guys are interested in psychology Especially in the experimental end of psychology Measurement is everything
110
And so much of what psychologists publish and write about is incorrect
111
And the reason it's incorrect is because They do not have their measurements properly instantiated It's a massive problem, especially in social psychology In fact,
112
it's probably a fatal problem In that most of the things that social psychologists measure don't exist.
113
And social psychology has been rife with scandals for the last four or five years.
114
And there's good reason for it.
115
But a big part of the problem is that the measurement...
116
that people are not stringent and careful enough about their measurements so we're gonna walk through this very, very carefully so I'm gonna set forward a set of propositions
117
and you have to think about them because each of them are.. they're axiomatic
118
so you sort of have to accept them before you go on to the next step
119
and there's certainly room to question them
120
but here's the bare bones of the psychometric model of personality
121
so we'll call it roughly the Big Five model
122
and the reason it's called the Big Five model is
123
because the psychometric investigations have indicated that you can specify human personality along five basic dimensions.
124
You might ask, well, what exactly is personality?
125
And, well, that's partly what we've been trying to wrestle with the entire course so far.
126
And I would say, or what exactly is a trait?
127
Think of a trait as an element of personality.
128
And I think the best way to think about a trait is as a sub -personality.
129
So, you're made up of sub -personalities
130
that are integrated into something vaguely resembling a unity
131
but the unity is is diverse there are there are there are there are describable stable elements
132
that characterize you that are elements of your being
133
so for example here's here's some common ones i might say well are you social
134
or or would you rather be alone
135
so here's here's a good question for you to define decide whether you're extroverted
136
or introverted it's pretty straightforward because that's that's the first major dimension basically if you take any set of questions about
137
any set of questions that could be applied descriptively to a human being and
138
you subject them to a Statistical process called factor analysis.
139
You can determine how they group together.
140
So what I would be interested in let's say I asked you a hundred questions
141
Let's say I asked a hundred questions of you and a hundred other people
142
What I would find was that reliably if some person answered question a say on a scale of one to seven
143
6 or 7, there would be other questions in the set of questions that they also tended to answer
144
on the upper end of the scale.
145
Or, reliably, if they answered one question at the top of the scale, they'd answer another question at the bottom.
146
That's a pattern of co -variation.
147
So you're looking for how the questions co -vary across large numbers of people.
148
So let's say, here's a stupid But it's really straightforward and easy to understand I might say, how often do you smile?
149
One to seven How often are you happy?
150
One to seven Well, what you'd find, obviously, is that people who tended to answer
151
that they smiled a lot Would also tend to answer
152
that they were happy a lot And so smiling
153
and happy are not exactly the same thing
154
Which is why we'd have two different phrases to describe them
155
But they're close enough so that they seem to be reflective of some underlying structure
156
And so that's what a factor analysis does.
157
It allows you to take a large set of questions To administer it to a large number of people
158
and then to statistically analyze it Looking how the questions relate to one another across the entire group
159
so that you can infer What the underlying structure is
160
and here here's the question in some sense
161
if I ask you a hundred questions How many questions am I really asking you because you might say well are you?
162
Do you smile a lot?
163
Are you happy?
164
Do you wake up eager to start the day?
165
You say, well, is that one question?
166
Ask three ways, or is it three separate questions?
167
And the answer is, well, if the answers reliably co -vary, then it's reflection of an underlying single dimension.
168
Now, obviously those questions are slightly different.
169
Now, but they'll relate to one another stably, and so you can infer out the central stable factors.
170
Now, it might be the case that, so here's an example, because you might ask how many stable underlying dimensions are there in any set of questions.
171
If I ask you questions that relate to your capacity to manipulate abstractions, I'll find that there's one factor.
172
So, imagine you had an infinite library of problem -solving questions, doesn't matter what they are.
173
Capital of Georgia, here's a sequence, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, what's the next number?
174
Here's five patterns, and they transform predictably across the pattern array.
175
Here's five alternatives that the next pattern might be.
176
Pick that one.
177
Here's ten words.
178
Tell me what they mean.
179
Anything like that.
180
Here's a mathematical operation.
181
Compute it.
182
Anything like that.
183
Imagine you had a very large library of questions like that.
184
Okay, an infinite library.
185
And you took random sets of a hundred questions from that library.
186
And you gave those sets to a thousand people.
187
What you'd find was that people who, and the score, say you gave them 100 questions, and then you summed across all the items to see how well they did.
188
What you'd find was
189
that people who did very well on one set of items would do very well on another set of items, and very well on another set of items.
190
And that would be the same for people who did badly.
191
If they did badly on any one of the sets of randomly chosen items of abstraction, they'd do badly on the rest.
192
That's basically IQ.
193
That's all there is to it.
194
So, what IQ does is correct that for age.
195
But other than that, that's all there is to it.
196
And the thing that's interesting about those random sets of abstract problem -solving questions is there's one dimension.
197
That's it.
198
Intelligence has one dimension.
199
And it's one of the most terrifying statistics that are known to social scientists.
200
And IQ is an extraordinarily powerful predictor of long -term success, especially in complex jobs.
201
And the reason for that, it's quite straightforward.
202
Most complex jobs throw random sets of complex problems at you.
203
That's their definition.
204
So, for example, if you're working as a lawyer on complex court cases, you have to be able to read very quickly.
205
You have to be able to abstract.
206
You have to be able to problem solve you have to be able to formulate arguments, and you have to do that repeatedly in different ways across very large spans of time.
207
And so the fact
208
that your ability to solve any set of random problems is
209
a really good predictor of your ability to solve any set of random legal problems, it's more or less self -evident that that would be the case.
210
But the thing is, the thing that makes IQ so damn powerful, and it's one of the personality traits,
211
roughly speaking, the thing that makes IQ so powerful is you can basically get a decent measure of it in 20 minutes.
212
It's very terrifying.
213
Anyways, we'll go into IQ in some depths as we progress through the course
214
But you get one dimension out of out of a factor
215
analysis of IQ now in the personality domain We're using descriptive items.
216
You don't you get five dimensions and so So in you and what are these dimensions exactly?
217
Well, you could think about them as I think of them as sub -personalities
218
But here's some other ways of thinking about them
219
because we want to flesh this out a little bit You could think of them as a frame of reference
220
so that if you're an extrovert I was going to tell you the extroverted question.
221
Does being around groups of people make you energetic, or does it exhaust you?
222
And if you're the sort of person that, you know, will go to a party and interact with 20 people, then you have to go home and be by yourself for, like, two weeks, then you're introverted.
223
Introverts are exhausted by social interactions.
224
Extroverts are the opposite.
225
They're energized by social interactions.
226
And, you know, you might be in the middle, so that you can take it or leave it with regards to social interactions, but you're happy to go to them, and you're happy to spend time by yourself.
227
But a real extrovert, there'll be some of you in here, how many of you can't stand spending time alone?
228
Okay, so there's only two that will admit it.
229
Extroverts are more likely to admit that sort of thing, too, by the way.
230
But, and how many of you like to spend time alone, or would rather be alone?
231
Okay, so there's a preponderance of introverts in this class, by all appearances.
232
But that's a really that's a pretty canonical question for for extroversion versus introversion It's a very stable trait by the way.
233
It's it manifests itself early in life, and it's it's stable across the age span not completely
234
Introverts can learn to be extroverted the extroverts can learn to spend time on their own I think
235
that actually your capacity to expand your ability past the initial
236
constraints of your biological temperament is something like the development of character or wisdom You know, so if you're an introvert by nature
237
and you learn how to be extroverted Then
238
that expands your domain of competence and if you're extroverted
239
and you learn to be introverted the same thing
240
But it's almost like imagine a distribution of extrovert introversion here extroversion here a normal distribution You're set
241
When you're young it's somewhere along that distribution with some range around it
242
And I think what you do as you mature
243
if you develop your skills as you expand that range
244
But you're set the place at which you're set doesn't move that much, so okay, so there's
245
So you can think about them as sub -personalities You can think about them as frames of reference
246
So frame of reference would be something like well since you're extroverted you value being with people
247
and so you're gonna look at the world For example
248
if you're extroverted you come into a room like this you
249
think oh look It's a whole field of opportunity for social interactions
250
And if you're introverted you think well Maybe I'll go set up in the corner
251
and hope everybody leaves me the hell alone But so
252
so it's an a priori set of perceptual structures that you bring to bear on a whole sequence of
253
Environment
254
so for example, maybe you're high in openness versus low in openness That's the
255
creativity dimension people who are high in openness tend to be artists
256
and entrepreneurs and open people will look at other people as
257
Opportunities to engage in interesting intellectual conversations And so you can tell
258
when you're talking to someone's old someone open especially
259
if they're very high in openness because they're going to want to talk to you about ideas or about aesthetics.
260
It's going to go right away.
261
So that's how they view you as a source of that sort of conversation.
262
That's how they view the landscape.
263
Someone who's high in neuroticism, which is a negative emotion dimension, is more likely to view the world as a place of threats to be...
264
to be protected against, because they're more anxious and more prone to emotional pain so anyway,
265
so that's the frame of reference issue so there's something about your underlying fundamental psychological traits that determine,
266
or influence at least, your value structures
267
and they do it at the level of perception they also tend to set your goals so extroverted people have,
268
as one goal, the opportunity to engage with other people So, extroverts love parties.
269
They live for parties.
270
They love to tell jokes as well.
271
That's a very good behavioral marker of extroversion.
272
And so, because they value those sorts of things, they set them as goals in their life.
273
Or you could say the extroversion operating within them sets them as goals within their life, depending on how deterministic you want to be about it.
274
So, their patterns of behavior.
275
That's another, at a micro level.
276
You know, I showed you that sort of hierarchy of
277
Value slash frames of references that ranged from micro behaviors up to high -order abstractions.
278
You can extract out
279
personality
280
From by looking at people's micro actions as well
281
and one of the papers
282
that I want you guys to read That's that's on the
283
course website has to do with our investigation into behavioral markers of the big five traits.
284
Yep Maybe.
285
We don't know exactly.
286
I'll get back to that.
287
At the moment, that's kind of what it looks like, is that introversion is something like the absence of extroversion.
288
But let me explain extroversion more particularly.
289
It'll make more sense.
290
Okay.
291
Alright, so, you can think about them as stable motivations.
292
So, for example, people who are high in agreeableness, I can generally tell people who are high in agreeableness
293
when they come into my clinical practice
294
and I start asking them about their biography because my experience has been
295
that people who are agreeable will tell you their biography defined by relationships they've had over their life.
296
So agreeable people are high in compassion and high in politeness.
297
It looks like the maternal dimension.
298
It looks like the pair bonding dimension, something like that.
299
And so agreeable people tend to characterize their lives in terms of the intimate relationships they've had.
300
And so those are also people who would value an intimate relationship over anything else
301
If agreeableness is the uppermost trait that characterizes their personality Then
302
Well systems of values we already talked about
303
that a little bit the higher you are in a given trait The more you value certain opportunities
304
that are associated with that trait and so I think it's worthwhile thinking about traits along
305
Using all of those different conceptual schemes to understand what constitutes a trait, but
306
what people are in some sense is a little melody of
307
traits melody not m -a -l -a -d -y although some people are like
308
that but melody like a song you know where different amounts of each of the canonical traits
309
operate to a different degree at each person and the person
310
that manifests themselves is the panoply of those traits as they manifest themselves in the world
311
and so it's actually very useful to understand your big five traits as far as I'm concerned Actually, that's why I have you do that exercise
312
that you're supposed to do for this class that helps you you identify your faults and virtues
313
And I use big five terminology to help you do that. So
314
Part of the reason it's useful to know what your traits are is
315
because it can help you figure out how you should orient your life Like
316
so for example if you're a high at extraversion, you know You've got a proclivity towards sales for example
317
And you're gonna like you're gonna like occupations where you have a lot of opportunity for social interactions
318
and social networking You're not going to be happy
319
if your job requires you to sit alone for extended periods of time and work in the absence of social interaction.
320
You're going to be one of those annoying people then in one of those offices
321
that instead of sitting alone in their office is going from doorway to doorway, engaging everyone in conversation, right?
322
So, and you want to be in a position
323
that capitalizes on your traits because it's really difficult to work contrary to your traits.
324
The other thing that's worth thinking about too, We're actually building a computer app for this, which is about, which has been about 80 % done for a whole year
325
We've got a hypothesis
326
that we're still working out that's supported to some degree by the relevant literature
327
So imagine that you're looking for a stable partner, right?
328
So you might think, well, what do you want in a stable partner?
329
And at least in principle, one of the things you don't want is too much mismatch between you
330
and that person on the five fundamental dimensions So for example, if you're really extroverted
331
and you have a really introverted partner You're going to engage
332
in continual conflict about how much social activity the two of you should Should be, should, should what?
333
Subject yourself to And it's very, very difficult for people who broadly differ,
334
widely differ on those Dimensions to come to consensus because it's not just a matter of opinion, right?
335
It's really a matter of different And
336
if you're looking at extremes of really different types of people and the thing about introverts is they just don't enjoy
337
Large -scale social interaction that much one -on -one.
338
They're often fine, but in a group They don't like that
339
and they it tires them out whereas a real extrovert It's like you isolate them
340
and and they just wither on the vine
341
because a huge part of what actually motivates them in a positive way is tangled up with social interaction
342
and so if you're an agreeable person
343
and you have a particularly disagreeable partner you're also going to run into problems
344
because the agreeable person will say whatever you want whenever
345
and the agreeable disagreeable person will say well i'd like to know what the hell you want for a change
346
and be much more harsh and much more demanding in the situation
347
and the agreeable person is going to find the disagreeable person harsh
348
and unpleasant and the disagreeable person is going to find the agreeable person wishy -washy
349
and unable to stand up for themselves and again, that's actually one of the primary sources of tension between men
350
and women because women tend to be higher in agreeableness than men it's about half a standard deviation
351
which is quite a large difference by psychological standards and so,
352
what that means I probably haven't got this statistic quite right
353
But I think I've got it about right what
354
that means fundamentally just so you have some sense of how large a
355
An effect that is is that if you have a group of men and women
356
and you pick out random pairs The woman is going to
357
be more agreeable than the man 60 % of the time so that's not an overwhelming Proportion, but it's a reliable and it's quite it's quite large by psychological standards,
358
so there's the problem with agreeableness with With conscientiousness, well, if you're conscientious, you're industrious and orderly.
359
And orderly people seem to be sensitive to disgust, which is something we'll talk about in detail later.
360
We've had a hard time specifying exactly what makes industrious people industrious, because it's hard to come up with an animal model for that sort of thing, and there's no theoretical model.
361
But our latest idea is that, it's not my idea, it's actually the idea of my graduate student,
362
christine brophy um is that industrious people find it um unpleasant
363
and unsettling to to not be doing something so it isn't
364
so much that industriousness makes them happy or fills them with positive emotion
365
that would be more extroversion right because extroversion is the positive emotion dimension it's
366
that industrious people can't stand sitting around doing nothing
367
and you know this is speculation but you know human beings are obviously always engaged in in the exchange of labor,
368
especially the reciprocal exchange of labor and you can imagine
369
that in a community where everyone knows everyone the people who
370
work hard are going to be pretty irritated on a fairly chronic basis with the people who are completely unproductive
371
and my suspicions are
372
that plenty of people who were completely unproductive in the history
373
of the evolution of our species were wiped out by people who were unhappy with their lack of productivity And so,
374
I think, generally speaking, human beings have this sense of ethical obligation with regards to one another to share labor.
375
And people who are conscientious really, really feel that.
376
So they feel bad if they're not busily working on something that's productive all the time.
377
And so, the advantage to being with someone conscientious is, well, they're going to work like mad.
378
But the disadvantage is they're going to work like mad.
379
So, you know, if you're looking for a partner that you want to relax with or have fun with, or who isn't uptight, then a conscientious person is probably not a very good choice.
380
On the other hand, if you're a conscientious person and you're living with someone who's really unconscientious, that's good because they might be able to help you relax.
381
But you're not going to be happy with them because they don't work nearly as hard as you do.
382
But even worse, on the orderly dimension, you know, some of you have had roommates and maybe you're more orderly than your roommate.
383
What does it mean?
384
It means you're annoyed by mess before they are.
385
And you don't have to be annoyed by mess much before
386
your less orderly roommate For you to be the one that's always running around picking things up
387
And so actually one of the things that's emerged from the psychometric analysis Is
388
that women are slightly more orderly than men And I suspect
389
that has something to do with the What would you call it?
390
Inequitable distribution of housework Because even if you're Imagine
391
that your proclivity is to be triggered by disorder 25 seconds before your partners Well, you're going to end up,
392
it doesn't take much difference for you to be the one that's always concerned about the mess first So, anyways, and so if you're a really orderly person and you live with a disorderly person Well,
393
good luck getting along with them They're going to regard you as, like, uptight and, and, uh, uh, over -concerned with details and,
394
and, uh, and, well, and unwilling to relax, that's for sure and they're going to regard you as Well, just a bloody mess.
395
And how can anyone possibly live with someone like you? And so, another reason why it's useful to understand your personality is
396
because I think it gives you a better crack at finding someone that you can actually live with over the long run.
397
And we don't know what the optimal...
398
I don't think you want to live with someone who's exactly like you
399
because then both of you have the same strengths and weaknesses.
400
And there's a bit of a problem there, right?
401
Because maybe an agreeable person can use a bit of a disagreeable person around them to balance each other out, and vice versa, right?
402
So, we don't understand the optimal balance for long -term thriving in a relationship.
403
But I think we do understand the fact that if you're too different in your traits,
404
where you're different is going to constitute a chronic source of conflict.
405
So, anyway, so you can think about that.
406
Alright, so how have psychologists studied personality?
407
Well, I'm going to talk most about the statistical psychometric approach to begin with
408
But there are other approaches that we will talk about as well So,
409
let me give you the background on the self -report methodology first
410
Because it's really formed the backbone of psychological research into personality So,
411
imagine that you took a comprehensive sample of all the descriptive adjectives in the English language.
412
Now, it's trickier than you think, because actually what constitutes an adjective isn't that easy to determine, because many words have forms that are adjective,
413
verb, and noun, depending on how the same word is written out.
414
So, distinguishing adjectives from verbs or adverbs turns out to be more difficult than you might think.
415
But let's just say for the sake of argument
416
that you could collect all of the descriptive adjectives in the English language
417
And that then perhaps you decided
418
because you don't want to use all of them You decided
419
that you were going to use the most common thousand of them
420
And there are tables that enable you to look up the frequency of words
421
And it turns out that in common parlance
422
It's like 5 % of the vocabulary of English language accounts
423
for 95 % of the usage It's an example of this phenomena called the Pareto distribution
424
which we will talk about later
425
So in fact most discourse is done with 500 words You can get about 80 % something like
426
that of speech in terms of single word comprehension with 500 words
427
So let's say you took the thousand you took all the descriptive adjectives
428
And then you took the ones that were the most common thousand
429
And so here's the hypothesis part And this is a critical thing to know
430
This is called the linguistic hypothesis The linguistic hypothesis is that
431
Variation in personality among human beings Is of sufficient import So that it's become accurately coded in the lexicon
432
So what that means is that Roughly speaking Is
433
that over the course of the evolution of any language We'll use English as the example here
434
Descriptive terms have been generated that actually do cover the variation in personality And that essentially cover them without bias Now,
435
that's a hypothesis, actually it's an axiom It's because the hypothesis in some sense isn't, it's not exactly testable We'll leave that aside for now,
436
it's testable a little bit, but not easily So that's the first thing you have to accept You have to accept
437
that it's possible to extract out what constitutes personality by looking
438
at the linguistic representation of descriptors insofar as they're encapsulated in language.
439
Okay, so when people talk about trait models like the Big Five being comprehensive representations of personality,
440
that isn't exactly what they mean.
441
And you need to know this.
442
What they mean is that it's a comprehensive representation of personality insofar as personality has been encapsulated in language.
443
There may be elements of personality that we haven't been able to talk about
444
or we don't know how to talk about that are of crucial importance.
445
And there may not be, but the big five theorists assume that there aren't.
446
All right, so that's a limitation of the theory.
447
But if you accept that, then you say, well, the first thing you want to do is take a relatively random cross -section of the descriptive terms
448
because then you don't introduce bias into the initial stages of the inquiry.
449
So, Matt, I'll tell you something that we did recently, and you can tell me what you think about it.
450
It's analogous.
451
We were trying to study political correctness.
452
And so, the first thing we were trying to figure out was, is there even such a thing?
453
Because if you look at the political dialogue, what you find is
454
that people on the side of the political spectrum who have been defined as politically correct tend to say
455
that it doesn't exist and that that category is just a pejorative term
456
that was invented by people who hold alternative political opinions.
457
And so the first question is, well, what do you mean does it exist?
458
What do you mean by exist?
459
How do you tell if a psychological concept is real?
460
Like, is anger something that exists objectively?
461
Is it an objective phenomena?
462
Well, it's not that easy to determine.
463
You say, well, we act like it is, and we understand what anger means.
464
But no one goes around in the world and says anger, you know, without saying anything else, or you'd run away from them, you know.
465
What they do is they place the word anger into a sentence, and place the sentence within a conversation.
466
And they enable you to infer exactly what they mean by the word anger by listening to the surrounding context, right?
467
And if you're going to turn that into something like an objective term, what you do is you pull out the term anger
468
And then you make the hypothesis that it represents something real in the objective world
469
But it's not that easy to determine if something does exist, especially if it's a psychological phenomenon, in the real world What do you mean by exist?
470
That's the problem of construct validation, okay?
471
So that's another term you really need to know if you're interested in experimental psychology, especially on the personality end.
472
A construct is a representation of something psychological that hypothetically exists objectively.
473
How do you establish its existence objectively?
474
Well, does fear exist?
475
No, you have the problem with all the emotional terms.
476
Does joy exist?
477
Does surprise exist?
478
Does embarrassment exist?
479
Does guilt exist?
480
Shame, how are they related to one another?
481
Guilt and shame, for example, seem quite similar to one another, right?
482
And pain and fear and anger all seem to share the attribute of unpleasant and negative emotions.
483
And so how similar, how something, if something exists, it should be the same as some things and different from other things.
484
And that's part of construct validation as well, to specify how the construct is the same as some things and different from others.
485
Anger should be reliably distinguishable from joy, for example, because otherwise they're not different And anger
486
and fear should be somewhat the same if they're both negative emotions
487
So it's extraordinarily complex to validate a construct And
488
so here's what we did with political correctness The reason I'm using the political examples is
489
because that's an obvious place where self -serving bias can enter the scientific arena, right? So,
490
if I wanted to make a point about political correctness or
491
if I wanted to make a point about right -wing fascism
492
I could build my biases into the measurement instruments accidentally
493
And then they would produce as output what I put into them as input
494
And I want to protect myself against that
495
if I actually want to do the scientific investigation properly
496
So what we did when we started to construct our measures of political correctness was
497
employ a number of people
498
to go through as many news sources as they could get their hands on to identify any attitude or behavior,
499
roughly that, that had been described by anyone at all as potentially politically correct.
500
So it was kind of agnostic.
501
And we were trying to do it as randomly as possible, you know, to get as many news sources as we possibly could so that we were sampling across the environment without bias.
502
Okay, so then we came up with, I don't remember how many,
503
couple hundred, maybe more, couple hundred items that were roughly indicative of what you might describe as political correctness.
504
But that's not good enough, right?
505
Because you have this random assemblage of items, doesn't indicate at all that they're all measuring something that was similar.
506
That's just implicit, they're all called political correctness, but you don't know if those attitudes co -vary.
507
And what that means is, if you held one attitude of that list, were you more likely to hold another or multiple others, right?
508
So does the conditional probability of holding multiple items,
509
is there a high probability of holding true multiple items simultaneously?
510
Well, you figure that out with factor analysis.
511
So what we did is we turned that into a questionnaire using different question types, and we administered it to several hundred people.
512
And we did a factor analysis and we found actually
513
that there was such a thing as political correctness
514
because the questions clumped together People would reliably answer them in a patterned manner, but that there were actually two dimensions that were quite separate
515
So there isn't one political correctness There seems to be two
516
and then we looked at the personality predictors and the IQ predictors
517
and a variety of other predictors That would enable us to come to some understanding of the temperamental
518
Proclivity towards those political attitudes, if any We knew already that
519
political conservatives tended to be low in trade openness that's the creativity dimension
520
and high in trade conscientiousness whereas political liberals tended to be high in trade openness
521
and low in conscientiousness and
522
so one of the things that's extraordinarily interesting to know from the Big Five perspective is
523
that your political proclivities are very powerfully influenced by your temperament and
524
so one of the things you can think about with regards to ongoing political discussions in the real world is
525
that those discussions are actually attempts by people of different temperaments one, to impose their temperamental viewpoints on the world and two,
526
to engage in a dialogue with people who are actually quite different than they are so like conscientious people, they value hard work, rules,
527
order, reliability, integrity, and structure And so they're dutiful.
528
We analyzed what predicted military performance, for example, in the U .S.
529
Army.
530
Overwhelmingly conscientiousness.
531
It's not surprising, right?
532
Because it's a very structured, rule -ordered, top -down, follow -procedure sort of endeavor.
533
Now, the armed forces had problems with that to some degree
534
because they were also simultaneously looking for people who could think independently on their feet.
535
Because if you're in a battlefield, for example, Especially if you're isolated from your command structure, there's going to be times when you have to make extraordinarily difficult decisions on your own.
536
But if you're selected primarily for conscientiousness, that's not going to be your forte.
537
Because if you're a conscientious person, what happens is that you enter into a contract with someone, even yourself, and then you carry it out.
538
So now, we've also spent a lot of time selecting entrepreneurs.
539
I work with this company in California
540
that has started schools for entrepreneurs in a hundred
541
and now I think a hundred
542
and sixty different countries all over the world This the guy who started this whose name is Adeo Resi.
543
He's a real.
544
He's an absolute monster The guy started well all he started all those schools in five years
545
165 schools in all across the world eight different languages
546
and we've been screening people for entrepreneurial ability and
547
if you're going to be an entrepreneur you almost have the
548
opposite profile as a soldier you're very high in openness
549
and you're lower in conscientiousness or at least conscientiousness is irrelevant
550
and the reason for that seems to be that like
551
if you're an orderly person and you'd like to follow procedures
552
and rules it's kind of hard for you to start a company
553
because when you first start a company or engage in any other creative process
554
because entrepreneurs turn out to be the same as artists you
555
kind of have to You're not operating within a rule -governed structure. In fact,
556
there may be many times where you have to break a small rule to move properly at a higher level of analysis.
557
There's no algorithmic way of generating a new company, right?
558
Obviously.
559
And so it's people who are very high in openness who happen to be good entrepreneurs.
560
And so this is something I thought was extraordinarily cool because we'd also already known what predicts managerial,
561
administrative, and academic ability And IQ is crucial for any complex job, so we'll just leave that behind, but what predicts academic ability,
562
for example, at the University of Toronto, is intelligence, obviously, but also conscientiousness.
563
The correlation between creativity and grades at the U of T is zero.
564
Zero.
565
Right.
566
But it's not surprising.
567
The thing is, you know, it's easy to be cynical about that, But one of the things you have to understand about creative people is
568
that they continually step outside of the domain of evaluation structures Right
569
because if you're going to say you're going to evaluate The performance of a hundred professors on their lecturing ability Well, you kind of have to measure what's common across all the
570
professors in order to come up with the standards for evaluation Well, that means you're not going to be able to use
571
that structure to evaluate a particularly creative professor Because he
572
or she is going to do something in a way that's
573
so different that it won't show up on the evaluation measure And of course that's what happens in universities, you know Somebody sent me, a couple of days ago,
574
somebody sent me an essay that they had written for their master's thesis
575
That was wildly creative and they were basically told to leave the program And that they couldn't continue, not in a mean way What happened was
576
that what they were thinking was so outside of the conventions in the discipline is
577
that no one had any idea what to do with the essay.
578
So, and that's really the lot of creative people, right?
579
They're always stepping outside of evaluation structures.
580
And so, it's not that surprising that the relationship between creativity and grades at the U of T is zero.
581
We found out as well, by looking at graduate student performance across multiple institutions, that there was a negative correlation between creativity and graduate school performance.
582
It wasn't even zero, it was worse than negative.
583
Being creative was negative.
584
And you think, well, that could make you cynical as well, but you can't be cynical in that way because one of the things
585
that happens in science is that science tends to progress incrementally rather than in great leaps.
586
Now and then someone comes along who blows the structure out of a science and advances it ridiculously like Einstein.
587
But like most people aren't Einstein, and maybe thank God for that.
588
Most of the time, you're in a discipline, you understand the discipline and then once you've developed understanding of the discipline,
589
you know what the next micro question is that should be answered.
590
And part of the reason that science is so powerful is
591
because it allows people who aren't genius level creatives to make real advances in the generation of knowledge.
592
One tiny micro step at a time.
593
Doesn't matter if there's a hundred thousand people doing it and each of them is making a micro step, man.
594
And we're zipping along as fast as we possibly want to zip along.
595
And so it turns out to be conscientiousness that's the excellent predictor of graduate student performance.
596
That's the best predictor for law.
597
It's the best predictor for managerial positions.
598
It's the best predictor for administrative positions.
599
Anything that has a structure of rules that needs to be applied, conscientiousness is a great predictor.
600
But it's not good for predicting artistic ability or entrepreneurial ability.
601
And that's also really important because one of the things, this is partly why bureaucracies stultify.
602
Right?
603
Because what happens is, as they develop, they get chock full of conscientious people with a few psychopaths thrown in there just for good measure.
604
They get chock full of conscientious people busily zooming efficiently down a single track and then all of a sudden,
605
the landscape shifts and they're going very, very efficiently in exactly the wrong direction.
606
And then the whole bloody thing falls apart.
607
So you need to have some creative wing nuts in your organization to come up with completely absurd ideas
608
that might just on the off chance be true.
609
And so creativity is strange in that manner too because it's a high risk, high return game.
610
You're a lot safer in your life to find a functioning entity and to operate as a cog within it.
611
As long as the entity keeps functioning.
612
Because if you're creative and you go off on tangents all the time, there's some probability
613
that one of those tangents is going to be exactly what is needed at the time
614
And you're going to become hyper successful as a consequence
615
But there's much more probability
616
that Even though some of your ideas might be highly valuable The probability
617
that this is the right time and place for them Is extraordinarily low
618
So to produce a successful creative product For example in the marketplace You need a ridiculous combination of creativity
619
So that you keep generating ideas
620
And then a network around you of people who have skills that you don't and then the production of a product, let's say, whatever that happens to be,
621
that's actually in demand by the marketplace at exactly that moment and that someone else hasn't already done better.
622
So the sensible thing to tell anybody who wants to be creative is, that's stupid.
623
You shouldn't do it.
624
Your probability of success is so low that it's better just to do something sensible.
625
But the problem with that is that creative people can't do that because they're creative.
626
And if they shut down their creativity, it's like an extrovert who's gone to live in an isolated cell.
627
A creative person who isn't being creative, they just wither and die.
628
So they're stuck with it.
629
But it is a high -risk, high -return strategy.
630
So probably better if you want to be creative, or if you are, and you should take this advice to heart because I've been watching people for a long time.
631
If you want to engage in a creative pursuit, You should find something stable to do that will generate you an income
632
And you should pursue the thing that you're creative about on the side because
633
Monetizing creative production is so bloody difficult
634
that especially now like especially in like artistic domains Generation of music and
635
that sort of thing is like you just have no idea How many million songs there are on the internet
636
and the vast majority of them commercially available get downloaded Zero
637
times like 80 per I think there's 80 million songs
638
or something like that on the net
639
And I believe it's something in the neighborhood of 70 million get downloaded to zero times
640
And then there's a hundred that can get downloaded like 350 million times
641
and so those people are wildly successful and everyone else collapses in failure.
642
Yep No We'll talk about that more okay,
643
so that's not a bad overview for for initial foray into Psychometrics.
App downloaden
Alles wat je nodig hebt om vloeiend te spreken
AI UitspraakScoor elke zin
IPA OefeningBeheers elk geluid
WoordenschatBouw je woordenschat op
WoordenspelLeren terwijl je speelt
Zelfde Kanaal
C179
Where Idea Are Born
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B22
Boring People Don't Exist
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
C14
Your Contract With The Future
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B23
Marriage Takes Practice
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
C12015 Maps of Meaning Lecture 1: Introduction (Part 2)
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
FOR YOU
Aanbevolen Video
C12
93 zinnen
How Culture affects your Personality
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
143 zinnen
Start With Dostoevsky
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
166 zinnen
The Scariest IQ Statistics | Jordan Peterson
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
764 zinnen
11. Introduction to Machine Learning
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
251 zinnen
Things That Are Not What They Seem and the Truth About Life | Advanced Podcast for Conversations
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
159 zinnen
Meet Your Master - Getting to Know Your Brain: Crash Course Psychology #4
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
117 zinnen
What Is Islamic Psychology? Dr Francesca Bocca | Psychology and Islam
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
42 zinnen
Jordan Peterson - How To Read And Study More Effectively
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
273 zinnen
PNTV: Get Out of Your Mind & Into Your Life by Steven C. Hayes
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
41 zinnen
What is Psychology? (Intro Psych Tutorial #1)
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
B21
457 zinnen
How to be less neurotic | The Gray Area
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
97 zinnen
Jordan Peterson - You Need a Routine!
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les
Deze video bevat 643 zinnen en 8766 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 49:30. De spreker praat in een natuurlijk tempo van ongeveer 177 woorden per minuut, dicht bij een alledaags gesprek. 84% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden; de rest kun je beter vooraf bekijken.
Belangrijke woorden in deze video
15 woorden uit de video die het leren waard zijn, met uitspraak en betekenis:
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| trait zelfstandig naamwoord | /tɹeɪt/ | karaktereigenschap trek |
| dimension zelfstandig naamwoord | /daɪˈmɛn.ʃən/ | dimensie, afmeting |
| measurement zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈmɛʒ.ə.mənt/ | meting |
| psychological bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /ˌsaɪ.kəˈlɑː.d͡ʒɪ.kl̩/ | psychologisch |
| stable zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈsteɪ.bəl/ | stal, paardenstal |
| anger zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈæŋɡə/ | boosheid, woede |
| interaction zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/ | wisselwerking, interactie |
| creativity zelfstandig naamwoord | /kri.eɪˈtɪv.ᵻ.ti/ | creativiteit |
| underlying bijvoeglijk naamwoord | onderliggend | |
| hypothesis zelfstandig naamwoord | /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/ | hypothese, stelling |
| psychology zelfstandig naamwoord | /saɪˈkɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/ | psychologie, zielkunde |
| probability zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˌpɹɑ.bəˈbɪl.ə.ti/ | waarschijnlijkheid |
| microwave zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈmaɪkɹoʊˌweɪv/ | microgolf |
| solve werkwoord | /sɒlv/ | oplossen |
| roughly bijwoord | /ˈɹʌf.li/ | grofweg |
Phrasal verbs die je zult horen
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| come up with werkwoord | bedenken, verzinnen | |
| figure out werkwoord | uitvogelen, er achter komen | |
| end up werkwoord | belanden, terechtkomen | |
| fall apart werkwoord | uiteenvallen, uit elkaar vallen | |
| find out werkwoord | ontdekken, onderzoeken | |
| give up werkwoord | zich overgeven | |
| look up werkwoord | /ˌlʊk ˈʌp/ | opkijken |
| shut down werkwoord | afsluiten, uitzetten |
Grammatica in deze video
De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:
| Structuur | In de video |
|---|---|
| Voorwaardelijke zinnen if + zin, will/would + werkwoord — een voorwaarde en het gevolg | if you're an orderly person and you'd like |
| Present perfect continuous have/has been + -ing — iets dat eerder begon en nog bezig is | we've been trying · we've been screening · I've been watching |
| Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt | I've been · we've come · has been |
| Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet | was put · are integrated · could be applied |
Uitspraak om op te letten
De spreker gebruikt 229 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals you're, they're, don't. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.
- De “th”-klanken: hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, theoretical /ˌθi.əˈɹɛt.ɪ.kəl/
- De klanken “sh” en “zh”: dimension /daɪˈmɛn.ʃən/, measurement /ˈmɛʒ.ə.mənt/, interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, emotion /ɪˈməʊ.ʃən/, evaluation /ɪˌvæljuˈeɪʃn̩/
- Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: psychological /ˌsaɪ.kəˈlɑː.d͡ʒɪ.kl̩/, interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, creativity /kri.eɪˈtɪv.ᵻ.ti/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, psychology /saɪˈkɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/
Zo oefen je met deze video
- Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
- Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
- Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als trait, dimension, measurement.
Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?
Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.