Практика Shadowing: 2017 Personality 14: Introduction to Traits/Psychometrics/The Big 5 - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Выберите режим практики

Каждый режим открывает полноэкранную комнату практики.

643 предложений

Если предложения слишком короткие или длинные, нажмите Edit, чтобы их изменить.

Intro Music So, I want to tell you,

I'm going to make a little announcement first.

I'm going to do a series of lectures, I think, starting in May, maybe at the Isabel Bader Theatre.

We're trying to look into booking that.

I'm going to do a psychological interpretation of the Bible from beginning to end.

That's the plan anyway, so I'm going to do that once a week.

So if you're interested in in that I would recommend that you men.

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

that you'll attend I'm just trying to see

if there are people who are interested in I've been interested in doing

that for a long time And so I think I'm going to try it.

So anyways That's the announcement and then is that about it?

I guess so okay, so look we're going to switch gears today

The first half of this course as you've no doubt already

gathered is

Because it's grounded essentially in clinical theories of personality it tends more towards the philosophical

and I told you that the reason for that was

that I regard clinical psychology as a branch of engineering rather than a branch of science It's human engineering obviously

and because of that it's an applied science and so that means it straddles the the ground between

a science and a practice and it and

because it's it involves human beings It necessarily involves value because we live inside value structures and so

the logical consequence of that is that Investigation into the philosophy of value is necessary in order to understand clinical

Psychological theories

because really what you're trying to do as a clinician you

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,

and there's obviously a value structure that's inherent in that attempt

because you're moving from something of less value to something of more value, and so.. and it's best to just,

you know, face that and all the complexities that come along with that head on.

Now, I think what you do as a clinician

to overcome whatever tendency you might have to impose your value structure on someone is you do an awful lot of listening,

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

But that's okay We can use your definition of what constitutes better We can use your definition of what constitutes worse

Or we can establish that through dialogue and negotiation What are you aiming at?

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?

And you can have a very straightforward discussion with people about

that if you're not trying to cram the way that they're orienting the world into your particular perspective.

Now, that's one of the dangers of being the adherent of a given psychological school.

Now, having said that, it's also...

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,

you tended to not be as effective as you were if you were the dedicated adherent of a given school.

And I think the reason for that is that there's

so many schools of psychological thought That if you say

that you pick and choose from all of them What

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

That if someone comes to you and they're very chaotic and confused

Helping them impose any structure onto their life Is likely to be an improvement over no structure at all

And you could think about that in a Piagetian sense is

that you know you're going to be happier playing a game rather than no game

and there's many games that you could play

that are better than no game and so

if you go to a therapist that has a particular viewpoint

and they help you structure your understanding of the world within the confines of a given clinical model

and you came in there very chaotic

and uncertain then maybe that's going to be a lot better for you than just floundering

and i and i think there's some real truth in that

and I think that that's part

and parcel of the same of another what you might call it reasonable observation about maturation is

that it's very necessary for people at some point in their

life to dedicate themselves to a single game of some sort

which is kind of what you're doing in university you know

you have to become one thing at some point in your life

and the sacrifice of course is that you give up all the other things

that you could become but the you don't really have a choice because if you don't decide voluntarily to become one thing,

you know, to become a disciplined adherent of some specific practice or profession or viewpoint,

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,

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,

especially by the time people hit about 40 It's not pretty for them or anyone else And even at 30,

it's getting pretty old at that point 40, it's like it's almost irreparable at 40 And the reason for

that is you start running out of opportunities When you're young and stupid, people don't care, because they think,

well, you know, whatever, you've got decades of possibilities still ready to unfold in you,

but if you're in the same unspecified position at 40, people are much less forgiving,

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,

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

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,

so to speak the second half is more scientific

and there's a bit of a gap, eh?

and it's a gap I'm trying to resolve conceptually

because now we move into more biological models and into models

that are psychometric and psychometrics is the psychological study

Or the study of psychological measurement and now

if you're a scientist you're there's a couple of things

that you're obliged to do If you're a scientist one is to utilize the scientific method.

That's usually the experimental method where you take two groups

randomly selected apply a Manipulation to one of them and not and an equivalent manipulation of a different sort to another

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,

to come up with a measurement of your...

To come up with a measurement, let's just put it that way, that's reliable and valid.

Okay, and what a reliable measure is one that measures the same way across multiple measurements.

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.

That's reliability, and it's a term you need to know.

It means that the measurement tool produces stable results across different instances of the measurement.

Without that, you don't have a measurement.

The other critical factor with regards to a measurement is that it has to be valid,

which means that it actually has to measure what it purports to measure,

And it has to be usable for an array of different purposes as a consequence And so you might think,

well, the purpose of scientific endeavor is to predict and to control You could say understand, predict, and control But understanding,

prediction, and controls are all manifestations of the same underlying thoroughly designed comprehension Now,

here's what's happened with the measurement of personality It's a funny story in some sense, a peculiar story,

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.

Скачать приложение

Всё для свободной речи

ИИ-оценка произношенияОценка каждой фразы

Практика IPAОсвойте каждый звук

СловарьСоберите свой словарный запас

Игра со словамиУчитесь играя

Сканировать QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

Тот же канал

FOR YOU

Лексика и советы по произношению к этому уроку

В этом видео 643 предложений и 8766 слов для шедоуинга. Речь длится 49:30. Говорящий говорит в естественном темпе, около 177 слов в минуту, близком к повседневной речи. 84% слов входят в 3000 самых частых слов английского языка; остальные стоит разобрать перед занятием.

Ключевая лексика этого видео

15 слов из видео, которые стоит выучить, с произношением и значением:

Слово	Произношение	Значение
trait существительное	/tɹeɪt/	черта́, осо́бенность
dimension существительное	/daɪˈmɛn.ʃən/	аспе́кт
measurement существительное	/ˈmɛʒ.ə.mənt/	измере́ние, обме́р
psychological прилагательное	/ˌsaɪ.kəˈlɑː.d͡ʒɪ.kl̩/	психологи́ческий
stable существительное	/ˈsteɪ.bəl/	коню́шня, хлев
anger существительное	/ˈæŋɡə/	гнев, злость
interaction существительное	/ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/	взаимоде́йствие
creativity существительное	/kri.eɪˈtɪv.ᵻ.ti/	креати́вность, тво́рческие спосо́бности
hypothesis существительное	/haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/	гипо́теза, предположе́ние
psychology существительное	/saɪˈkɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/	психоло́гия, пси́хика
probability существительное	/ˌpɹɑ.bəˈbɪl.ə.ti/	вероя́тность, правдоподо́бие
construct глагол	/ˈkɑn.stɹʌkt/	стро́ить, постро́ить
microwave существительное	/ˈmaɪkɹoʊˌweɪv/	микроволна́
descriptive прилагательное	/dəˈskɹɪptɪv/	описа́тельный, нагля́дный
solve глагол	/sɒlv/	реша́ть, реши́ть

Фразовые глаголы, которые вы услышите

Слово	Значение
come up with глагол	придумывать, приходить в голову
figure out глагол	разбира́ться, разобра́ться
come along глагол	сопровожда́ть, составля́ть компа́нию
end up глагол	зака́нчиваться, зако́нчиться
fall apart глагол	распада́ться, распа́сться
find out глагол	узнава́ть, узна́ть
get away with глагол	сойти́ с рук
give up глагол	сдава́ться, сда́ться

Грамматика в этом видео

Конструкции, которые говорящий использует чаще всего, с точными словами из видео:

Конструкция	В видео
Условные предложения if + предложение, will/would + глагол — условие и его результат	if you're an orderly person and you'd like
Present Perfect Continuous have/has been + -ing — действие началось раньше и продолжается	we've been trying · we've been screening · I've been watching
Present Perfect have/has + причастие прошедшего времени — прошлое действие, важное сейчас	I've been · we've come · has been
Пассивный залог be + причастие прошедшего времени — важно, что происходит, а не кто это делает	was put · are integrated · could be applied

Произношение, на которое стоит обратить внимание

Говорящий использует 229 сокращённых и редуцированных форм, например you're, they're, don't. Произносите их коротко, так, как слышите.

Звуки «th»: hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, theoretical /ˌθi.əˈɹɛt.ɪ.kəl/
Звуки «sh» и «zh»: dimension /daɪˈmɛn.ʃən/, measurement /ˈmɛʒ.ə.mənt/, interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, emotion /ɪˈməʊ.ʃən/, evaluation /ɪˌvæljuˈeɪʃn̩/
Длинные слова — следите за ударением: psychological /ˌsaɪ.kəˈlɑː.d͡ʒɪ.kl̩/, interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, creativity /kri.eɪˈtɪv.ᵻ.ti/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, psychology /saɪˈkɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/

Как заниматься с этим видео

Прослушайте всё видео один раз молча и выпишите незнакомые слова.
Начните со скорости 0,75×, повторяйте предложение за предложением и вернитесь к обычной скорости, когда станет легко.
Запишите себя и сравните с оригиналом, обращая внимание на такие слова, как trait, dimension, measurement.

Что такое техника Shadowing?

Shadowing — это научно обоснованная техника изучения языка, изначально разработанная для подготовки профессиональных переводчиков и популяризированная полиглотом доктором Александром Аргуэльесом. Метод прост, но эффективен: вы слушаете аудио на английском от носителей языка и немедленно повторяете вслух — как тень, следующая за говорящим с задержкой в 1–2 секунды. В отличие от пассивного прослушивания или грамматических упражнений, Shadowing заставляет мозг и мышцы рта одновременно обрабатывать и воспроизводить реальные речевые паттерны. Исследования показывают, что это значительно улучшает точность произношения, интонацию, ритм, связную речь, понимание на слух и беглость речи — что делает его одним из самых эффективных методов для подготовки к IELTS Speaking и реального общения на английском.

Техника шедоуинга: читать полное пошаговое руководство →

Практика Shadowing: 2017 Personality 14: Introduction to Traits/Psychometrics/The Big 5 - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Выберите режим практики

Скачать приложение

Тот же канал

Where Idea Are Born

Boring People Don't Exist

Your Contract With The Future

Marriage Takes Practice

2015 Maps of Meaning Lecture 1: Introduction (Part 2)

Рекомендуемое видео

How Culture affects your Personality

Start With Dostoevsky

The Scariest IQ Statistics | Jordan Peterson

11. Introduction to Machine Learning

Things That Are Not What They Seem and the Truth About Life | Advanced Podcast for Conversations

Meet Your Master - Getting to Know Your Brain: Crash Course Psychology #4

What Is Islamic Psychology? Dr Francesca Bocca | Psychology and Islam

Jordan Peterson - How To Read And Study More Effectively

PNTV: Get Out of Your Mind & Into Your Life by Steven C. Hayes

What is Psychology? (Intro Psych Tutorial #1)

C2 ENGLISH LISTENING PRACTICE - Charisma

Some brains are built for philosophy. Is yours?