Can studying the science of personality boost your self-knowledge, or appreciation of others? I think so. And it's awfully interesting.

There is a Buddhist saying: “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”

I tend to scoff at mystical predictions like that, but in fact, I’ve found it to be uncannily accurate as I’ve been working on the Happiness Project.

For instance, about a week after I committed myself to starting a strength-training regiment – really committed myself, not just pretended, as I had many times before – I had coffee with a friend who mentioned that she loved the strength-training work-out she did in a gym near my apartment. Eureka!

For the last few months, I’ve quite literally and repeatedly had this thought: “Boy, I’ve been reading so much about the five-factor model of personality. This framework is intriguing, but I have a lot of questions, especially about the neuroticism factor. I wish I could find some up-to-date, useful source that would lay it all out.”

Eureka! Friday, my copy of Daniel Nettle’s Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are arrived. I read it in one night.

I have Twelve Commandments (see left column), of which two are supreme: “Be Gretchen” and “There is only love.”

I hoped that understanding the five-factor framework would help me “Be Gretchen” by giving me insight into my own character, and possibly also help me with “There is only love” by helping me understand other people better.

Nettle lays out the “big five” dimensions:

1. Extraversion – response to reward
2. Neuroticism – response to threat
3. Conscientiousness – response inhibition (self-control, planning)
4. Agreeableness – regard for others
5. Openness to Experience – breadth of mental associations

These categories somewhat, but don’t exactly, mean what a layman might think. For example, I’d thought “extraversion” was basically “friendliness,” but that’s not right. Also, although I’d certainly used the word “neurotic” many times, I realized I didn’t know exactly what it meant.

The book is absolutely fascinating (it’s also comprehensive, short, and well-written, which is hard to pull off). At the end is a twelve-question questionnaire that, though so short, is apparently quite accurate in evaluating people. The questionaire is also availabe on-line.

In full disclosure, here are my scores:

1. Extraversion – low-medium
2. Neuroticism – low-medium
3. Conscientiousness – high
4. Agreeableness – low (for a woman; if I were a man I’d be low-medium)
5. Openness to Experience – high

The first two categories are particularly useful for someone thinking about happiness: people with high Extraversion scores have very strong positive reactions (they consistently report more joy, desire, excitement, enthusiasm), and people with high Neuroticism scores have very strong negative reactions (fear, anxiety, shame, guilt, disgust, sadness—very often directed at the self).

Learning about the five-factor framework did, indeed, boost my sense of understanding myself and others -- which, I hope, will make me more charitable.

I was telling some friends about Nettle’s book, and I mentioned that I scored “low” on Agreeableness. “Surely not!” they cried. “You’re very Agreeable!”

But I wasn’t surprised by my result. I suspect that my friends, as evidenced from their loyal reaction, are more Agreeable.

*
I just tried a new way of linking to Amazon. It looks to me as though it's not working. I would appreciate it very much if a reader or two would let me know if the link to Nettle's book took them to the right place, or just to the Amazon home page.

In other blog-improvement news, I emailed Typepad tech support to ask about the formatting problem that has been dogging me, and they've made a configuration change for feeds. It may take a while, but allegedly the problem will be fixed. Thanks so much for everyone's suggestions and feedback. And patience.

*
New to the Happiness Project? Consider subscribing to my RSS feed: Subscribe to this blog's feed. Or sign up to get email updates in the box at the top righthand corner.
If you're starting your own happiness project, please join the Happiness Project Group on Facebook to swap ideas. It's easy; it's free.

Comments

[Doug Kyle]

The big five are pretty common, I've run into this representation of them in courses for both intro to psychology and business management. If acronyms help anyone, these are usually presented as OCEAN.

O.penness to Experience
C.onscientiousness
E.xtraversion
A.greeableness
N.euroticism

The link didn't take me to the book's page, but rather to a search results page where the title of the book is the search phrase. This was using Firefox.

[Kaja]

Dan Nettle's work is great and I'm so glad to see his new book discussed on this blog. (Think link gets you within one link of the book on Amazon).

[Natasha]

The link just took me to an Amazon.com search for the title, but it was the first book in the search results.

[Mrs. Micah]

As blog feedback, your post looked perfect in my reader!

[Mrs. Micah]

Postscript. Unlike this weekend.

[ashpags]

In my feed reader (Google Reader), the book link did not work at all. The title was blue, like it should be a link, but there was not actually a hyperlink. Here on the site, I had the same experience as Natasha - the link took me to the search page, with the proper book at the top. Also, the formatting in Google Reader looked correct. Thanks for sharing this book...looks good! =)

[Pat McGee]

I've never thought of teachers appearing as a mystical prediction. To me, it's more like "The world abounds with teachers. As soon as you're ready for the lesson, you'll start seeing them."

Pat

[Matthew]

From the Google RSS reader, the link didn't even come through as a link (other links in your post did). From your site - as Natasha said: "the link just took me to an Amazon.com search for the title, but it was the first book in the search results." HTH!

[Louise]

I am using Firefox, and I had the same experience as ashpags did from Google reader: the title was blue but wasn't really a link.

The links to your own books, however, worked perfectly. Are the links new? I hadn't noticed them before. I did not know you were such a prolific writer!

[Alix]

In IE7, the link just takes me to the amazon homepage.

[Ida]

The best personality book (and I have many) is "Wired that way" by Marita Littauer and Florence Littauer. They offer a solid and easy way to do it without fancy schemes and the necessity to fill in questionnaires. It transformed how I viewed myself and the people around me. It is almost like magic! I am now able to get more what I want and need and give others what they want and need. The book also offers great pointers for parents and also for the work place.

[Debbie M]

The most helpful personality thing I've found is the extremely simplistic True Colors, which breaks people into one of four groups based on whether their main strategies are organizational/control freakish (gold), exploratory/geekish (green), adventurous/risky (orange), or people oriented/doormattish (blue). (I tried to make them all sound both good and bad.)

The test gave me the most even results possible. But then our workshop leader asked us to split into groups based on our highest score. I went to the gold area. Then we were to answer a list of questions as a group. Everyone in the group was shockingly and happily in agreement on so many things, but I felt restless there, and was looking longingly at the other groups.

When we got to the question, "What do you do for fun?" and someone said "Exercise," and they all agreed so enthusiastically, I actually got up and said, "I'm sorry, I think I'm in the wrong group." I probably like exercise as much as they do, but I would never call it that. "Exercise" is something you "should" do. What I like are things that are fun. Like trying to block a throw in ultimate frisbee.

I walked over to the green group, knowing that for fun they would enjoy taking apart electronics and putting them back together and programming computers. But no, they like to do fun things like go on walks and go to plays. I had found my group!

What I finally learned is that although I like hanging with greens, the reason I don't fit in with them as well as I wish I did is that I am almost just as strongly gold. My only life strategies are planning and organizing--I have virtually no winging skills! But unlike real golds, I don't enjoy organizing for organizing's sake. I only like it as a means to an end. Yes, I have all my short-sleeved shirts next to each other in the closet, just like gold people do, but that's not because it looks pretty, it's because when I want a short-sleeved shirt, I can find it more quickly.

I learned that I think my gold traits are boring. This is why I feel more boring than my friends.

In conclusion, I decided I really like my organizational strategies, and it's worth seeming boring as a result. However, I also want to pay more attention and learn when other people are taking risks and trying new things and winging it. (Oh, yes, blogs are my friend!)

And I don't have a link or anything, but I did decide that you could figure out your "true color" based on how you answer this question: If you had a choice to get paid either $100,000 a year, getting 1/12 of it each month, or $150,000 a year, getting a random amount each month (you could get zero some months, but it will add up to $150,000 in the end), which would you choose and why?

Greens: Take the $150,000. It's more.
Golds: But what would you do in the months when you got nothing?
Greens: Save for those months!
Oranges: Save, schmave. Just wing it!
(The blues didn't say anything; I assume that they would check what their spouse wanted before committing to a decision.)

[Tim]

On the teacher thing... David Allen (GTD guru) says "it's not about whether the information is available, it's about whether you are available to the information". This is why you should be very careful about what you focus on: your perception will highlight it for you, even if it is unpleasant...

[Anne]

I have done the Big 5 test as well. For a girl/woman of 23, I seem to be very "weird".
Also notice how this test (i took it through my university's psychological department) calls "neuroticism" actually "emotional stability", the positive side of the coin.

This is what it said:

Your average score on extraversion was 2.4, which is considered low. It is in approximately the 1st percentile for females over the age of 21.
Your score on Extraversion is low, indicating you are introverted, reserved, and quiet. You enjoy solitude and solitary activities. Your socializing tends to be restricted to a few close friends.

Your average score on agreeableness was 2.5, which is considered low. It is in approximately the 1st percentile for females over the age of 21.
Your score on Agreeableness is low, indicating less concern with others' needs Than with your own. People see you as tough, critical, and uncompromising

Your average score on conscientiousness was 4.4, which is considered high. It is in approximately the 73rd percentile for females over the age of 21.
Your score on Conscientiousness is high. This means you set clear goals and pursue them with determination. People regard you as reliable and hard-working.

Your average score on emotional stability was 5.4, which is considered high. It is in approximately the 99th percentile for females over the age of 21.
Your score on Emotional Stability is high indicating that you are exceptionally calm, composed and unflappable. You do not react with intense emotions, even to situations that most people would describe as stressful.

Your average score on openness was 5.6, which is considered high. It is in approximately the 97th percentile for females over the age of 21.
Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative.

These explanations might help others as well.