(A thing that peeves me about the five-factor model is that (I read that) the labels try to sound neutral but (IMO) fail at that, Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion and Agreeableness all sounding positive and Neuroticism sounding negative—and when Stability replaces Neuroticism it’s even worse. OK, with Openness this might be self-serving bias on my part, myself being around 80th percentile Openness—but I’m around or slightly below median on the other ones, so this can’t be the only reason.)
Well, that’s kind of a natural consequence of selection pressures. Trying to make labels sound neutral when one end of a spectrum is preferred to the other inevitably leads to the Euphemism Treadmill—it’s the same thing with “intelligence” vs. “idiocy” / “retardation” / “being special”.
The fact is, in our culture, high Openness has clear social advantages over Traditionalism; high Extroversion has clear social advantages over Introversion; Conscientiousness has clear social advantages over Impulsiveness; and Stability has clear social advantages over Neuroticism. Change the culture, and the local optima might change, which will change the connotation of the terms—for example, Competitiveness might scan better in some places than Agreeableness.
Just like smart people are just “better” than dumb people, extroverts are just “better” than introverts, and stable people are just “better” than neurotics—at least in this environment.
(A thing that peeves me about the five-factor model is that (I read that) the labels try to sound neutral but (IMO) fail at that, Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion and Agreeableness all sounding positive and Neuroticism sounding negative—and when Stability replaces Neuroticism it’s even worse. OK, with Openness this might be self-serving bias on my part, myself being around 80th percentile Openness—but I’m around or slightly below median on the other ones, so this can’t be the only reason.)
Well, that’s kind of a natural consequence of selection pressures. Trying to make labels sound neutral when one end of a spectrum is preferred to the other inevitably leads to the Euphemism Treadmill—it’s the same thing with “intelligence” vs. “idiocy” / “retardation” / “being special”.
The fact is, in our culture, high Openness has clear social advantages over Traditionalism; high Extroversion has clear social advantages over Introversion; Conscientiousness has clear social advantages over Impulsiveness; and Stability has clear social advantages over Neuroticism. Change the culture, and the local optima might change, which will change the connotation of the terms—for example, Competitiveness might scan better in some places than Agreeableness.
Just like smart people are just “better” than dumb people, extroverts are just “better” than introverts, and stable people are just “better” than neurotics—at least in this environment.
What would be a better term than “neuroticism”? I suggest an optimism/caution spectrum.
The world would be a better place if there’d been some Neuroticism at Enron.
But would the Enron execs have been better? Because selection doesn’t care about what’s best for the world.