Free «The Theory of Personalities» UK Essay Paper
Following the MBTI personality type test, my score of conscientiousness was the highest with a score of 5.2 while the observer’s score was 5.9. The scores were both somewhat high, putting me in slightly above the middle for the trait. Although the scores revealed a small discrepancy of about 0.7 points, they both mean that I have a high level of reliability, and that I am reliable and timely. For example, I am always self-disciplined, act dutifully, and always aim at achievements against outside expectations. I am prepared all the times and pay attention to details. I also like order, and go with a schedule (Lloyd, 2012).
Furthermore, I am thorough in my work as I am prompt, punctual, and I get things done on time. I also tend to prefer planned instead of spontaneous behavior. In addition, I am well-organized and tend to do things in an orderly and systematic manner (Lloyd, 2012). I believe the observer’s rating was mostly influenced with my character of keeping belongings neat and tidy plus my tendency to have a place for everything and everything in its place.
In addition, my score of agreeableness was the second highest with a score five while that from the observer was 3.1. The scores were different as my personal score puts me in a moderately high level of agreeableness while the observer’s score puts me in a rather low level for the trait. I am an ordinary person who is lenient and easy on others. Moreover, I am people-oriented, considerate, generous, honest, trustworthy, trusting, helpful, love people, and sometimes willing to compromise my interests for others. I like social harmony and also value relating well to others as I have optimistic sight of the human nature (Lloyd, 2012).
However, the observer perceives me as a person with low agreeableness, probably, because I am not gregariously sociable, and I do not like being with people. I am not talkative, and I tend to mind being at the center of attention, leading the observer to conclude that I am reserved and distant, putting self-interest above relating well to others. Moreover, I always try to avoid getting into difficulties with other students (Lloyd, 2012). Perhaps, the observer did not know that I dislike arguments and conflicts and instead sees me as a treacherous and disloyal person who is likely to betray others.
Limited Time offer!
Get 19% OFF
Additionally, my personality score as an extravert was three while the observer’s score was 3.8. These scores were moderately low. The results put me in the middle of this trait, meaning that I have moderate traits of extraversion. For example, I am slightly assertive, although I have positive emotions. However, I am not social since I rarely tend to seek inspiration in the company of others, and I tend not to talk a lot in class because I am insecure about my English.
However, I am a reserved person who likes keeping background and thinks a lot before speaking (Lloyd, 2012). My rating is not similar to that of the observer since there is a slight discrepancy of 0.8 points between the scores, although the ratings are very close to being identical. The observer looked at me as a person who lives primarily by focusing externally since I take in things through the five senses in a precise, concrete fashion. However, my secondary way of living is internal, whereby I handle things according to my feelings about them, or how things fit my personal value systems.
We Provide 24/7 Support
Have you got any questions?
The neuroticism score was three whereas the observer’s score was 4.7, also indicating a small difference of 1.7 points in the ratings. These results also put me in the middle of neuroticism personality type. I rarely experience negative sentiments, such as depression, anger, or anxiety. I am strong, forceful, and do not worry about little things since I tend not to get easily upset, and I am less emotionally reactive. I also have a tendency of remaining calm, free from constant negative feelings and emotionally stable (Lloyd, 2012). For example, the observer’s rating was due to reason that I seldom feel blue and tend to relax in nearly all of the time. I have a higher tolerance for aversive stimuli or stress; I am reserved and emotionally stable (Lloyd, 2012).
Moreover, my personality test score for openness to experiences was 3.5 while the observer’s score was 4.7. These scores were neither low nor high. Although the observer’s score differed from mine with a discrepancy of 1.2 points, both scores put me in the middle of openness to experiences. The observer views me as a hardworking person who loves new experiences, perhaps, because I am open to emotion, and I tend to think before responding to anything.
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25%
Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
However, I have a tendency of endorsing more conservative and customary interests since I tend to remain accustomed and embrace conventional way of life and morals (Lloyd, 2012). I also tend to prefer plain and straightforward, obvious things over the complex, subtle, and ambiguous things (Lloyd, 2012). In addition, the observer’s rating is most probably based on the fact that I am fast to understanding things, and I spend much time reflecting on things. Nonetheless, I am not rich in vocabulary, and therefore I tend to prefer familiarity above novelty because I feel insecure about my English.
Lastly, my score of positive valence was 4.2, and the observer’s was 5.6, whereas that of negative valence was 1 for both observations. The scores were rather high for positive valence, putting in the middle of the quality and reflecting that I am a confident person, and I have very low levels of negative valence. For example, I can put worries out of my mind, and I do not let many things bother or frustrate me. Additionally, I am always happy and grateful with positive descriptors (Lloyd, 2012). As a result, my over personality type is a conscientiousness, agreeableness, somewhat extroverted and neurotic person with positive valence and slightly open to innovation.
I think that the five-factor model does not measure what it purports to do at the primary level. Factor analysis is remote from the solid basis for the five-factor model that its followers purport. Moreover, many traits, in reality, load high on a number of the factors in the model. I believe that the completeness of this paradigm is premature, and many studies in support of the five-factor model are simplistic replications and not validations.
Do you need professionally written papers?
Place your order on our website to get help from qualified experts!Order now