i saw that too. that's the five factor model article, right ? i keep waffling on whether i want to spend the time on that. i ran into that stuff when i was doing all that psych reading [note: back in '98-99]. although some people may find it useful, it's based on a fallacious application of pseudo-mathematical ideas to an inappropriate domain. i found a lot of that in that field, and other fields where the mathematical applications were traditionally weak. statistics are another thing, i'm talking about "theory" here, where some nimnod gets it into their head and figures that if he draws a picture, or a couple of orthogonal axes and assigns arbitrary values, that his ideas are more "scientific", or "truer" then something not so presented. common poor critical thinking problem, both in the orignator and their audience.
there are a number of psychological theories of personality that have been proposed with a varying number of dimensions, and the five factor model is just one of them, mbti another, and so on. it's crap, as clearly the subject is much more complex, and the underlying complexities of the physics all the way up through the biochemistry and neural structures clearly won't evolve any sort of small numbered orthogonal dimension pattern. that there are correlations between this "theory" and reality (quotes there too?) is simply a statistical inevitability, as long as there is some differentials among the traits so graphed, as there will also be personalities with these various combinations of traits as well, and, by necessity, will be integrated and identifiable as a (ahem) "type".
of course, if you get too fine grained (as in a large number of dimensions or traits) the possible combinations start to include types that just aren't found in the world, and the divisions for the rest are just too small to be really useful (in some person's eyes, and then they see this as invalidating the model - just because they can't handle it!). taken to the extreme, you eventually come down to classifying each person individually. which is really the truth of the matter, and would lead one to develop a complexity / emergent based theory, not this simplified crap.
however, that's exactly why low dimensional models are "useful", they allow their users to manage the unmanageable, however inaccurately. it gives them a feeling of control, and what's more, they feel they can justify any actions taken upon it, whether diagnostic, or in hiring policies. in truth, though, all those models really amount to is an exercise in conceptual phrenology. more charlatans pretending to be magicians of the soul. and then the human resources hacks get hold of it. or worse, the consultants, who will latch onto anything they can sell. and the aura of respectability displayed by these models to your averaqge lay person is all they need.
for now, until the research improves, if one insists on imposing a numerical / dimensional / graphical structure on purely observational data (and very subjective data at that, given the topic), i would prefer personality to be expressed in terms of a collection of individual traits that are more or less readily identified, and may vary widely in number and degree from person to person. basically this is equivalent to some large-number n-factor model, but that's not how i would approach it. for example, current personality disorders (and other pathologies) are only diagnosed in limited named categories. much of this is in conjunction with insurance restrictions that require a specified disorder. this has resulted in enumerated personality disorders, 13, last i checked. most of these are defined such that there needs to be a minum number of traits present out of a total set defining the disorder. however, it is easy to see where a person could have a large number of pathological traits, but distributed across the official diagnosis spectrum in such a way that they appear, if not quite healthy, out of the domain of the health system. we can probably name a few people like this. in my approach, having a specified pre-ordained set of named illnesses is not important. one would nearly look for a sufficient number of pathological traits, which would compose an unspecified disordered personality.
the same analysis applies to "healthy" personalities as well. the terms need to be tossed out. but it's one of the blessings and curses that evolution has provided pattern seeking and identifying behaviors, and this is sometimes (often?) abused. (for example, it's the basis of all "illusions" and presumptions, useful and otherwise.)
granting the practical workability of such a model, but understanding its arbitrariness, does it make sense to take action with respect to other people's lives based on this ? since when has pigeonholing been useful ? yeah, i know, define "useful". ok, let's extend this - what if a completely accurate and scientifc model were found ? or one just approaching it ? should we use it to literally push people's buttons, where they become the automatons that they always were, and are now under "control" ? or is it ethical to completely ignore such a devlopment, consign knowledge to the dustbin ? i'm sure it will be something in between. the interesting part is to recognize that any self-styled button-pushers are themselves as subject to automation as their intended subjects. i suppose that use of such things should be conceived as consituting a type of "force". just as we don't (shouldn't?) allow physical restraint, abuse, compulsion, damage, etc., the same considerations need to apply in these (less obviously, but still physical) realms as well. and we are just beginning to do that sort of thing. (btw, this related peripherally to intellectual property rights and the like as well.) so it is important that our models be more than practically expedient and arbirary, and that's the strongest reason why things like the mbti and the five factor model, and their proposed uses, are objectionable.
one aspect of this is that with the increasing recognition of the mechanistic (if not quite deterministic) nature of existence that such a program of research and social innovation involves, entire concepts of free will and responsibility and the institutions based upon them - courts, democracy, economic liberalism, etc. - are challenged as well. which may well be the thing that mitigates against use of today's factor systems - isn't an employer or other agency then fully responsible, if they've been pushing the buttons ? yet our current institutions don't recognize this. see? problems already. our ethics and philosophies and worldviews, etc., lag far behind our technologies. and it's interesting that science itself is subject to these same anachronistic forces, and for now, is self-limiting because of that.
did you just roll ayn rand? yes you did, you rolled her, didn't you. shame on you ;-)
there's a good passage on the potential damage caused by a social ethic like spock's in "the new intellectual". it's an excerpt from "atlas shrugged", and it's a character describing what happened when they implemented that policy in a factory. instructive.
in high school, i developed that theory for myself. was a good topic for assigned essays. i really thought i had something there. ms. rand's opinion notwithstanding, there is still some truth in it. but one must be careful, as with anything. actually, the "truth in it" part is probably something else being confused with that concept, which is really bullshit. finer distinctions are necessary. see ? that's where labeling fails us again.
"profiling" is an expedient to fill the void of judgment. the friggin' police forces are filled with the dregs of our progeny, what else would we expect ?