SLOAN

[Kristiana]

Can you guys please tell me more about SLOAN? What it is, any links about it, any tests, etc.

I've seen some of you talk about it a little bit, and it interests me. Unfortunately, Google searches for SLOAN didn't bring up anything of note.

Thanks!

[panda]

Big Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_five_personality_traits)

[Kristiana]

Thanks :) It all makes sense now... lol. I've seen Big Five before, just never heard of sloan to describe various categories in it.

I am sloan + rLoe|I|

[panda]

RCUEI

[spasmfrog]

Mine's in my sig. As far as information content goes I prefer sloan+ but there don't seem to be as much (read: zero) useful descriptive prose as there is for MBTI scores. It'd be nice if someone familiar with SLOAN scoring changed that.

[nomir_dva]

I've only ever seen the SLOAN method for organizing Big Five personality traits on the similarminds website. I'm RLUEI.

[spasmfrog]

I've only ever seen the SLOAN method for organizing Big Five personality traits on the similarminds website. I'm RLUEI.
Ditto. It's a great way to organize it though, I hate how their other Big Five tests have those silly tables for each individual trait and they're scattered along a long page.

[Kristiana]

Ditto. It's a great way to organize it though, I hate how their other Big Five tests have those silly tables for each individual trait and they're scattered along a long page.

Haha, yeah, ditto.

It'd be cool if MBTI organized it similarly... they sorta can now, what with the capital and small letters used... but it'd be fun to put | | around the primary, too. So I'd be I|N|Tj or maybe i|N|Tj, depending on how strong my introversion really is.

[spasmfrog]

Haha, yeah, ditto.

It'd be cool if MBTI organized it similarly... they sorta can now, what with the capital and small letters used... but it'd be fun to put | | around the primary, too. So I'd be I|N|Tj or maybe i|N|Tj, depending on how strong my introversion really is.
Yep. Of course then I'd have to say that introversion is my primary concern when making decisions, which sounds (and is) incredibly stupid. Maybe the MBTI's ambiguity isn't all bad. :)

At least Big Five rates me as more inquisitive than reserved. I can handle sloan+ Rcue|I|, but |I|NTp is just embarrassing.

[coffeezombie]

SLOAN was the creation of popular INTP Central member Floyd, who may or may not still visit the board on occasion.

[Kristiana]

Yep. Of course then I'd have to say that introversion is my primary concern when making decisions, which sounds (and is) incredibly stupid. Maybe the MBTI's ambiguity isn't all bad. :)

At least Big Five rates me as more inquisitive than reserved. I can handle sloan+ Rcue|I|, but |I|NTp is just embarrassing.

My husband's strongest in introversion too. He's INTJ like me, probably |I|NTj.
His N is pretty high too though. How do you account for your Introversion when making decisions?

For sloan, Inquisitiveness and Lability are my strongest, haha. I'd say the Lability part were embarrassing if I didn't have severe bipolar disorder. :P

[INThoughtPolice]

Sloan? Don't they make toilets?

[spasmfrog]

My husband's strongest in introversion too. He's INTJ like me, probably |I|NTj.
His N is pretty high too though. How do you account for your Introversion when making decisions?
I tend to want to be responsible to as few people as possible. If I'm responsible to them in any way then I might have to deal with them or do things for them, which sucks. Now that I think about it, it does seem to have a lot to do with the decisions I've made. If you meant "account for" in the sense of "explain the influence of", that's it. If you meant "account for" in the sense of "compensate for", I guess I don't.

[Kristiana]

I tend to want to be responsible to as few people as possible. If I'm responsible to them in any way then I might have to deal with them or do things for them, which sucks. Now that I think about it, it does seem to have a lot to do with the decisions I've made. If you meant "account for" in the sense of "explain the influence of", that's it. If you meant "account for" in the sense of "compensate for", I guess I don't.

haha, I meant "account for" in the former sense of the word :) I like to keep my obligations to as few people/organizations as possible too, moreso for energy limitations than anything else. For me personally, if the quantity is too high, the quality suffers pretty easily.

[spasmfrog]

haha, I meant "account for" in the former sense of the word :) I like to keep my obligations to as few people/organizations as possible too, moreso for energy limitations than anything else. For me personally, if the quantity is too high, the quality suffers pretty easily.
For me it's not just that, but also that each responsibility is a whole other set of expectations to try to live up to. Even having people that I hang out with regularly is trying because then I feel like I'm expected/obligated to do things with them when they ask and I'm just not in the mood to go out. They seem to get the idea that I'm being an ass or that I don't like them or something, and giving them an honest answer doesn't help because it's assumed I'm just trying to be nice rather than telling them that I don't like them.

Bleh.

[Kristiana]

For me it's not just that, but also that each responsibility is a whole other set of expectations to try to live up to. Even having people that I hang out with regularly is trying because then I feel like I'm expected/obligated to do things with them when they ask and I'm just not in the mood to go out. They seem to get the idea that I'm being an ass or that I don't like them or something, and giving them an honest answer doesn't help because it's assumed I'm just trying to be nice rather than telling them that I don't like them.

Bleh.

Heh, I feel like that sometimes with my ESFP sister. It's hard for her to understand that when I don't want to socialize or go out, it really has nothing to do with her.

[Fingers]

The sloan descriptions are raw

[CreativeChaos]

The sloan descriptions are raw

Yeah. I find them to be uninteresting.

[Fingers]

This one was the rawest one I read...


RLUEN: overwhelmed by unpleasant feelings frequently, feels unattractive to others, lonely, not well read, socially unskilled, easily confused, discontent, attracted to things associated with sadness, socially uncomfortable, avoidant, depressed, pessimistic, feels defective, withdrawn, feels ordinary, easily offended, lower energy level, impatient, not usually happy, not well informed, does not believe in human goodness, self loathing, does not admit mistakes, not open to new experiences, moody, not known for generosity, feels victimized, selfish, loner, unambitious, unadventurous, inflexible, easily discouraged, insensitive to the needs of others, not that interested in others, dislikes crowds, driven by own personal gain, unassertive, tense, fearful, unimaginative, not that interested in relationships, uncooperative, feels incapable, dependent, doubting, not good at sports, weak sense of purpose, feels untalented, can be aggressive when hurt, easily moved to tears, quiet around strangers, acts without thinking, relates to broken and discarded things, slow to acquire skills

http://similarminds.com/global5/rluen.html

I mean shit it's more of a clinical diagnosis than a personality description.

[phenol]

SLOAN correlates quite well with MBTI

I've noticed 5w4 INTPs (like myslef) are usually rluei while other INTPs are usually rcuei.

My SLOAN results are in my sig too.

[CreativeChaos]

This one was the rawest one I read...



http://similarminds.com/global5/rluen.html

I mean shit it's more of a clinical diagnosis than a personality description.

Exactly.

[phenol]

This one was the rawest one I read...



http://similarminds.com/global5/rluen.html

I mean shit it's more of a clinical diagnosis than a personality description.

Yeah... I think those descriptions are meant to be pretty negative.

Of course rluen's arent' horrible... I mean... around half of ISTPs are probably rluen and well... most of them aren't only negative

I just don't think anyone wants to take the time to write actual descriptions for SLOAN because it relates so well to MBTI and the Enneagram that there's not much point.

[spasmfrog]

Yeah. I find them to be uninteresting.
I find them to be crap. I want some prose, I want some descriptive insight. A list of attributes sucks.

[spasmfrog]

SLOAN correlates quite well with MBTI

I've noticed 5w4 INTPs (like myslef) are usually rluei while other INTPs are usually rcuei.

My SLOAN results are in my sig too.
I don't put much stock in the Enneagram but I test out as 5w4 and Rcue|I|. Of course I also have almost as many points in 9 as 5 and both are just a bit higher than 4.

Yeah, I know, you said "usually". :)

[spasmfrog]

I just don't think anyone wants to take the time to write actual descriptions for SLOAN because it relates so well to MBTI and the Enneagram that there's not much point.
Dunno, there are a lot more types for Big Five than MBTI or Enneagram. I'd think they would get a lot of kudos for the increase in specificity if they had more useful descriptions. The MBTI types have always seemed too broad for me.

[Jennywocky]

I find them to be crap. I want some prose, I want some descriptive insight. A list of attributes sucks.

I agree.

Also, only some of the attributes fit me.

Some of the binary trait pairs tested for here simply are too generalized to accurate depict someone. I find more flex in Ennegram or MBTI-style thinking.

I knew this when I was taking the test, because the scoring system didn't allow for enough specificity due to the general nature of many of the questions.

So the test basically ditched nuance in its deciding how to "label" me... and then readded nuance that was inappropriate.

As just one example, the test saying that I am "seldom moved by the distress of others" is completely inaccurate.

The nuance is that, in the end, I do not make DECISIONS based primarily on the distress of others -- but I'm VERY bothered internally when people suffer, I empathize with people in pain, and I go out of my way NOT to introduce suffering into other people's lives.

When 9/11 happened, I was massively shell-shocked for three days because my imagination went into overdrive; I kept projecting myself mentally and emotionally into the victims (whether on the planes or whatever), and I just could not shut it off. I kept experiencing it internally over and over.

Anyway, not a bad test, but if you don't fit into the broad generalizations, then the test won't pick up on it.

1. The questions need to be a little more specific or offer more context.
2. The evaluation of results needs to take multiple possibilities for a particular answer into account.


--

Update: I retook the SLOAN using the 30 wordpair version of the test and got a better outcome -- |R|xUxI. The fact i am undetermined in two aspects of the five suggests where the variability is.

[Carebear]

Dunno, there are a lot more types for Big Five than MBTI or Enneagram. I'd think they would get a lot of kudos for the increase in specificity if they had more useful descriptions. The MBTI types have always seemed too broad for me.

Doesn't big five simply use MBTI + an indicator for neuroticism?

I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't a very high correlation for R/S to I/E, O/U to J/P, A/E to F/T and N/I to S/N.

Since enneagrams also take into account different levels of health, you could argue that there are more types for enneagrams than for big five.

[AllAboutSoul]

RLOAI. I guess I'm highly neurotic. I don't think it's this bad though.

[marmalade]

Here are two links to John C. Gonsowski about his correlating MBTI and Big 5:

http://www.tap3x.net/EMBTI/j5gonsowski.html

http://www.tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6dialogues.html

He correlates them differently than Costa and McCrae. I haven't studied Big 5 and so I don't perfectly understand these correlations, but I'm fascinated by them. The two systems seem to fit together well.

[Niffer]

sCuai

life of the party, not bothered by disorder, not afraid of doing the wrong thing, often late, level emotions, not afraid to draw attention to self, worry free, people loving, prefers unpredictable to organized, fearless, not apprehensive about new encounters, likes philosophical discussions, disorganized, not easily annoyed, not a perfectionist, enjoys danger, comfortable in unfamiliar situations, anxiety free, always joking, not very private, very curious, not embarrassed easily, adventurous, flexible, narcissistic, trusting, easy to get to know, easy to satisfy, likes crowds, ready to act on the spot, not a bad loser, outgoing, thrill seeker, not easily discouraged, optimistic, laid back, open to new experience, slow to judge others, thinks fun is the most important think in life, socially skilled, easily talked into doing silly things, rarely prepared, willing to take risks, adjusts easily, passionate about causes, willing to explain things twice, spontaneous, relaxed, believes in universal harmony, eager to soothe hurt feelings

yes.

[I dont post much]

RLOEI

withdrawn, loner, moody, dislikes crowds, avoidant, not big on fun, socially unskilled, not that interested in others, overwhelmed by unpleasant feelings frequently, depressed, requires lots of time alone to recharge, socially awkward, hard to get to know, feels defective, averse to change, low self confidence, dislikes small talk, dislikes touchy feely types, private, not prone to complimenting others, driven by own personal gain, pessimistic, self absorbed, indifferent to the feelings of others, does not easily forgive, inflexible, skeptical, embarrassed easily, tense, lower energy level, attracted to things associated with sadness, very suspicious of others, does not believe in human goodness, interested in intellectual pursuits, does not put the welfare of others ahead of self, lonely, not known for generosity, unadventurous, doubting, quick to judge others, discontent, hard to understand, wounded at the core, believes in a logical answer for everything, worrying, uncooperative, agnostic/atheist tendencies, has anxiety, not physically affectionate with most people, feels second place is not good enough, frustrated when people don't live up to expectations

Man, I need to lighten up.

[prplchknz]

RCUEI


atheist/agnostic tendencies, unconcerned with public image, lower energy level, does not value tradition, avoidant, does not put the welfare of others above self, not punctual, unproductive, does not believe in human goodness, not easily moved to tears, seldom bothered by the suffering of strangers, insensitive to the needs of others, relaxed, quiet around strangers, tendency to believe only in self, people have trouble reading them but they don't care, late finishing work, acts without planning, withdrawn, rarely too busy, not a perfectionist, uncooperative, not prone to complimenting people, does not believe in life after death, avoids crowds, prefers unpredictable to organized, not passionate about bettering the world's condition, does not second guess self, able to control cravings, calm in crisis, ambivalent to the feelings of others, believes in the importance of art, dislikes small talk, socially uncomfortable, private, not known for generosity, acts without consulting others, hard to get to know, not easily frustrated, interested in intellectual pursuits, not open about feelings, loner, asks many questions, open to change, influenced more by self than others, bored at work

well yeah, put it like that. which is eerily true

[ptGatsby]

Sloan is just a creation of one person's (?) opinion on the Big Five. It adds no real value... as Fortunato said, unlike the big five's intention, a huge element of subjective interpretation by not just leaving the traits alone.

There are four major differences between FFM/Sloan/Big Five and MBTI;

1) No functional order. Your dominant trait is your dominant trait. There are no offsetting 'traits' (no F-T, just T+/T=/T-).

2) MBTI is bimodial. FFM is not. That means that FFM/etc does not force traits (they accept 'x' as a valid stance - in fact, the normal stance is 'x').

3) FFM adds the 5th dimension - emotional stability/neuroticism - which is only slightly correlated to T/F. (Meaning, MBTI does not measure it). This is not a health measurement ala enneagram.

4) The method of determining which traits to include in FFM is vastly different than MBTI, which had no methodology at all. FFM clustered a bunch of traits together to create the five dominant traits. Each trait tends to be broken down into 4-7 further traits that are correlated together. MBTI does this, except that it's part of the description - hence it suffers from the fuzzy interpretations. There is no scale to measure it's relative strength, so you end up with a sort of 'interactive theme' (what FFM calls the interaction between pairs of traits) that can be picked and chosen from. In short, MBTI always has an explanation for any behaviour by any type. FFM, if it fails, fails.

MBTI, because of it's appeal to the general public, also suffers from reification... but that's not really the fault of the system, it's more the fault of the user.

Besides the FFM, there are others that don't group the traits together into just 5 - some treat them seperately, or define them slightly different... so the methodology is what makes MBTI/Socionics/Enneagram different than the FFM/OCEAN/SLOAN/16PF/PI models.


/wave at those I ran off on. Sorry! I'll be back here in the near future.

[Jennywocky]

Sloan is just a creation of one person's (?) opinion on the Big Five. It adds no real value... as Fortunato said, unlike the big five's intention, a huge element of subjective interpretation by not just leaving the traits alone....

Good to see you back, at least momentarily. Hope you can stick around a bit. (You also know much more about SLOAN than I do.)

[Would have sent you a PM, but it seems that pervasive crowd of rabid fans has driven you to turn off your mail...]

[ptGatsby]

Good to see you back, at least momentarily. Hope you can stick around a bit. (You also know much more about SLOAN than I do.)


I don't know that much about SLOAN, all told... all told, it's because there is no information about it, it doesn't add anything of value, and the handbook doesn't explain any of the foundation or differences, just expresses them as logical truths.

It reads like an INTP wrote it :D

[Jennywocky]

I don't know that much about SLOAN, all told... all told, it's because there is no information about it, it doesn't add anything of value, and the handbook doesn't explain any of the foundation or differences, just expresses them as logical truths. It reads like an INTP wrote it :D

Fine. I take it ALL back. :P [Can't handle compliments, can you?]

Hey, here's a similar question, then: Do you know of any place where I can find info on DISC, without paying a lot of money to take their test or become a test administrator? MBTI seems well-covered on the 'net, but I've had trouble with DISC info.

[ptGatsby]

Fine. I take it ALL back. :P [Can't handle compliments, can you?]


I only accept when it's deserved :grin:



Hey, here's a similar question, then: Do you know of any place where I can find info on DISC, without paying a lot of money to take their test or become a test administrator? MBTI seems well-covered on the 'net, but I've had trouble with DISC info.

DISC is seriously hard to get information on... It's funny because I was just reading through a DISC report last week, and I was trying to figure out what it all meant. So I went hunting for DISC principles... It's hard to find anything. For something that is 'the most validated test' in practise, there sure isn't a lot of information on it.

I'm assuming you went through www.discprofile.com - the background and samples are somewhat interesting, in terms of application. For theory, I'd recommend this stuff (http://www.discusonline.com/UDISC/). Anything formal or anything that validates their theories? Money.

In my opinion, DISC is an overly simplistic model that conflicts a lot of 'correlated' traits together. A good look at this is the Steadyness (http://www.discusonline.com/UDISC/s_steadiness.html) is naturally anti-correlated with Dominance (http://www.discusonline.com/UDISC/d_dominance.html), in terms of 'peacemaker', etc.

In my view, traits should be minimally correlated... if two traits share conflicting sides of the same trait, that shared trait should stand alone.

(The two points I feel conflict are;


D - Dominance can be summarised as the factor of control. People with this factor prominent in their DISC profiles focus on the need to achieve and maintain a measure of authority and power over other people and, more generally, the environment in which they live and work. Competitiveness and ambition are also associated with the D factor, and people showing this element will struggle to achieve their aims in life against great odds. Indeed, they seem to enjoy challenge, and rarely back away from a difficult or risky situation.

and

I - The hardest thing for a High-I to accept is rejection. They need to interact positively with those around them, and their friendly, open style usually helps them to maintain relations of this kind. The socially active nature of the highly Influential person is often an important factor in bringing other less gregarious styles together.


D implies direct influence, I implies hidden influence. I feel that this should be resolved by removing D's need to influence, leaving it with a 'competitive, direct approach' and I should remove it's hidden influence, leaving it with 'Relationships, works well with others, more dependent'. Then there should be a trait that has to do with 'structures environment', which in MBTI is J and in FFM is Conscientiousness.
)

[marmalade]

Fine. I take it ALL back. :P [Can't handle compliments, can you?]

Hey, here's a similar question, then: Do you know of any place where I can find info on DISC, without paying a lot of money to take their test or become a test administrator? MBTI seems well-covered on the 'net, but I've had trouble with DISC info.

I've half-heartedly looked at DISC theory, but it seemed too simplistic and I couldn't find any detailed info about it. Linda V. Berens used DISC and adapted it to MBTI terminology. She interconnected/conformed DISC into Kiersey's Temperaments. The new system she called Interaction Styles. I was extremely doubtful of Kiersey's Temperaments until I came across this. I still don't understand the fundamental logic behind Temperaments and Interaction Styles, but I'm fascinated about how they work together. The reason Berens studied DISC was because it was one of the oldest and most valid models around, but I'd like to know what motivated her try to hook it to Temperaments.

Here is some links about Interaction Styles:

http://www.16types.com/Request.jsp?lView=ViewArticle&Article=OID:128971&Page=OID:128972

http://www.16typesuniversity.com/istyleshistory.html

http://www.16types.com/Request.jsp?hView=DynamicPage&Content=BerensInteractionStyles