Thanks for linking to the SPI. I wasn’t aware that there is now better psychometry than Big Five. I’m delighted!
I also didn’t know that
This means that most measures do a good job of assessing relatively narrow operationalizations of the five dimensions and ignore large swaths of the individual differences landscape.
and more worrying
Scale developers have abandoned the use of trait descriptive adjectives.
The topics in IPIP seem to span a lot of topics. You write:
I’m not sure which classical personality facets are the most related to worrying about wild animal suffering, but I strongly suspect that none of them are very strongly related to worries about wild animal suffering.
I found 10 items related to animals in the IPIP. Some are about suffering animals, though not explicitly “wild” animals. No animal question is included in the 135 selected items for SPI. I am a bit confused about this as there is some claim that the selected items cover all topics.
I retract my suggestion to use Big Five items and replace it with the suggestion to use suitable items from SPI plus missing ones from IPIP, e.g., an animal-related question.
I found 10 items related to animals in the IPIP. Some are about suffering animals, though not explicitly “wild” animals.
Right, so I’m thinking I would write novel items specifically for rationalists.
No animal question is included in the 135 selected items for SPI. I am a bit confused about this as there is some claim that the selected items cover all topics.
SPI was basically constructed by taking 696 items from common preexisting personality inventories, and submitting them to factor analysis. This means that it is comprehensive with respect to those inventories, and also that it improves upon them, as there are many places where SPI’s factor analysis gave different results than the structure that had been imposed on the prior personality inventories. However, it is not comprehensive with respect to IPIP, as IPIP has 3320 items and not just 696 items, nor is it comprehensive with respect to personality more generally, as there are places where IPIP is missing items.
Thanks for linking to the SPI. I wasn’t aware that there is now better psychometry than Big Five. I’m delighted!
I also didn’t know that
and more worrying
The topics in IPIP seem to span a lot of topics. You write:
I found 10 items related to animals in the IPIP. Some are about suffering animals, though not explicitly “wild” animals. No animal question is included in the 135 selected items for SPI. I am a bit confused about this as there is some claim that the selected items cover all topics.
I retract my suggestion to use Big Five items and replace it with the suggestion to use suitable items from SPI plus missing ones from IPIP, e.g., an animal-related question.
Right, so I’m thinking I would write novel items specifically for rationalists.
SPI was basically constructed by taking 696 items from common preexisting personality inventories, and submitting them to factor analysis. This means that it is comprehensive with respect to those inventories, and also that it improves upon them, as there are many places where SPI’s factor analysis gave different results than the structure that had been imposed on the prior personality inventories. However, it is not comprehensive with respect to IPIP, as IPIP has 3320 items and not just 696 items, nor is it comprehensive with respect to personality more generally, as there are places where IPIP is missing items.