The Big Five is a sort of meta-theory, in that it more or less encompasses all other models of personality. For instance, Myers Briggs describes four preferences that are roughly equivalent to four of the dimensions of the Big 5.

So, I would say that there aren't really a lot of personality models that can be considered unrelated to the Big Five; many of them are different angles on similar constructs, or mashups of select parts of the Big Five.

This means a couple things—first, that any system that can be related back to the Big Five can be lent credibility by that relationship (for instance, people love to say the MBTI is bunk, but it's hard to take these arguments seriously when they ignore the fact that the constructs are so similar to Big 5). It also means that none of these systems are likely as complete or accurate as the Big 5, which has been shown multiple times to be the most comprehensive way to understand personality.

To answer your question more directly, yes, most commercial assessments have been studied for reliability and validity. Most have some predictive power, for instance results on our TypeFinder assessment show correlations with real-world outcomes like income.

However, these findings can generally be related back to similar findings with the Big Five, i.e. Judgers in MBTI tend to earn more, as do people high in conscientiousness within the Big Five. So this research is less about pitting one system against each other, and more about discovering commonalities across ideas.

These are findings over many multiple studies, so I don't have a single link for you! Here are a couple blog posts we did on the topic: https://www.truity.com/blog/transitions-conditions-and-decisions-how-life-events-impact-personality

https://www.truity.com/blog/being-happy-can-change-your-personality

You don't have to be either! You can embrace the middle and call yourself an ambivert.

However, hating people has less to do with extroversion and more to do with a trait called Agreeableness in the Big Five (roughly equivalent to the T/F preference in MBTI). If you're extroverted but not agreeable, you may want to be around people, but more in a way that creates competition or friction rather than cooperation—like starting a lot of bar fights.

On our site, we have about 30,000 people complete tests each day. We definitely saw changes over the pandemic! Our traffic went up when people were stuck at home and down when the restrictions were lifted.

Over time, as well, we're seeing a growth in traffic. Most of our visitor demographic is younger, so it seems that personality is a growing area of interest for people in their teens and twenties.

OMG, what a nightmare scenario! Well done, ha!

Putting aside my horror, I guess I'd pick the Big Five. I'd be looking for high-ish Openness, since there's some indication that partners who share a level of Openness are more compatible. I'd want higher Agreeableness, but not overly high, since I don't want everything to be a debate but also don't want nothing to be a debate. And finally, lower Neuroticism, because that's the trait most associated with relationship longevity and happiness.

Yes, that's true with any self-report instrument—they're only as good as the honesty of your responses. This is more of an issue where people are trying to achieve something other than insight with their responses (i.e. taking a personality test to get a job). Of course, sometimes people do lie to themselves as well!

Since our tests are really designed for personal exploration, we don't try to control for whether people are being truthful. As with so many things in life, you get out what you put in!

We actually communicated with the mods of the Enneagram sub to try and work on this issue a while back! We did make some changes, but always open to suggestions if you have thoughts on what is confusing people.

I'm an ENTP. When I discovered this, I was also in the process of starting my first business, so it was very affirming to learn about my type and how many fellow ENTPs are entrepreneurs!

In the long term, it's been helpful to remember that the way I think is not the way my colleagues (or even most people!) think, and to be aware of tailoring my communication to people with different perspectives.

We studied our Big Five data over the timeline of the pandemic and found that in fact, personality scores did change! There was a lot there, so maybe best to just link to the post we did covering our findings: https://www.truity.com/blog/have-our-personalities-changed-due-pandemic-new-research-says-yes

That's a great question! The research I've seen (including our own) is skewed toward the US. There may be culture specific studies out there, but I don't know the data off the top of my head!

By a large margin, the Big Five. The Big Five model is used as the foundation of almost all academic research on personality, and accepted as the standard by the vast majority of research psychologists.

I don't think there's any tool that every organization should use. It really depends on the organization, its culture, and its needs at a given time. It can be really helpful, in general, to open up a conversation about individual differences and how to support different work styles in the workplace. Many personality assessments are great at doing just that.

However, the specific assessment you choose should be well matched to your team's culture and your bandwidth for actually putting your learning into practice. For instance, DISC is a really popular test that's easy to understand. It's great for organizations that want a straightforward way to get that conversation started.

On the other end of the spectrum, we've seen organizations do trainings on the Enneagram, which is a much more in-depth and even spiritually oriented system. This works best for orgs that already have a lot of language around personal development and have the time to dig deep into what the system can teach them.

On average, women score as more Agreeable on personality assessments, and sometimes higher in Neuroticism (this doesn't necessarily mean women are more neurotic; generally, women are socialized to be more free with expressing emotion, both positive and negative, which is what Neuroticism is about). What to do with this information is less clear.

Personality is traditionally understood as those aspects of yourself that don't change, but recent research has shown that this isn't strictly true. Although people don't generally undergo a complete personality change (apart from edge cases like major brain injury), people's personalities do shift over the lifetime. There are some predictable shifts, i.e. most people do become more introverted and more conscientious as they age. And then there are individual shifts that may have to do with changing careers and discovering a new side of yourself, or starting a family, or even adapting to a new culture.

This is a huge question with a lot of answers! Just a few things that personality has been shown to influence:

- Politics: people higher on the Big 5 dimension of Openness are more likely to be politically liberal

- Relationships: people higher in Neuroticism (Big 5) are more likely to get divorced

- Career: people higher in Agreeableness are less likely to hold executive management positions

If there's something more specific you're curious about, happy to comment on that!

We don't develop tests for hiring because we don't like them either and we do like to sleep.

This isn't my area of expertise, but I've heard a bit of buzz about it. My best guess would be that they might try to target marketing to personality types, but the effectiveness of doing so would be mixed at best.

Personality traits are almost invariably distributed in a bell curve shape. I can't recall ever doing a statistical analysis that found two peaks in the distribution.

We don't offer assessments for use in the hiring process for just this reason! We have an ethical objection to helping companies deny work to qualified applicants based on information in a personality test.

Both of those assessments are most useful as a source of self-knowledge, and are often more useful when you're in a situation where you are not being true to yourself, or have lost touch with some aspect of yourself that needs to be revisited. For instance, if you're in a job you hate but you don't know why, Myers Briggs can be really useful to help understand what aspects of yourself may not be a fit.

If you haven't found them useful, it could be that you're already in an environment that's a pretty good fit for you, so those a-ha moments aren't as necessary!

This is a common misconception that I'm glad to clear up to get things started!

People use the term "personality test" to describe a lot of things, from Buzzfeed "what pie are you" quizzes, to more popular systems like the Enneagram. But strictly speaking, a personality test is any instrument that's intended to measure individual differences. Personality assessments are used in a variety of very serious applications. Clinical psychologists use them to help diagnose mental disorders; academic psychologists use them as a basis for studies on how our traits and characteristics influence nearly everything in our lives, from lifespan to divorce rates to happiness.

So, I hope this helps to explain why it sounds very uninformed to say "all personality tests are junk science." I know what you're trying to say, but the phrasing shows a lack of understanding.

To address what I think you were trying to say, yes, there are some valid challenges to more popular personality theories like Myers Briggs and the Enneagram. One of the most valid issues with these systems is that they sort people into "types," and really, people don't actually sort neatly into types. Personality is more accurately described as traits on a spectrum, rather than types. That's why we love it when people take our Big Five assessment, which measures five major dimensions of personality, and take the time to understand what those traits mean to them.

But that doesn't mean that type assessments are useless. The human brain naturally processes things in terms of categories, and type-based systems are a lot more approachable for laypeople. So long as they have some grounding in real human variation (which all our assessments do) they can be a useful shortcut for understanding fundamental differences.