The five factors can be seen as manifestations of two aspects, called Stability and Plasticity in the literature. Stability has factors of Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Inverse Neuroticism. Plasticity has factors of Extraversion and Openness to Experience. Given this, if one wanted to refactor the existing notions to fit with the Axioms and Modalities, looking into refactoring Plasticity into three factors instead of two might be the way to go. Each of the five factors breaks up into two aspects, but I suspect that trying to separate these aspects out into a separate factor probably won't work. Hovhannisyan and Vervaeke (Enactivist Big Five Theory, 2021) make the argument that these underlying aspects form the generative and selective facets of each of the factors, so they are probably inseparable. That's probably why the five factor level has the highest ratio of inter-concept variance:intra-concept variance. If a first pass attempt is made to map the five factors within the groupings of the two aspects: Agreeableness is concerned with the second-person, Conscientiousness is concerned with the third-person, (Inverse) Neuroticism is concerned with the first-person? With the Plasticity factors, the mapping isn't as clear to me. Extraversion can be seen as concerned with the second-person, I guess? Though since it's also concerned with sensitivity to reward in general it could also be any of the other two perspectives. Openness can likewise be framed as being concerned with any of the perspectives. So maybe the perspectives triple isn't the relevant one for the Plasticity aspect?
Fascinating thoughts. I think you're on to something with 1st, 2nd and 3rd person mappings. The stability triple looks much more well-formed than the plasticity pair to me. "So maybe the perspectives triple isn't the relevant one for the Plasticity aspect?" Perhaps it should be! I certainly think it might be, as the model is grounded in social observations on people's experiences and expressions.
The five factors can be seen as manifestations of two aspects, called Stability and Plasticity in the literature.
Stability has factors of Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Inverse Neuroticism.
Plasticity has factors of Extraversion and Openness to Experience.
Given this, if one wanted to refactor the existing notions to fit with the Axioms and Modalities, looking into refactoring Plasticity into three factors instead of two might be the way to go.
Each of the five factors breaks up into two aspects, but I suspect that trying to separate these aspects out into a separate factor probably won't work. Hovhannisyan and Vervaeke (Enactivist Big Five Theory, 2021) make the argument that these underlying aspects form the generative and selective facets of each of the factors, so they are probably inseparable. That's probably why the five factor level has the highest ratio of inter-concept variance:intra-concept variance.
If a first pass attempt is made to map the five factors within the groupings of the two aspects:
Agreeableness is concerned with the second-person,
Conscientiousness is concerned with the third-person,
(Inverse) Neuroticism is concerned with the first-person?
With the Plasticity factors, the mapping isn't as clear to me.
Extraversion can be seen as concerned with the second-person, I guess? Though since it's also concerned with sensitivity to reward in general it could also be any of the other two perspectives.
Openness can likewise be framed as being concerned with any of the perspectives.
So maybe the perspectives triple isn't the relevant one for the Plasticity aspect?
Fascinating thoughts. I think you're on to something with 1st, 2nd and 3rd person mappings.
The stability triple looks much more well-formed than the plasticity pair to me.
"So maybe the perspectives triple isn't the relevant one for the Plasticity aspect?" Perhaps it should be! I certainly think it might be, as the model is grounded in social observations on people's experiences and expressions.