Is there a relationship between Big Five Agreeableness and Decisiveness, or...

[some chair]

...is it a propagating error? I notice there seems to be a bias toward Disagreeable Betas/Gammas, and I don't know that there's a theoretical reason why this should be. That's a worthwhile question, though, are Decisive types meant to be less friendly?

[Jarno]

There's bound to be some kind of overlap or correlation between the big five and functions or types etc in socionics. I'm not so familiar with reinin so i cannot answer the question.

I think i've once seen a correlation test been done between mbti dichotomies and big five, i remember than T was a bit more agreeable then F, which I can relate to, F's are more often mean and bitchy then one would expect from ethical types.

[chemical]

Big 5 and MBTI correlate reasonably well. Overall, decisiveness seems to go with MBTI-J, over MBTI-P, and thus should correlate somewhat to Conscientiousness in the Big 5. I do not think Agreeable people are less Conscientious or more too much on average.

I do think there is a mild correlation between MBTI-J and greater harshness, but this is weak: there are harsh Ps and non-harsh Js by the multitudes, and this isn't even atypical.

Appealing to what your intuition might be thinking, agreeable people accommodate more, and thus might be seen to be less able to fix what they want and just do it, but for what it's worth, I don't think that ends up true.

As a side note, Big 5 Agreeableness overall correlates to MBTI-F, but this is weaker than all the other correlations. The problem is that people of feeling are not necessarily more agreeable -- it is because F mixes feelings and things like tenderness/compassion that the correlation appears to occur. Overall feelings-orientation seems not to relate to agreeableness. Leading Big 5 researchers conclude rightfully IMHO that the MBTI-F is not a good measurement of Jung's feeling function, which, while certainly not equivalent to tendency to observe one's feelings, certainly includes as part of its value-judgment orientation the tendency to account strongly for both negative and positive ones -- its ultimate task is rational evaluation, but considers feelings factors strongly in doing so, and it's safe to say compulsive gentleness is something Jung's camp would term inferior feeling.

As an interesting side note, the typical ILE-Ne portrait looks like such a compulsively gentle character, and I think is a good example of what Jung would've called inferior feeling -- that is, undiscerning and naively one-sided application.

[The Exception]

I'm agreeable in the Big Five and a logical type in Socionics.

Alpha seems to present itself as a more agreeable quadra on the surface.

IEI seems like it would be more agreeable among the betas.

[FDG]

I think it's almost always the case that, ceteris paribus i.e. looking at the same temperament, T types will be less agreeable than F types.

Let's not confuse agreeableness with neuroticism, you can be very bitchy and moody but still accomodating, whereas you can be extremely calm and firm but hold your point forever.

[chemical]

I'd say here's the general gist of what's going on with the 3 systems here:

- In MBTI, F is very related to agreeableness, because they pretty much are testing for compassion directly in half the questions on the tests I'm familiar with. It is not true that feelings-orientation is somehow more liable to make you agreeable, unless that feelings-orientation is specified expressly to emphasize compassionate feelings (which MBTI does). Other feelings can be self-indulgent or considerably less tender.

- Jungian feeling is a little closer to just feelings held generally, and thus Jungian feeling types could easily be egocentric (some introverted feeling dominants especially).
It is basically the rational evaluative interaction with feeling content (as opposed to just having feelings).

- socionics slants ethics, which I think somehow puts it more in between Jung and MBTI -- albeit, in practice the IE definitions are such that going strictly by them rather than by the "vibe" most socionists take, the F types could be quite non-agreeable (after all, both emotive-F and relational-F can be mostly harsh and non-tender and lead to non-accommodating conclusions).
The way most socionists portray F does seem to suggest they might be the types of people more prone to accommodating on average.

[FDG]

Chemical, generally speaking (meaning statistically) most F types in MBTI are F (ethics) types in socionics. So either the correlation completely dilutes during this transition - which could be depending on its actual magnitude -, or it's still going to be there.

[chemical]

FDG I think here's the relevant things going on:
a) MBTI-F dichotomies, not functions, correlate well with Agreeableness
b) FFM Agreeableness and MBTI-F is the weakest of the 4 correlated scales (J/P-Conscientiousness, E/I-Extroversion, N/S-Openness, F/T-Agreeableness)
c) depending on what we mean by socionics ethicals -- whether a purely IE-theoretic depiction or depictions that are more portrait/trait-theoretic, socionics-ethicals might relate either more to F-dichotomies or F-functions in the MBTI school of thought

I'd say purely IE-theoretically, socionics-ethics has more to do with Jungian feeling than to do with dichotomies-F. A Jungian feeling-orientation definitely is not super-related to Agreeableness, whereas dichotomies-F in the MBTI is, because they focus on compassion/sympathy in half their test items in a typical test, rather than just focusing on thinking/feeling.
Albeit of course there are distinctions among all the systems if we get fine-tuned

[summerprincess]

Feeling is supposed to correlate to Agreeable, Judging to Conscientiousness, Intuitive with Openness. These are from studies done with the MBTI though if I remember correctly. Socionics is different. Just so you can see some kind of comparison, I am medium disagreeable, very low in conscientiousness, and pretty high in openness. middling introverted.