Goldberg L R, Saucier G
University of Oregon.
Psychol Bull. 1995 Mar;117(2):221-5; discussion 226-9. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.221.
Unfortunately, Block's brilliant critique is terribly biased, much like a legal brief that presents only one side of the issues at suit. It does not distinguish between the Big Five model of phenotypic personality attributes from alternative models of the causal underpinnings of personality differences. Ironically, it attempts to explain away the extensive evidence for the Big Five model as largely the result of data prestructuring, with no acknowledgement of the unique contribution of the lexical approach to minimizing such problems. Even more seriously, it omits a good deal of crucial evidence favorable to the Big Five model, including studies of Block's own Q-set and independent investigations of personality-related terms in other languages. Sadly, Block's closing suggestions provide little in the way of specific proposals for alternatives that he would have us use instead.
不幸的是，布洛克精彩的批判存在严重偏见，很像一份只陈述诉讼问题一方观点的法律案情摘要。它没有区分人格表型属性的大五模型与人格差异因果基础的其他模型。具有讽刺意味的是，它试图将支持大五模型的大量证据解释为主要是数据预结构化的结果，却没有承认词汇法在最小化此类问题方面的独特贡献。更严重的是，它遗漏了大量有利于大五模型的关键证据，包括对布洛克自己的Q分类法的研究以及对其他语言中与人格相关术语的独立调查。遗憾的是，布洛克最后的建议几乎没有为他希望我们采用的替代方案提供具体提议。
