Overview
We are building the most advanced personality-powered developer tools ever created, empowering organizations to unlock the full potential of personality insights. Due to the latest AI breakthroughs we have access to the sophisticated reasoning required to decode human personality, much like mapping the human genome. For the first time in history, we can generate 2.94 million insights into human behavior.
Understanding personality at this depth has profound business implications. Personality is the invisible force behind every action, decision, and interaction. Organizations that integrate personality-driven insights into their workflows will gain an unparalleled competitive edge—enhancing performance, engagement, and decision-making at every level.
The Science Behind Human Personality
Peer-reviewed scientific research forms the foundation for our personality-driven developer tools. We were meticulous about how we approached this project. Our research was broken into three phases.
Phase I — From Data to Correlations
We delved into the latest peer-reviewed research to bridge the gap between widely used personality assessments and the Big Five—the only mathematically validated model of personality. By completing a meta-analysis of the relevant research we’ve created a unified framework that turns subjective personality data into objective correlations.
Sources
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo PI-R professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Foster, J., & Nichols, S. (2017). The Seven Factors of the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan Correlation to Big 5). Hogan Assessment Systems.
Lopez, S., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2005). The Clifton StrengthsFinder Technical Report: Development and Validation. The Gallup Organization.
Brown, A., & Bartram, D. (2005). Relationships between OPQ and Enneagram Types. SHL Group plc.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality Trait Structure as a Human Universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17-40.
Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The Relationship Between the Revised NEO-Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(6), 577-584.
Jones, C. S., & Hartley, N. T. (2013). Comparing Correlations Between Four-Quadrant and Five-Factor Personality Assessments. American Journal of Business Education, 6(4), 459-472.
StrengthFinders Correlation
When the themes are grouped by category and averaged, the highest average for each category is actually a representation of one of the Big 5, except for neuroticism.
Category
Theme
Extraversion (E)
Openness (O)
Agreeableness (A)
Conscientiousness (C)
Neuroticism (N)
Executing
Achiever
0.16
0.36
0.26
0.53
0.18
Executing
Restorative
-0.2
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.31
Executing
Responsibility
-0.13
0.12
0.25
0.03
-0.22
Executing
Discipline
-0.19
-0.17
-0.03
0.81
-0.33
Executing
Deliberative
-0.49
-0.03
-0.41
0.34
-0.18
Executing
Consistency
-0.26
-0.5
-0.01
0.39
-0.24
Executing
Focus
0.17
0.22
0.19
0.56
0.03
Executing
Belief
0.09
0.2
0.37
0.19
0.15
Executing
Arranger
0.26
0.34
0.34
0.28
0.17
Average
-0.07
0.06
0.11
0.36
-0.01
Influencing
Communication
0.77
0.36
0.29
-0.15
-0.02
Influencing
Significance
0.24
0.23
-0.12
0.19
-0.14
Influencing
Self-Assurance
0.3
0.53
0.22
0.19
0.12
Influencing
Activator
0.55
0.45
0.11
-0.05
0.11
Influencing
Maximizer
0.3
0.33
0.1
-0.01
0.18
Influencing
Command
0.3
0.59
-0.15
0.01
0.09
Influencing
Woo
0.83
0.31
0.41
-0.29
-0.01
Influencing
Competition
0.17
0.31
-0.17
0.18
0.18
Average
0.38
0.35
0.09
0.05
0.06
Relationship Building
Includer
0.38
0.03
0.36
-0.13
0.21
Relationship Building
Harmony
-0.28
-0.54
0.01
0.24
-0.13
Relationship Building
Connectedness
0.13
0.41
0.38
-0.08
0.12
Relationship Building
Individualization
0.19
0.44
0.15
-0.07
0.01
Relationship Building
Adaptability
0.09
0.18
0.06
-0.56
0.19
Relationship Building
Relator
0.24
0.34
0.36
0.28
0
Relationship Building
Empathy
0.12
-0.16
0.51
-0.09
-0.31
Relationship Building
Developer
0.17
0.02
0.65
0.07
0.03
Relationship Building
Positivity
0.53
0.17
0.58
-0.17
0.18
Average
0.17
0.10
0.34
-0.06
0.03
Strategic Thinking
Context
-0.19
0.14
-0.16
0.03
0.06
Strategic Thinking
Strategic
0.37
0.7
0.08
-0.13
0.18
Strategic Thinking
Input
0.04
0.53
0.22
0.14
-0.05
Strategic Thinking
Analytical
-0.16
0.19
-0.16
0.39
-0.04
Strategic Thinking
Ideation
0.38
0.7
0.08
-0.27
0.26
Strategic Thinking
Futuristic
0.3
0.41
0.29
0.2
0.02
Strategic Thinking
Itellection
-0.19
0.42
0.91
0.17
-0.07
Strategic Thinking
Learner
0
0.42
0.14
0.38
0.18
Average
0.08
0.40
0.19
0.09
0.06
MBTI Correlation
When the highest and lowest values are chosen for each column of the Big 5 it emerges that the letters of MBTI clearly correspond to different dimensions of the Big 5.
Dichotomies
Traits
Extraversion (E)
Openness (O)
Agreeableness (A)
Conscientiousness (C)
Neuroticism (N)
Energy Orientation
Introversion
-0.72
-0.32
0.02
-0.13
0.31
Energy Orientation
Extraversion
0.71
0.28
-0.02
0.13
-0.3
Perceiving Function
Intuition
0.27
0.64
0
-0.13
-0.14
Perceiving Function
Sensing
-0.28
-0.66
0.01
0.1
0.15
Judging Function
Thinking
0
-0.17
-0.41
0.22
-0.13
Judging Function
Feeling
0
0.13
0.28
-0.27
0.12
Lifestyle Preference
Judging
-0.13
-0.25
0.05
0.46
0.07
Lifestyle Preference
Perceiving
0.16
0.26
-0.06
-0.46
-0.07
DISC Correlation
When the highest and lowest values are chosen for each column of the Big 5, and every value above .185 for each dimension it emerges that the letters of DISC do weakly correspond to different dimensions of the Big 5, but many Big 5 combinations are not represented in the DISC dimensions.
Dimension
Extraversion (E)
Openness (O)
Agreeableness (A)
Conscientiousness (C)
Neuroticism (N)
Dominance (D)
-0.023
0.126
-0.278
-0.039
0.297
Influence (I)
0.383
0.251
0.114
-0.196
0.032
Steadiness (S)
-0.063
-0.234
0.308
0.054
-0.275
Conscientiousness (C)
-0.3
-0.175
-0.157
0.185
-0.008
5 Voices Correlation
Each Voice order represents a unique combination of Big 5 values. The 5 Voices has the strongest correlation to the Big 5 of all the assessments compared.
Voice
Extraversion (E)
Openness (O)
Agreeableness (A)
Conscientiousness (C)
Neuroticism (N)
Guardian / Nurturer
-0.72
-0.66
-0.41
0.46
0.31
Guardian / Creative
-0.72
-0.66
-0.41
-0.46
0.31
Guardian / Connector
0.71
-0.66
-0.41
-0.46
-0.3
Guardian / Pioneer
0.71
-0.66
-0.41
0.46
-0.3
Nurturer / Guardian
-0.72
-0.66
0.28
0.46
0.31
Nurturer / Creative
-0.72
-0.66
0.28
-0.46
0.31
Nurturer / Connector / Creative
0.71
-0.66
0.28
-0.46
-0.3
Nurturer / Connector / Guardian
0.71
-0.66
0.28
0.46
-0.3
Creative / Connector / Pioneer
-0.72
0.64
0.28
0.46
0.31
Creative / Connector / Nurturer
-0.72
0.64
0.28
-0.46
0.31
Connector / Creative / Pioneer
0.71
0.64
0.28
-0.46
-0.3
Connector / Creative / Nurturer
0.71
0.64
0.28
0.46
-0.3
Pioneer / Creative
-0.72
0.64
-0.41
0.46
0.31
Creative / Pioneer
-0.72
0.64
-0.41
-0.46
0.31
Pioneer / Connector
0.71
0.64
-0.41
-0.46
-0.3
Pioneer / Guardian
0.71
0.64
-0.41
0.46
-0.3
Enneagram Correlation
Enneagram shows a correlation to the Big 5, but many possible combinations of the Big 5 are not represented by the Enneagram types.
Type
Extraversion (E)
Openness (O)
Agreeableness (A)
Conscientiousness (C)
Neuroticism (N)
Type 9 – The Peacemaker
-0.48
-0.62
-0.278
-0.33
-0.31
Type 1 – The Reformer
-0.2
-0.45
0.114
0.66
0.26
Type 2 – The Helper
0.34
0.2
0.308
-0.04
-0.15
Type 3 – The Achiever
0.45
0.13
-0.157
0.24
-0.16
Type 4 – The Individualist
-0.27
0.42
-0.157
-0.21
0.33
Type 5 – The Investigator
-0.61
0.39
-0.157
0.02
0.14
Type 6 – The Loyalist
0.14
-0.52
-0.157
0.07
0.53
Type 7 – The Enthusiast
0.49
0.39
-0.157
-0.4
-0.36
Type 8 – The Challenger
0.64
0.39
-0.157
0.24
-0.68
Unified Framework
Big 5
5 Voices
Approximate
MBTI
Approximate
StrengthsFinder
Approximate
DISC
Approximate
Enneagram
Approximate
Correlation to Big 5 (without neuroticism)
0.56
0.56
0.17
0.37 for Categories only
0.29
0.43
Correlation to Big 5 (with neuroticism)
0.51
0.51
0.14
0.29
0.41
Low E, Low O, Low A, High C
Guardian / Nurturer
ISTJ
Executing
Dominance, Steadiness, Conscientiousness
Low E, Low O, Low A, Low C
Guardian / Creative
ISTP
Dominance, Steadiness
High E, Low O, Low A, Low C
Guardian / Connector
ESTP
Influencing
Dominance, Steadiness
High E, Low O, Low A, High C
Guardian / Pioneer
ESTJ
Executing, Influencing
Dominance, Steadiness
Type 6 – The Loyalist
Low E, Low O, High A, High C
Nurturer / Guardian
ISFJ
Executing, Relationship Building
Conscientiousness
Type 1 – The Reformer
Low E, Low O, High A, Low C
Nurturer / Creative
ISFP
Relationship Building
Type 9 – The Peacemaker
High E, Low O, High A, Low C
Nurturer / Connector / Creative
ESFP
Relationship Building, Influencing
High E, Low O, High A, High C
Nurturer / Connector / Guardian
ESFJ
Executing, Relationship Building, Influencing
Low E, High O, High A, High C
Creative / Connector / Pioneer
INFJ
Executing, Relationship Building, Strategic Thinking
Conscientiousness
Low E, High O, High A, Low C
Creative / Connector / Nurturer
INFP
Relationship Building, Strategic Thinking
Type 4 – The Individualist
High E, High O, High A, Low C
Connector / Creative / Pioneer
ENFP
Influencing, Relationship Building, Strategic Thinking
Influence
Type 2 – The Helper
High E, High O, High A, High C
Connector / Creative / Nurturer
ENFJ
Executing, Influencing, Relationship Building, Strategic Thinking
Low E, High O, Low A, High C
Pioneer / Creative
INTJ
Executing, Strategic Thinking
Dominance, Conscientiousness
Type 5 – The Investigator
Low E, High O, Low A, Low C
Creative / Pioneer
INTP
Strategic Thinking
Dominance
High E, High O, Low A, Low C
Pioneer / Connector
ENTP
Influencing, Strategic Thinking
Dominance, Influence
Type 7 – The Enthusiast
High E, High O, Low A, High C
Pioneer / Guardian
ENTJ
Executing, Influencing, Strategic Thinking
Dominance
Type 3 – The Achiever, Type 8 – The Challenger
Phase II — From Correlations to Predictions
Armed with scientifically backed correlations, we trained an advanced AI to map personality traits to real-world behavior. Our machine learning algorithm generated 2.94 million insights, revealing how people think, interact, and make decisions in various scenarios.
This is the largest behavioral prediction engine that we are aware of.
Distinct Personalities Identified
Behavioral Categories
Attributes per Category
Dimensions per Attribute
Context Options
Output Formats
Total Insights
16
25
10
5
7
21
2.94 million
©2025 5 Voices, Inc.