<p>Adhering to the Big Five:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Plasticity, being comprised of openness to experiences and extraversion, involves dispositions toward exploration, flexibility, adapting to novel situations, questioning social norms, seeking out stimulating experiences, and having a tendency to experience positive emotions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With this definition in mind, is plasticity the defining hallmark of personality? If one is high in plasticity, they can conform to personalities of all combinations depending on the situation/environment. According to the Big Five, Plasticity does not measure for conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness, however I attest that it does, implicitly, by the inclusion of 'adapt' within its' definition. Highly plastic people are more strongly driven by dopaminergic stimuli and thus are able to orient motivations to goals more directly. Therefore, highly plastic people can be highly conscientious and stable depending on the given environment and goal.</p>
<p>With this in mind. How much robust research has their been on measuring for the the causal relationship between adaptability/plasticity and long term life success or other relevant outcomes of interest.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-26T02:14:47.707Z
Not a deal breaker, just a comment, but do you have any evidence to support your assertion that: "Plasticity does not measure for conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness, however I attest that it does, implicitly, by the inclusion of 'adapt' within its' definition....Therefore, highly plastic people can be highly conscientious and stable depending on the given environment and goal."? It seems rather fuzzy, the word "depending" can mask a deal of unclear reasoning.
Jiminy Cricket.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-26T11:22:04.360Z
When I read the statement, *Highly plastic people are more strongly driven by dopaminergic stimuli and thus are able to orient motivations to goals more directly*, I feel circular reasoning may be present, unless the intended meaning is that the people in question are driven to pursue stimulating objects or situations directly without the abstraction often present in more complex planning. Is the point thus that stable stimulus equals stable, predictable reaction? From such perspective, a person driven by internal, long-term motivators could be seen as unstable or unpredictable.
Michael
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-26T16:42:07.583Z
It looks like you're quoting something, but you don't provide a source for the quote; this is not acceptable, and can be considered plagiarism.
Bryan Krause
<cognitive-psychology><measurement><big-five>
What is the causal relationship between Adaptability and long term life success?
John
# What is the causal relationship between Adaptability and long term life success?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-01-26)

Adhering to the Big Five:

> Plasticity, being comprised of openness to experiences and extraversion, involves dispositions toward exploration, flexibility, adapting to novel situations, questioning social norms, seeking out stimulating experiences, and having a tendency to experience positive emotions.

With this definition in mind, is plasticity the defining hallmark of personality? If one is high in plasticity, they can conform to personalities of all combinations depending on the situation/environment. According to the Big Five, Plasticity does not measure for conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness, however I attest that it does, implicitly, by the inclusion of 'adapt' within its' definition. Highly plastic people are more strongly driven by dopaminergic stimuli and thus are able to orient motivations to goals more directly. Therefore, highly plastic people can be highly conscientious and stable depending on the given environment and goal.

With this in mind. How much robust research has their been on measuring for the the causal relationship between adaptability/plasticity and long term life success or other relevant outcomes of interest.

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, measurement, big-five

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Not a deal breaker, just a comment, but do you have any evidence to support your assertion that: "Plasticity does not measure for conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness, however I attest that it does, implicitly, by the inclusion of 'adapt' within its' definition....Therefore, highly plastic people can be highly conscientious and stable depending on the given environment and goal."? It seems rather fuzzy, the word "depending" can mask a deal of unclear reasoning.  
> **username_2**: When I read the statement, *Highly plastic people are more strongly driven by dopaminergic stimuli and thus are able to orient motivations to goals more directly*, I feel circular reasoning may be present, unless the intended meaning is that the people in question are driven to pursue stimulating objects or situations directly without the abstraction often present in more complex planning. Is the point thus that stable stimulus equals stable, predictable reaction? From such perspective, a person driven by internal, long-term motivators could be seen as unstable or unpredictable.  
> **username_3**: It looks like you're quoting something, but you don't provide a source for the quote; this is not acceptable, and can be considered plagiarism.  

---

## 0 answers

