If you already know your MBTI type and you have been curious what it looks like in Big Five terms, this is the short version. The two tests are not measuring entirely different things — they are measuring overlapping traits, with the MBTI using sharp either/or labels and the Big Five using continuous scores 1.
Here is the translation table, what each pairing means, and the one Big Five trait the MBTI does not measure at all.
The four-to-four mapping
McCrae and Costa's 1989 study compared the MBTI directly against the Big Five and found a clean mapping for four of the five traits 1:
| MBTI letter | Big Five trait | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| E | Extraversion | E = higher, I = lower |
| N | Openness | N = higher, S = lower |
| F | Agreeableness | F = higher, T = lower |
| J | Conscientiousness | J = higher, P = lower |
The fifth Big Five trait — Neuroticism — has no MBTI counterpart. That gap matters, and we will get to it at the end.
E/I → Extraversion
Extraversion in the Big Five covers social appetite, warmth, energy, and assertiveness. Higher scores tend to come with drawing energy from people, thinking out loud, and finding solitary time draining after a while. Lower scores tend toward the opposite pattern: solitude restores, social time costs.
The MBTI's E/I split puts a hard cutoff somewhere near the middle of this scale. Someone who scores 51% on the underlying trait gets an E. Someone at 49% gets an I. The Big Five reports the actual percentile, which is more useful when the answer is "you're roughly in the middle."
N/S → Openness
Openness covers curiosity, imagination, abstract thinking, and a pull toward new ideas over familiar ones. Higher scores often show up as a taste for variety, an interest in systems and patterns, and a tolerance for ambiguity. Lower scores tend toward grounded, concrete, practical preferences and a comfort with the tried-and-true.
The MBTI calls high Openness "iNtuition" and low Openness "Sensing." The labels are doing the same work as the Big Five trait, with the same loss of resolution at the edges.
F/T → Agreeableness
Agreeableness covers warmth, trust, cooperation, and how much someone weighs interpersonal harmony in decisions. Higher scores tend toward picking up on emotional currents, softening conflict, and giving people the benefit of the doubt. Lower scores tend toward bluntness, comfort with disagreement, and prioritizing logic over consensus when the two conflict.
In the MBTI, the higher-Agreeableness pattern shows up as F (Feeling) and the lower-Agreeableness pattern as T (Thinking). Neither is "better." The trait describes a style of weighing decisions, not a moral score 1.
J/P → Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness covers planning, follow-through, organization, and a preference for closure over open options. Higher scores often show up as making plans early, keeping commitments, and finding loose ends stressful. Lower scores tend toward flexibility, keeping options open, and feeling constrained by tight schedules.
The MBTI maps higher Conscientiousness to J (Judging) and lower Conscientiousness to P (Perceiving). This is the Big Five trait most consistently linked to job performance and income across studies 2, which is part of why the J/P split feels weighty.
The trait the MBTI does not measure
Neuroticism — emotional reactivity to stress, criticism, and uncertainty — has no MBTI letter. Two people with identical four-letter types can sit at opposite ends of this trait, and their daily lives can be very different as a result.
A high-Neuroticism person feels setbacks more sharply, replays conflicts longer, and recovers more slowly. A low-Neuroticism person with the same surface traits may handle the same situations with relative ease. Neither is wrong. But missing the measurement means missing roughly 20% of the personality picture 3.
A quick worked example
Take an INFJ. Translating letter by letter:
- I → lower Extraversion (smaller social appetite, energy comes from solitude)
- N → higher Openness (curious, abstract, pattern-seeking)
- F → higher Agreeableness (warm, cooperative, conflict-averse)
- J → higher Conscientiousness (planful, organized, finishes what they start)
What is missing: any read on how reactive this person is to stress. The same INFJ pattern paired with a high Neuroticism score may show up as the classic "sensitive idealist" archetype. Paired with a low Neuroticism score, it may look much more steady and unflappable on the same warm, curious, organized foundation.
The MBTI cannot tell those two people apart. The Big Five can.
Why the conversion is rough, not exact
Two caveats are worth keeping.
First, the MBTI letters are based on cutoffs near the trait mean, which means a person near the middle on any trait gets a misleadingly confident label. Roughly half of retest takers get a different four-letter type within weeks, mostly because of trait scores near the cutoff line 4. The Big Five does not have this problem because it does not flip labels around a threshold.
Second, the mapping captures the broad direction but not the strength. A "strong" E and a "weak" E both get the same letter. The Big Five percentile tells you which one you actually are.
What to do with this
If you know your MBTI type, the table above gives you a reasonable first approximation of what your Big Five profile probably looks like. It will not be exact, especially on traits where you score near the middle, and it will be missing Neuroticism entirely.
For the more accurate version, the IPIP-NEO-120 — the public-domain Big Five test that Defaults uses — takes about 12 minutes and reports continuous scores on all five traits, including the one the MBTI leaves out 5.
Take the Big Five assessment →
References
Footnotes
-
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x ↩
-
Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(2), e12434. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434 ↩
-
Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063004467 ↩
-
Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003 ↩