I do not understand why the concept of evidence is so hard for you.
It's simple;
A) A theory acknowledge all known evidence and is meaningful by it's power to explain what's going on and even predict future events.
B) Those who are interested in research will often have to juggle multiple theories at the same time.
C) Acknowledging that a theory have merit due to good evidence and alot of research done to it, and that it's definitely stronger than a theory with little evidence despite alot of research, doesn't mean 100% objective proof, a claim to know everything, a claim to be an expert etc.
Get … it … in … your … head … you FOOL!
Calm down
First, look at how you approach these subjects in the thread. You basically come in claiming that everyone is totally wrong and we ALL suffer due to "confirmation" bias. Just look at it. Then you come up with the Big Five theory as some kind of proof of your claims.
At this LATE stage, you suddenly talk about the theory having "merit". You're simply not accountable for your own words. If you know something, you know something - and that's fair.
But don't be a know-it-all-smartass and react when people call you out on it. You can't revise post history with me.
Look your theory up somewhere, like Wiki.
Look under the criticism it has received. You see? I'm not alone in thinking the theory is simplistic and lacking.
In any case, it's not the "Big Five" theory in itself I have a problem with. It's how you (and I expect others) use it to "prove" that men and women are more or less identical.
It's hogwash cooked up by "academics" without the capacity to go beyond the immediate conclusion.
*EDIT*
Maybe I should clarify this a bit more, though it seems wasted.
Your "evidence" is pointless. The theory tries to categorize the human psyche in incredibly simplistic and rigid "boxes". That's all fine when you're trying to communicate your theory - but the human mind can NOT be categorised plausibly by such simplistic concepts. There are so many vital factors that go into any given personality "trait" and they all flow together inseparably. It's a cute little way of dividing people into convenient "personality" types - and I'm sure it has its uses - but it's VERY far from the complete picture.
This is just my opinion, of course, but the theory is bullshit - and could have been cooked up by anyone sitting on a bench at a trainstation. It doesn't matter how much research went into it, because research can be adapted for any theory. It's the basic problem I have with this kind of approach, that you find to reliable.