but you probably already worked that out. (~_^)
dennis posts about a new paper by rushton and irwing on a g-factor of personality. they describe people who score high on the first four of the big 5 personality characteristics (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness [bah-humbug!]) and low on the fifth (neuroticism) as having “good” or “normal” personalities. if you don’t, you’ve got a “difficult” or “abnormal” personality.
here’s me (test taken here) — openness = 65 percentile, conscientiousness = 35 percentile, extraversion = 3 percentile(!), agreeableness = 32, percentile, neuroticism = 90 percentile(!) [click for larger view]:
yeah. i’m more neurotic than woody allen! not very agreeable (man, do i hate working with other people!), and quite a wallflower. not very conscientious, either, for that matter. but i AM pretty open to new experiences! *whew*
i can’t help but think that most contrarian thinkers (like hbd-ers) can’t be very agreeable types (thinking of greg cochran here (~_^) ). you can’t go around agreeing with the herd (i know that’s not exactly what agreeableness means, but it is related) if you’re an hbd-er! at the same time, an hbd-er needs to be open to new|other ideas.
dunno about the rest of the personality quirks.
(note: comments do not require an email. and you don’t have to agree with me, either!)
re. where do political beliefs|ideologies come from…
here are some comments by everett young of washington university in st. louis “who studies and teaches about the psychology of political opinion formation”:
“I think if you look at the political science literature over the last few decades, the burden of proof has shifted dramatically onto those who would deny a psychology-ideology link. Even without Jost, the evidence has grown into somewhat of a mountain. And Alford, et al.’s findings on genetics are only controversial insofar as people don’t like them. The evidence for a genetics-ideology link is also overpowering, even if we haven’t mapped out exactly how it happens….
“Chris [Mooney, Discover blogger] is right that some model must be proposed to explain HOW a cognitively flexible (rigid) psychology produces liberal (conservative) opinion formation. However, Jost and others (including me) have done exactly that. I agree more with some researchers’ ideas than others’, however, I don’t think it can be said any longer that the default assumption, against which we are Quixotically tilting, is that there are no psychological differences between libs and cons. The psychological differences are well documented, and the hypothesis that they are the RESULT of ideology rather than the other way around is by far the less parsimonious, more strained one.”
yup. culture (including political ideology) has GOT to come from SOMEwhere. it can’t just appear out of the ether.
read the whole thing over @the intersection.
see also: neuropolitics.org.
update: see also -> violent DEMOCRATS swayed more by extreme political rhetoric…
(note: comments do not require an email.)