The Big Five Personality Traits & what they mean for your Political Views.

[Sanguine]

Some helpful background to understanding some the IDW concepts is that of the Big Five Personality traits.  This has pretty much replaced/expanded the Jungian based Myers Briggs typology.

For those of us who are politically minded, it is of particular interest to see how these personality characteristics apply to political orientation.  This article is a start.  Keep in mind that many of the people who use the Big Five lean left and reside in ivory towers, so you and I will have some disagreements with some of the conclusions.

We’d all like to believe that human beings share the same set of values and motivations, but I think we know this just isn’t the case.

We’re all a product of both biological and environmental factors—otherwise known as nature and nurture. As to which force has the most effect on us, well, that’s one of the oldest philosophical arguments of mankind. It’s safe to say that it isn’t simply one and not the other that determines the type of person we are.

To me, psychology represents the meeting of these two factors, because it takes into account both our biological predisposition in relation to our socio-cultural influences.

That is where the “Big Five” Personality Trait studies come in...

https://www.elephantjournal.com/2018/02/the-big-five-personality-traits-what-they-mean-for-your-political-views/

[Sanguine]

This is another article, and a better set of conclusions, in my opinion.

Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts

This is a review of Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts (2010) by Alan S. Gerber, Gregory A. Huber, David Doherty, Conor M. Dowling, and Shang E. Ha. American Political Science Review 104 (February): 111-133. You can find the original in Google Scholar.

Conservatives are hard-working, organized, closed-minded, and emotionally stable. Liberals are lazy, disorganized, open-minded, and neurotic. Let’s see how the punditocracy spins that one.

Yesterday I wrote about Mondak et al.’s recent APSR article about personality and political participation. On the very next page of the same issue of APSR, you’ll find a closely related article by Gerber et al. Where Mondak et al. used the “Big Five” personality traits to predict participation in politics, Gerber et al. use the same “Big Five” traits to predict ideology.

Together, these two articles are a must-read. They help explain why genes and other biological factors might influence our political leanings. Biological factors (especially genetics) are the dominant cause of these Big Five personality traits, which then remain stable throughout life. In turn, these Big Five traits influence our political leanings (Gerber et al.) and our political activity (Mondak et al.).

The Big Five personality traits

Both articles adopt the “Big Five” approach that, they claim, has become widely accepted among psychologists. Quoting two psychologists, Gerber et al. sum up these big five traits as follows:...

http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/personality-and-political-attitudes-relationships-across-issue-domains-and-political-contexts/

[endicom]

To believe this you must first believe these arbitrary personality categories have meaning.

[musiclady]

Interesting concept!

[Sanguine]

To believe this you must first believe these arbitrary personality categories have meaning.

To believe what you just said, you must believe these categories are arbitrary.

[endicom]

To believe what you just said, you must believe these categories are arbitrary.

I do.

[Sanguine]

I do.

OK.  It's a free country.

[Frank Cannon]

[Sanguine]

Look, if you're going to come here and post cutsey pictures at least make a coherent comment about the topic.  Which will require that you read it.   

[Bigun]

I read both articles and came to the same conclusion both times.  Psychobabble.

[Sanguine]

I read both articles and came to the same conclusion both times.

Why so, @Bigun? 

[Bigun]

Why so, @Bigun?

Because the categories are arbitrary and people don't pigeonhole very well. For starters.

[Cyber Liberty]

FTA at the OP:

4. People who were high in neuroticism leaned liberal on both.

 

[Sanguine]

Because the categories are arbitrary and people don't pigeonhole very well. For starters.

Arbitrary how?  Defined arbitrarily?  Measured arbitrarily?  I'm not sure what you mean.

[Bigun]

Arbitrary how?  Defined arbitrarily?  Measured arbitrarily?  I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean they were pulled out of the ether by the authors. Their personal whims only.

[skeeter]

Arbitrary how?  Defined arbitrarily?  Measured arbitrarily?  I'm not sure what you mean.

Interesting, but I gotta agree it’s sometimes difficult to pigeonhole in this manner. As a crude example, I believe what I do because I’m rational, not because I’m not open minded. I can explain why I think what I think, and I can be convinced otherwise if a rational argument to the contrary is presented.

[endicom]

Arbitrary how?  Defined arbitrarily?  Measured arbitrarily?  I'm not sure what you mean.

For one thing, personality is not fixed and is much, as they say, situational.

 

[Sanguine]

I mean they were pulled out of the ether by the authors. Their personal whims only.

@Bigun @skeeter  - any measurement could be considered arbitrary.  Why pick to measure length and width, for instance? 

We measure length and width because it tells us something useful and predictable.  If we know what the length and width are, we can predict how much stuff we can cram into that space.   

Likewise, using these 5 measurements, we can predict a lot of things - behaviors, characteristics....and even politics.  But, it has to be repeatable and accurately predict these things. 

Make sense?

Sorry, @endicom, I should have pinged you too.

[skeeter]

@Bigun @skeeter  - any measurement could be considered arbitrary.  Why pick to measure length and width, for instance? 

We measure length and width because it tells us something useful and predictable.  If we know what the length and width are, we can predict how much stuff we can cram into that space.   

Likewise, using these 5 measurements, we can predict a lot of things - behaviors, characteristics....and even politics.  But, it has to be repeatable and accurately predict these things. 

Make sense?

Sorry, @endicom, I should have pinged you too.

I understand, I just disagree with the measurement standards offered here. Again, a basic example... can anyone imagine a more close minded individual than your typical liberal? Consider current atmosphere of western universities - rife with group think safe spaces and ‘hate speech’ rules.

In fairness they do name economic liberals specifically but I’m not really sure what that means.

[Frank Cannon]

Look, if you're going to come here and post cutsey pictures at least make a coherent comment about the topic.  Which will require that you read it.   

I read the damn article and it was a bunch of garbage trying to pigeon hole people into groups using blunt and inaccurate  instruments. Junk Science.

[endicom]

@Bigun @skeeter  - any measurement could be considered arbitrary.  Why pick to measure length and width, for instance? 

We measure length and width because it tells us something useful and predictable.  If we know what the length and width are, we can predict how much stuff we can cram into that space.   

Likewise, using these 5 measurements, we can predict a lot of things - behaviors, characteristics....and even politics.  But, it has to be repeatable and accurately predict these things. 

Make sense?

Sorry, @endicom, I should have pinged you too.

We measure length and width because we can. The mind is a measure apart.

Looong ago, I read something by, IIRC, a psychiatrist who said he'd always believed that mental health required a single personality. But he one day sat down to write overdue letters to people he knew. When finished something struck him and he re-read what he'd written. The personality displayed in his letters varied according to his relationship with the intended recipients. That altered his view of personalities.

 

[Sanguine]

I understand, I just disagree with the measurement standards offered here. Again, a basic example... can anyone imagine a more close minded individual than your typical liberal? Consider current atmosphere of western universities - rife with group think safe spaces and ‘hate speech’ rules.

In fairness they do name economic liberals specifically but I’m not really sure what that means.

Where did the liberal and economic liberal come in?  I got lost.

[Bigun]

@Bigun @skeeter  - any measurement could be considered arbitrary.  Why pick to measure length and width, for instance? 

We measure length and width because it tells us something useful and predictable.  If we know what the length and width are, we can predict how much stuff we can cram into that space.   

Likewise, using these 5 measurements, we can predict a lot of things - behaviors, characteristics....and even politics.  But, it has to be repeatable and accurately predict these things. 

Make sense?

Sorry, @endicom, I should have pinged you too.

@sanquine

5 feet is 60 inches every single time.  This stuff isn't like that at all.

[Sanguine]

@sanquine

5 feet is 60 inches every single time.  This stuff isn't like that at all.

It is.  It measures something useful, it does it accurately, and it allows for accurate, predictions.  Now, I'll grant you that it isn't something you might want to measure, but that's not the point. 

5 feet is 60 inches every time, because we (somewhat arbitrarily) defined it as such.  The measurement isn't based on any natural law like an astronomical unit. 

[Bigun]

It is.  It measures something useful, it does it accurately, and it allows for accurate, predictions.  Now, I'll grant you that it isn't something you might want to measure, but that's not the point. 

5 feet is 60 inches every time, because we (somewhat arbitrarily) defined it as such.  The measurement isn't based on any natural law like an astronomical unit.

Are you suggesting that we can measure the personality traits of human beings like we do the length of pieces of lumber?  If so,  I think you are far off base.