I'm confused by this. Conscientiousness and openness are two independent personality dimensions. You seem to be implying that they are opposite ends of a spectrum. The whole idea of factor analysis identifying these dimensions as distinct means that this is not the case. Someone can be high in both, low in both, or high in one and low in the other. Just by querying my intuition, yes, it seems that high openness low conscientiousness people are progressive and low openness high conscientiousness people are conservative. But what of people that are high in both or low in both?
You're right, all the way around. Except I wouldn't call it a spectrum so much as a contrast or maybe a tension. They are independent variables, but that doesn't mean that the values to which they give rise don't interact. But I can see why you'd read me that way. I think though I actually made the point that people high in both traits likely would be less prone to this tension (probably better able to sympathize with each side's values). It of course only takes a small number of highly motivated people to have dramatic social impacts. I think I also mentioned that there were other personality types prone to getting caught up in such a social force, such as those high in agreeableness and neuroticism.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes. Contributions to the comments are always appreciated.
I guess the logic of my own argument is that over enough time there has to be generational differences. However, how much importance there is in parent-offspring generational differences I've never been quite as sure about. I did find The Fourth Turning argument interesting. And Turchin has something like this, too. I guess I don't have strong convictions about the shorter span.
I argued in another post that in fact politics and culture mutually form each other: i.e., there is no uni-directional "down stream."
You made a good point in this post. Do you think that the segmentation of the population into generations with distinct cultures goes beyond a marketing ploy and plays a role in favouring the spatials over the temporals ?
A complete aside and a request. Gramsci stated more or less that cultural and intellectual triumph leads to electoral victories and conquest of power. Is it actually true ? How does it fit in the context of managerial liberalism ? I believe that accepting or refuting this statement matters but I have not been able to reflect on it in the proper context. Do you have any thoughts on it ?
Fascinating how far back the friction between the two opposing parties and viewpoints actually goes, right back to the beginning of recorded history it would seem. I just watched a short video clip of Frank Zappa being asked what he thought the biggest threat to the United States was. Unsure when this was, thinking 20 years ago anyway, he’s passed now, but his answer was basically our own government, the military industrial complex, the alphabet agencies, the DOJ, DOD, and all the other agencies that are now in the process of using law fare to persecute Trump to prevent him from running for president in 2024. They never published Frank Zappa’s response, they buried it instead. I’m a proud member of Viva and Barnes.locals.com, Robert Barnes is a brilliant constitutional lawyer in the US and he sees this as a battle between the above mentioned war whores power mad corrupted US government trying to take control of ALL foreign policy decisions AWAY from even the President of the United States! So the president can’t do ANYTHING, can’t even talk to the American people without running it all by the Deep State first to get “their permission to do so.” Basically to NEUTER the president of the United States IF Trump were to win even from jail because only they The Deep State are clever enough and smart enough and experienced enough to make foreign policy decisions and we all know why that is… because they want to insure keeping constant wars occurring all over the world in order to continue for them all to massively profit financially. Fuck me… this is a battle the Deep State can’t be allowed to win, the American Constitution needs to prevail and win, it’s crucial. I’m Canadian but I understand how crucial of a battle this is using Trump as a figurehead but actually it’s a battle of the Deep State with the United States Constitution and the United States Constitution MUST prevail.🙏🙏🙏🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I've suspected something along these lines myself for some time. This came about because of my experience working and living in two distinct cultural and geographic centers which attract the polar opposites of these traits it seems: Hawaii and Alaska. Comparing and contrasting the strange cultural dichotomies between these two states could easily be the subject of a dissertation. I also had the advantage of having discovered Jordan B. Peterson while I lived in Alaska and paying close attention to what I learned and applying it to what I observed of the people there.
Prior to this however I had read a book entitled r/K theory by Anonymous conservative and my mind was already playing along these lines trying to see what I could of the overall picture in day to day life. I believe there is much good to be had in understanding r/K theory in conjunction with the Big 5 in particular the conscientiousness/openness. r typcially think of how rabbits create their societies, and K think of how wolves create their societies. Please look into the theory to gain a fuller perspective. Well worth your while.
I would also posit there is a correlation between these traits and the care/harm morality matrix as proposed by Jonathan Haidt. The theory proposes six foundations for morality: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression, and Jonathan Haidt showed fairly conclusively that Liberals have a stunted morality centering only on one of the foundations namely the care/harm foundation, and conservatives tending to be a balance of all 6 foundations.
In short, I hypothesize that R selection correlates with High Openness/Low Conscientiousness and also with the stunted morality binary of care/harm as the only morality, and that K selection correlates with Low Openness/High Conscientiousness and the richer fuller morality matrix of all 6 foundations since this would be required in a more hierarchical society where authority and loyalty would be equally important as care/harm. Again think wolves vs. rabbits. No loyalty amongst rabbits. Not needed. Just run away.
A comprehensive theory that incorporates aspects of all these theories is what I have in mind would actually start to explain not only the What of things, but also the How and the Why.
Haidt, like most contemporaries, relies on statistical studies in sociology, medicine, psychology, etc in order to construct his theory. This is extremely short sighted. The split of human societies in two antagonistic groups along some fault line has existed throughout documented history : the earliest examples known to me come from Mesopotamia in the 2nd millenium BC and Greek cities from 8th century BC onwards. Most times it was a rich vs poor conflict wrapped in some religious or symbolic guise. Most times the conflict was resolved through the expulsion of one party (sometimes willing through help establishing a new city) or through the collapse of the polity, which led to being conquered.
Solutions or palliatives were progressively developed and spread. Shared religion, participation in the same sacred rituals, public sacrifices made by everyone according to its means played a major role in maintaining stability. Moral codes were also proclaimed and imposed. Any good analysis of morality and social stability would be based on those millennia of experiences NOT on some more-or-less reliable social studies from the past few decades.
Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughtful comment, Conan. It is appreciated. The Hawaii v Alaska split is a fascinating one.
I concede that I've never been as impressed with Haidt's typology as have some people. But I won't go into it, here. Unless you really, really want me to. (Though it might make for a helpful post at some point.) Certainly, though the r/K stuff is highly relevant. More recently the scholarly literature has been using the nomenclature of fast (r) and slow (K) sexual strategies, or more generally Life Histories. When I refer to this dynamic, which I do often, I use the latter vocabulary. But I appreciate you pointing it, if it was unclear that I was familiar with it.
As to libertarianism. I, like so many others, was once one, too. Though I doubt there's one standalone post on here that would fully summarize my feelings on libertarianism today, probably the best shot would be part 4 of the What's Left of What's Right series. As it doesn't seem possible to create links in the comments, I'll past it in below. In a nutshell, libertarians are not nearly as anti-state as they think they are. But, again, I won't engage in a length explanation, here. Hence the link.
Again, thanks for your comment. Participation in the comments section is always much appreciated. Best regards.
Also, I find this all very fascinating on a personal level since I score extremely high on Openness, 89 percentile, and middling high on consciensciousness, 57 percentile. I find that unsurprisingly I straddle the fence on a lot of issues and am politically a right leaning libertarian that wishes that everyone could govern themselves so well, that we could do away with government altogether since no matter how ingenious you set it up, it inevitably falls prey to the psychopathic amongst us who use it to crush all opposition and become tyrants. Happens Every damn time.
Thank you for this most interesting historical perspective of the two opposing parties. This article is really interesting and explains a lot although I don’t understand exactly what you are meaning needs to happen so we can have a soft landing. Nevertheless I sure hope we can have one! Appreciate you!
"...men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties.
"1. those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
"2. those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them cherish and consider them as the most honest & safe, altho’ not the most wise depository of the public interests... "
"In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them therefore liberals and serviles..."
Of course by "liberal" Jefferson meant the original, classic "liberal", not the meaning after the Left flipped it.
Here's another one,
"...the same political parties which now agitate the US. have existed thro’ all time... as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of whig and tory belong to natural, as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals."
I guess, if we concede these are somewhat self-aggrandizing framings, sure, I can agree with them. Though I'm no Jefferson scholar, my understanding is -- using my nomenclature -- that earlier in life Jefferson was a spatial (e.g., keen supporter of the French Revolution), but later in life became much more of a temporal? I wonder if that's part of the context within which such statements need to be set.
"...the same political parties which now agitate the US. have existed thro’ all time... as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of whig and tory belong to natural, as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals."
I'm confused by this. Conscientiousness and openness are two independent personality dimensions. You seem to be implying that they are opposite ends of a spectrum. The whole idea of factor analysis identifying these dimensions as distinct means that this is not the case. Someone can be high in both, low in both, or high in one and low in the other. Just by querying my intuition, yes, it seems that high openness low conscientiousness people are progressive and low openness high conscientiousness people are conservative. But what of people that are high in both or low in both?
You're right, all the way around. Except I wouldn't call it a spectrum so much as a contrast or maybe a tension. They are independent variables, but that doesn't mean that the values to which they give rise don't interact. But I can see why you'd read me that way. I think though I actually made the point that people high in both traits likely would be less prone to this tension (probably better able to sympathize with each side's values). It of course only takes a small number of highly motivated people to have dramatic social impacts. I think I also mentioned that there were other personality types prone to getting caught up in such a social force, such as those high in agreeableness and neuroticism.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes. Contributions to the comments are always appreciated.
I guess the logic of my own argument is that over enough time there has to be generational differences. However, how much importance there is in parent-offspring generational differences I've never been quite as sure about. I did find The Fourth Turning argument interesting. And Turchin has something like this, too. I guess I don't have strong convictions about the shorter span.
I argued in another post that in fact politics and culture mutually form each other: i.e., there is no uni-directional "down stream."
https://thecirculationofelites.substack.com/p/two-way-river
Dear Evolved Psyché,
You made a good point in this post. Do you think that the segmentation of the population into generations with distinct cultures goes beyond a marketing ploy and plays a role in favouring the spatials over the temporals ?
A complete aside and a request. Gramsci stated more or less that cultural and intellectual triumph leads to electoral victories and conquest of power. Is it actually true ? How does it fit in the context of managerial liberalism ? I believe that accepting or refuting this statement matters but I have not been able to reflect on it in the proper context. Do you have any thoughts on it ?
Fascinating how far back the friction between the two opposing parties and viewpoints actually goes, right back to the beginning of recorded history it would seem. I just watched a short video clip of Frank Zappa being asked what he thought the biggest threat to the United States was. Unsure when this was, thinking 20 years ago anyway, he’s passed now, but his answer was basically our own government, the military industrial complex, the alphabet agencies, the DOJ, DOD, and all the other agencies that are now in the process of using law fare to persecute Trump to prevent him from running for president in 2024. They never published Frank Zappa’s response, they buried it instead. I’m a proud member of Viva and Barnes.locals.com, Robert Barnes is a brilliant constitutional lawyer in the US and he sees this as a battle between the above mentioned war whores power mad corrupted US government trying to take control of ALL foreign policy decisions AWAY from even the President of the United States! So the president can’t do ANYTHING, can’t even talk to the American people without running it all by the Deep State first to get “their permission to do so.” Basically to NEUTER the president of the United States IF Trump were to win even from jail because only they The Deep State are clever enough and smart enough and experienced enough to make foreign policy decisions and we all know why that is… because they want to insure keeping constant wars occurring all over the world in order to continue for them all to massively profit financially. Fuck me… this is a battle the Deep State can’t be allowed to win, the American Constitution needs to prevail and win, it’s crucial. I’m Canadian but I understand how crucial of a battle this is using Trump as a figurehead but actually it’s a battle of the Deep State with the United States Constitution and the United States Constitution MUST prevail.🙏🙏🙏🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I've suspected something along these lines myself for some time. This came about because of my experience working and living in two distinct cultural and geographic centers which attract the polar opposites of these traits it seems: Hawaii and Alaska. Comparing and contrasting the strange cultural dichotomies between these two states could easily be the subject of a dissertation. I also had the advantage of having discovered Jordan B. Peterson while I lived in Alaska and paying close attention to what I learned and applying it to what I observed of the people there.
Prior to this however I had read a book entitled r/K theory by Anonymous conservative and my mind was already playing along these lines trying to see what I could of the overall picture in day to day life. I believe there is much good to be had in understanding r/K theory in conjunction with the Big 5 in particular the conscientiousness/openness. r typcially think of how rabbits create their societies, and K think of how wolves create their societies. Please look into the theory to gain a fuller perspective. Well worth your while.
I would also posit there is a correlation between these traits and the care/harm morality matrix as proposed by Jonathan Haidt. The theory proposes six foundations for morality: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression, and Jonathan Haidt showed fairly conclusively that Liberals have a stunted morality centering only on one of the foundations namely the care/harm foundation, and conservatives tending to be a balance of all 6 foundations.
In short, I hypothesize that R selection correlates with High Openness/Low Conscientiousness and also with the stunted morality binary of care/harm as the only morality, and that K selection correlates with Low Openness/High Conscientiousness and the richer fuller morality matrix of all 6 foundations since this would be required in a more hierarchical society where authority and loyalty would be equally important as care/harm. Again think wolves vs. rabbits. No loyalty amongst rabbits. Not needed. Just run away.
A comprehensive theory that incorporates aspects of all these theories is what I have in mind would actually start to explain not only the What of things, but also the How and the Why.
If I may intervene.
Haidt, like most contemporaries, relies on statistical studies in sociology, medicine, psychology, etc in order to construct his theory. This is extremely short sighted. The split of human societies in two antagonistic groups along some fault line has existed throughout documented history : the earliest examples known to me come from Mesopotamia in the 2nd millenium BC and Greek cities from 8th century BC onwards. Most times it was a rich vs poor conflict wrapped in some religious or symbolic guise. Most times the conflict was resolved through the expulsion of one party (sometimes willing through help establishing a new city) or through the collapse of the polity, which led to being conquered.
Solutions or palliatives were progressively developed and spread. Shared religion, participation in the same sacred rituals, public sacrifices made by everyone according to its means played a major role in maintaining stability. Moral codes were also proclaimed and imposed. Any good analysis of morality and social stability would be based on those millennia of experiences NOT on some more-or-less reliable social studies from the past few decades.
Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughtful comment, Conan. It is appreciated. The Hawaii v Alaska split is a fascinating one.
I concede that I've never been as impressed with Haidt's typology as have some people. But I won't go into it, here. Unless you really, really want me to. (Though it might make for a helpful post at some point.) Certainly, though the r/K stuff is highly relevant. More recently the scholarly literature has been using the nomenclature of fast (r) and slow (K) sexual strategies, or more generally Life Histories. When I refer to this dynamic, which I do often, I use the latter vocabulary. But I appreciate you pointing it, if it was unclear that I was familiar with it.
As to libertarianism. I, like so many others, was once one, too. Though I doubt there's one standalone post on here that would fully summarize my feelings on libertarianism today, probably the best shot would be part 4 of the What's Left of What's Right series. As it doesn't seem possible to create links in the comments, I'll past it in below. In a nutshell, libertarians are not nearly as anti-state as they think they are. But, again, I won't engage in a length explanation, here. Hence the link.
Again, thanks for your comment. Participation in the comments section is always much appreciated. Best regards.
https://thecirculationofelites.substack.com/p/whats-left-of-whats-right-part-4
Also, I find this all very fascinating on a personal level since I score extremely high on Openness, 89 percentile, and middling high on consciensciousness, 57 percentile. I find that unsurprisingly I straddle the fence on a lot of issues and am politically a right leaning libertarian that wishes that everyone could govern themselves so well, that we could do away with government altogether since no matter how ingenious you set it up, it inevitably falls prey to the psychopathic amongst us who use it to crush all opposition and become tyrants. Happens Every damn time.
Thank you for this most interesting historical perspective of the two opposing parties. This article is really interesting and explains a lot although I don’t understand exactly what you are meaning needs to happen so we can have a soft landing. Nevertheless I sure hope we can have one! Appreciate you!
Hopefully the forthcoming book, reorganizing the material into a more disciplined order, will make that clear. Thanks for you comment, Sonya.
"...men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties.
"1. those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
"2. those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them cherish and consider them as the most honest & safe, altho’ not the most wise depository of the public interests... "
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee (1824)
Hmm. I wonder if I agree with that. I'm not sure.
A little more context,
"...depository of the public interests.
"In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them therefore liberals and serviles..."
Of course by "liberal" Jefferson meant the original, classic "liberal", not the meaning after the Left flipped it.
Here's another one,
"...the same political parties which now agitate the US. have existed thro’ all time... as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of whig and tory belong to natural, as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams (1813)
I guess, if we concede these are somewhat self-aggrandizing framings, sure, I can agree with them. Though I'm no Jefferson scholar, my understanding is -- using my nomenclature -- that earlier in life Jefferson was a spatial (e.g., keen supporter of the French Revolution), but later in life became much more of a temporal? I wonder if that's part of the context within which such statements need to be set.
What a great comment! Thank you!
Here's another one,
"...the same political parties which now agitate the US. have existed thro’ all time... as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of whig and tory belong to natural, as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams (1813)