[Big Five] Personality, Political Positions & Marriage - Oh My!

[nickrpack]

Jordan Peterson was thrust into the spotlight a couple years ago (controversially) and even more so in recently months. I don't know if you've heard of him, but, despite if you have or haven't, he explains a fascinated personality concept, being a clinical psychologist and university professor, one that has massive and revealing ramifications for how society understands the individuals that make it up and how to relate to those who think differently, particularly politically, which we all know, in our day, can be extremely polarizing and emotional.

Essentially, and he claims extensive studies support this, political differences - i.e. open borders vs. closed borders, issues of foreign policy, taxes, welfare and economy - are first rooted in personality. (By "first" I mean "by default". Any person's "default" tendency or preference can change through maturity, experience and instruction.) Think about that. Political differences, allegedly, come from differences in personality, which is something no one asks for or chooses.

For example, take a person who is high in "openness to experience" and low in "conscientiousness", two of the Big 5 personality traits. Dr. Peterson explains that this person would naturally, because of his or her personality, be a liberal, politically. (It's important to note that the academic psychological community uses the Big 5 model across the board as it's accepted as more scientific.) But take a different person who is high in "conscientiousness" - particularly "orderliness", a sub-trait - and he or she will be conservative. For the most part. But he says this is very predictable.

A lot could be said about this, but this is what I'm curious about: Is such much of the world's political divisiveness simply about two different kinds of people, two opposite personalities? Because if that is the case, our political structures have a lot to learn from marriage! In marriage, typically, opposites attract. Now, we all know marriage is difficult, like seriously so, but could it be that if you understand how to be married well you have something important to offer this political moment, being that politics boils down to two different ways of seeing the world, two ways that may actually need each other to remain balanced and productive and in harmony, just like in marriage?

I find this all fascinating. When I look at all the rage and hear all the volume and mistrust erupting from the four corners of the world, I wonder about this concept. As a married man, I see this in marriage and ponder at the possibility that culture and society and politics is one giant "marriage" of sorts, one that needs healing and understanding and trust and love.

 

[neko 4]

Conscientiousness in people who hate gays and want the rich to get all the breaks?

 

[Maou]

Jordan Peterson was thrust into the spotlight a couple years ago (controversially) and even more so in recently months. I don't know if you've heard of him, but, despite if you have or haven't, he explains a fascinated personality concept, being a clinical psychologist and university professor, one that has massive and revealing ramifications for how society understands the individuals that make it up and how to relate to those who think differently, particularly politically, which we all know, in our day, can be extremely polarizing and emotional.

Essentially, and he claims extensive studies support this, political differences - i.e. open borders vs. closed borders, issues of foreign policy, taxes, welfare and economy - are first rooted in personality. (By "first" I mean "by default". Any person's "default" tendency or preference can change through maturity, experience and instruction.) Think about that. Political differences, allegedly, come from differences in personality, which is something no one asks for or chooses.

For example, take a person who is high in "openness to experience" and low in "conscientiousness", two of the Big 5 personality traits. Dr. Peterson explains that this person would naturally, because of his or her personality, be a liberal, politically. (It's important to note that the academic psychological community uses the Big 5 model across the board as it's accepted as more scientific.) But take a different person who is high in "conscientiousness" - particularly "orderliness", a sub-trait - and he or she will be conservative. For the most part. But he says this is very predictable.

A lot could be said about this, but this is what I'm curious about: Is such much of the world's political divisiveness simply about two different kinds of people, two opposite personalities? Because if that is the case, our political structures have a lot to learn from marriage! In marriage, typically, opposites attract. Now, we all know marriage is difficult, like seriously so, but could it be that if you understand how to be married well you have something important to offer this political moment, being that politics boils down to two different ways of seeing the world, two ways that may actually need each other to remain balanced and productive and in harmony, just like in marriage?

I find this all fascinating. When I look at all the rage and hear all the volume and mistrust erupting from the four corners of the world, I wonder about this concept. As a married man, I see this in marriage and ponder at the possibility that culture and society and politics is one giant "marriage" of sorts, one that needs healing and understanding and trust and love.

Nice post, and ill have to agree with Mr. Peterson.

I like politics, and have debated against all odds. I myself, am relatively Center Right. But the political climate in USA has pretty much labled me a Nazi.

Long story short, I have cornered a few Liberals and had them really break down their beliefs. Every time, it was based on emotion. Those emotions rooted it letting people do what they want, without paying heed to consequences. Essentially, its a mindset of short-sighted instant gratificayion with no basis in logic, historical reference, or acknowledgement of human nature. While not all Liberals are compmetely like this, some cling to the ideals because it helps them feel better. While deep down they know the truth, that they have no idea what and why they think this way. In a sense, its avoidance of reality to protect themselves from the evils of the world. Then you got the kind of Leftists, who rely oh appeal to authority and cling to one time studies to support their claims. It takes a lot of i telligence to jump though those mental gymnastics.

Anyways, debating them is like beating your head against a brick wall.

 

[rav3n]

Petersen's a biased idiot.

 

[Icedream]

reminds me of someone else

 

[Sineva]

Yeah Peterson is great. He always forces you to swallow a pill that's the most bitter, but also the truest.
He confirmed most of my suspicions/theories about society, but in a much more harsh and straight-to-the-point way, whereas I used to beat around the bush more often.

I fully agree that personality (in its cognitive sense) directly relates to a person's view of politics. Because if it wouldn't, then what place would "politics" take in nature? If it's an insistently prevalent aspect of human civilization, then it has to be fueled by some natural/born aspects of the human species. Politics are not a passing "fad" or a "social construct", it's something that's part of human nature. And if it's part of human nature, then what natural aspects of human beings define/dictate politics, political opinions, political ideologies, values? Psychology for the most part.

It is also possible for people to violate the template of open=liberal and conscientious=conservative. But for that template to be violated, the person actually has to work with politics as a professional academic and/or civil servant. So that his knowledge/experience would re-define the way his political values/directions/priorities/decisions are shaped. And not be defined by his natural cognitive setup (which tends to be the case for most people in their pre-30's)

But IQ is also a very important factor in defining a person's political behavior/priorities/values/decisions. If we go by MBTI standards rather than by Big 5 standards, then someone who is strong in F would be politically different from someone who is strong in T.
But someone who is strong in F and has a high IQ would be politically different from someone who is strong in T and also has a high of IQ.
And these two high level IQ Ts and Fs would also be politically very different from their low-level IQ counterparts as well.

There's many psychological factors that define/determine a person's political views, so many that the Big 5 probably can't be the only determining factor. But the fact that our political views are pre-defined by our inborn psychological impulses needs to be acknowledged. Because as soon as that's acknowledged, people would/should be able to accept that their idea about politics can't be "correct" just because they feel that it's "correct".

 

[Totenkindly]

The problem with comparing politics to marriage is that marriage between opposites can sometimes work (it depends on the nuances of the personalities) and other times it simply blows up as untenable. It veers towards the latter the more extreme the personalities become.

Unfortunately, the western world has been moving towards the extremes, esp in recent years. It's been happening for a long while but was simply not exposed to the light of the sun. Now that we have people in office whose goal is to trigger polarization and separate groups, we're seeing how deep the fractures run.

Personality obviously does contribute in broad ways to one's political inclinations, depending on what political system you live in. (e.g. risk-avoidant folks will typically be more conservative with some things), but there's various facets that are relevant. However, there is no blanket answer, and there is no silver bullet that will just 'enable everyone to get along again.' As someone else noted above, values also play a strong part in political affiliation, and when the values are extreme and clash where one sees another set of values as harmful and immoral... how can that be unified?

 

[LucieCat]

I suppose there are correlations. But I think people on different ends of the ideological spectrum often make their political choices based on the same criteria.

Let's take emotions and feelings being prioritized over thinking and logic.

Emotions ars also also a valuable tool for garnering support from any group. Take all the Hitler comparisons routinely lobbed at both Democrat and Republican candidates by the other side. These comparisons never seem to add up or are very shallow, but they are effective because the provoke fear. People really don't want to live in an oppressive, totalitarian regime. So, if someone says, "Candidate A is the next Hitler and will put us in a police state," then the people on Candidate B's side become increasingly opposed to Canidate A, and will feel like they have to vote for Candidate B no matter what. I hope this makes sense. This happens with both liberals and conservatives and is very feelings based (and an overused cliche that I think should have lose any potential impact by now).