This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why should they be synonymous? The more synonymous the word pairs are, the less you need two words. The point of having an additional word is to alter the way people answer.
You make a good and interesting point, but I think it was a bit of a misstep, because like @Folamh3 says there is a typical format that everyone is used to, and so we naturally try to fit your scheme into it and end up confused, and it even feels a bit judgemental. Next time you do a survey like this maybe just explain what you are going for - instead of "I see myself as" go with something like "How do you align with these obverse emotions? It's not nearly as punchy like that but you get the idea.
Sorry if it seems judgmental. Don't take the survey if it makes you upset.
If you're genuinely interested in the way the items work, though, take a look at the image titled "Factor Analysis Results (Manual Rotation)" from a writeup of an ACX survey: https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/the-big-five-is-incomplete
Let's look at the first item you mentioned, "Active, Talkative." The factor loading on Extraversion is very high at 0.86, and the cross loadings all have absolute values less than 0.15. What this means is that this item actually does an excellent job measuring what it's supposed to, in a way that doesn't pick up contamination from other personality traits. There's something to learn from this: Extraversion is a factor of personality that strongly depends not only on how much a person says, but on a person's overall energy level, while other personality traits don't.
By contrast, if you look at similar questionnaires like the TIPI, you'll see their scales have poor discriminant validity. For example, TIPI Extraversion is found to correlate > 0.3 with Openness according to Brito-Costa, S., Moisão, A., De Almeida, H., & Castro, F. V. (2015). Psychometric properties of ten item personality iventory (tipi). International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 1(2), 115-121. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3498/349851793011.pdf They can't measure Extraversion and Openness independently of one another.
So ultimately, I do hear you when you say, "These questions are weird, and they make me feel uncomfortable," but I am proud of the performance of the items as measured objectively. If this means that I miss out on getting some data from people who frown at the questions and say wtf, that's OK with me.
I ran across a substack at some point—vectorsofmind.com—whose old posts were saying that the big five had some bad methodology, and that we can do better, and get some different factors, but I don't know enough to assess what it was saying. (Looking now at the titles, the more recent posts seem significantly sketchier.) Anyway, I'd be interested in knowing what you think of the old articles.
Strong dissapointment. Although I was rather skeptical of his findings and approach when I found his blog a year ago, it seemed to represent an alternative and possibly superior methodology to what researchers in psychology have been applying for the last hundred years. So I contacted the blog owner and asked if he would assist me in trying out his approach. He was kind enough to let me use some of his software.
In order to determine whether it worked, I tried his methodology out on colors. We know that the color space is accurately mapped either by RGB or CYM(K), and I hoped to be able to recover this. I couldn't; the space was garbled. This created an awkward situation where I didn't want to come down too hard on someone who seemed young, intelligent, enthusiastic, and entitled to making mistakes as part of the learning process, but at the same time I really wanted nothing further to do with him or his ideas. I don't know what he's been writing since then. (Given your interest I wish I'd saved the results, but they were on an older computer that has since stopped working.)
Ultimately, ideas that one rotation or another of personality space is somehow more correct - or worse, that some personality traits exist at a "higher level" than others - really don't interest me. Maybe I'm a fool who just fails to grasp that personality isn't dimensional, but the tools psychologists have all been using for the last century (including those at vectors of the mind) have been charting out a space with increasing numbers of dimensions, and a factor space by definition can be rotated in any way desired.
Now, the personality trait some call Alpha is interesting in that it's often the first unrotated factor to appear under factor analysis, except that, well, it isn't always the first, and it's not the most heritable. It seems most likely to me that when terms like "respectful," "cooperative," and "hard-working" cluster together, it's simply because humans are extremely sensitive to information regarding whether or not others can be relied upon and worked with. We don't want to date, work alongside, trust, or otherwise team up with jerks. So, we've invented a wide array of terms to describe "good" and "bad" people - but this good-bad axis of personality isn't more heritable than others, and doesn't explain more outcomes than others, so our special interest in information along that axis simply means that other axes received fewer vocabulary descriptors and became harder to explore. This is the main reason why some people here like Fruck or Folamh3 wonder what's going on; the personality space isn't filled out very well with adjectives, and when you try to reach the many areas that are more or less orthogonal to Alpha and other well-delineated clusters, to them you end up sounding like "OK bear with me, I'm thinking of a trait, yeah? It's kindof at the right side of Alpha, but also the right side of not Alpha, so I know it sounds like a combination of good and bad, only it's not, it's nothing to do with that, it's just, you know, to the right. Is that you?" And they either they play the game or you move on.
TL;DR Andrew Cutler is a neat guy, and while I don't agree with him, if I'd found his earlier work 25 years ago I would have been quite enchanted.
Thanks, I really appreciate the take, and will trust you know what you're talking about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, text based conversation is not my wheelhouse. I used misstep to imply that I thought it was good but not perfect - not mistaken, but there is room for improvement. I would also be proud of the construction of this survey, I did it before I engaged the thread and I think you did a great job, but there have been people who bounced off it because they didn't understand what you were going for in that question. So I thought back to when I did it and what I was thinking, and my thinking was "these are unusual modifiers, how do they change my response from when they are by themselves", but I am hugely attracted to novelty in general. I then thought back to why I initially thought it was unusual and came to the conclusions I mentioned - it looks like it follows the typical structure but doesn't, and a tinge of judgement.
I think if the people who bounced off it understood what you were going for, they probably would have done the survey (I know the terms you used aren't exactly obverse, but it at least conveys the idea that you don't think these things are necessarily tied) and while I understand you are cool with people not doing it if it makes them uncomfortable, I figured a change to the structure of the question would be a simple way to get a few more respondents in the future that wouldn't impact the results.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Normally when a personality questionnaire asks you to rate how accurately an adjective describes you, they either use a single adjective (neurotic) or a series of closely related adjectives (anxious, worrisome, moody). This is the first time I recall seeing a questionnaire asking me how much a group of (to my eyes) completely independent adjectives describes me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link