High openness quite puzzles me. You find it here, but also with the quite conformist humanities and arts people. It doesn't seem to tell much about of what sort the preference for novelty is, not if it is knowledge based or notion based, not if it actively pursued by exploratory behaviour or just a more passive receptivity/ infectability for novelty in the close environment. There seems to be a clear correlation with achievement. But being high in openness is also quite flattering and one might want to have that trait. I wonder what would happen if the big five questionnaires were inversed so that each question would be substituted with its "shadow question", asking for the dark aspect of the trait. "Dark" is maybe sufficiently dark if it is non-conventional: Asking the humanities and arts people if they would read a blog about race intelligence differences, the results would be different than asking for "trying something totally unfamiliar is exciting to me".
100% - as Ryan Faulk pointed out, data definitely shows Leftism, whatever that is honestly, is full of the "intolerant" who react more fanatically than the typical Christian observer does. The "Left" is a religion - and not "open" really at all. I'd go further and say Universalism - is a religion.
I think there is a paradox within the questionnaire measurement of the big five traits: It wants to measure differences between people but it does not account for differences between people in perception: What hugely different models of reality, partly probably hardwired, might lie behind their use of the same words ("openness", "liberalism", "progressivism", ...). So by answering what seems to be one question they will actually have answered very different questions. Maybe no problem if "that whatever was asked for" is treated as solely empirical with some predictive power. But maybe better then to use a more abstract "factor a" terminology instead of misusing a non-defined but hugely suggestive term like "openness"? The differentiation I would want to see within trait openness would be to ask if there is something one could maybe call "absorptive openness" (being so open that you take the ideological colour of the environment) vs "exploratory openness", pursuing a curiosity driven individual path. Somewhat like that.
I share your concerns about how "Openness" is measured in studies. I often wonder how well it correlates with actual behavior, e.g. do people high in Openness really go to new restaurants more often those with low Openness, or do they just say they like it more? It seems a minor distinction, but a trait that predicts what people do is more relevant than a trait that merely predicts what they say. I rather suspect that much of the Openness score is really measuring what respondents aspire to be rather than what they are.
The problem of all self-report. They might even be right in relation to their close social environment. No matter how unopen groups are, there is always somebody who is a bit more open than the others, "the most open one in the village" (which might explain the correlation with achievement, especially in a fragmented society). But the self-reported degree of openness might not be too comparable across social environments. This is an overall (and known) problem of the big five. But it seems to me that with trait openness, regarding how fancy it sounds and how difficult it is to have a reasonable concept of novelty, there might be some other layers of difficulty adding. Going back to observing actual (especially non-lab) behaviour would be a very good thing to do.
I am really, really surprised by how many Bolshevists you have reading you. And likers of Charles Murray, Zionist? Interesting. But also not interesting. I used to like him too. Then I read into who is actually responsible for the brownifying of all White nations on Earth. He's an enabler, at best.
Thanks for the survey! I apologize for saying I'd subscribe right now and then not doing so. There weren't any other more appropriate choices for me. I'd like to subscribe. This goes with the, "Poverty is a virtue" comment. Who thinks that? I suppose some do, but I'm not a self-hating hair-shirt-wearing nihilist. Again, I'd like to subscribe. I literally have two beans to rub together to my name. We've been working on our startups for two years now - and the market is insane for my husband's particular field. The jobs have all been shipped to India, or all the White men have been replaced by Indians here in the States thanks to the Universalists. So... again, we're doing what we can to get back to where we were before we had to sell our land, our house, and move in with family - but... sometimes all the hard work in the world isn't enough. We continue to work hard anyway. It's super fun, the uncertainty. Meantime, I still like to read. Thanks for making some of your content free for me. When I do have money - you're on the list. Native Europeans should always be doing what they can for each other. *
This long comment is long because until you've been layed off 'cause you're a White guy who costs more than a brown guy, with a wife and kids - and had this happen to you, and your job prospects in a rural area are literally Wendy's management for $12 an hour, you have no fucking clue. And while I hope this doesn't happen to any of my people wherever they are in the world, I also do hope for less really obtuse assumptions as well.
For the record, I chose gluttony as the worst sin. I'm female and American of northwestern European descent. It's bizarre, honestly, to separate envy from gluttony and lust in many ways - but anyhow, sloth is definitely second. - thanks again!
I have a suspicion you're more likely to believe that not all humans have equal value if you have more education. I believe Charles Murray on this. I would love if you could check if it's the case.
Do all humans have equal value? What's your basis of measurement? I'd argue those with college education are more likely to SAY that all humans have equal value (without clarifying whatsoever what that's supposed to mean).
The problem with this question is that it doesn't include "to whom". I'm sure many people answered as if it was "all humans have equal value to me", but I suspect that many more answered "all humans have equal value in the world". The first is a moral stance and the second a fact assessment. The answers make much more sense if you presume most answered the second version than the first, though that may just be my optimism. Subsidiary note: This is why we need God, whether he is real or not. Question for next year: Should we act as if there is a God regardless of whether there is one?
High openness quite puzzles me. You find it here, but also with the quite conformist humanities and arts people. It doesn't seem to tell much about of what sort the preference for novelty is, not if it is knowledge based or notion based, not if it actively pursued by exploratory behaviour or just a more passive receptivity/ infectability for novelty in the close environment. There seems to be a clear correlation with achievement. But being high in openness is also quite flattering and one might want to have that trait. I wonder what would happen if the big five questionnaires were inversed so that each question would be substituted with its "shadow question", asking for the dark aspect of the trait. "Dark" is maybe sufficiently dark if it is non-conventional: Asking the humanities and arts people if they would read a blog about race intelligence differences, the results would be different than asking for "trying something totally unfamiliar is exciting to me".
100% - as Ryan Faulk pointed out, data definitely shows Leftism, whatever that is honestly, is full of the "intolerant" who react more fanatically than the typical Christian observer does. The "Left" is a religion - and not "open" really at all. I'd go further and say Universalism - is a religion.
I think there is a paradox within the questionnaire measurement of the big five traits: It wants to measure differences between people but it does not account for differences between people in perception: What hugely different models of reality, partly probably hardwired, might lie behind their use of the same words ("openness", "liberalism", "progressivism", ...). So by answering what seems to be one question they will actually have answered very different questions. Maybe no problem if "that whatever was asked for" is treated as solely empirical with some predictive power. But maybe better then to use a more abstract "factor a" terminology instead of misusing a non-defined but hugely suggestive term like "openness"? The differentiation I would want to see within trait openness would be to ask if there is something one could maybe call "absorptive openness" (being so open that you take the ideological colour of the environment) vs "exploratory openness", pursuing a curiosity driven individual path. Somewhat like that.
I share your concerns about how "Openness" is measured in studies. I often wonder how well it correlates with actual behavior, e.g. do people high in Openness really go to new restaurants more often those with low Openness, or do they just say they like it more? It seems a minor distinction, but a trait that predicts what people do is more relevant than a trait that merely predicts what they say. I rather suspect that much of the Openness score is really measuring what respondents aspire to be rather than what they are.
The problem of all self-report. They might even be right in relation to their close social environment. No matter how unopen groups are, there is always somebody who is a bit more open than the others, "the most open one in the village" (which might explain the correlation with achievement, especially in a fragmented society). But the self-reported degree of openness might not be too comparable across social environments. This is an overall (and known) problem of the big five. But it seems to me that with trait openness, regarding how fancy it sounds and how difficult it is to have a reasonable concept of novelty, there might be some other layers of difficulty adding. Going back to observing actual (especially non-lab) behaviour would be a very good thing to do.
🧲💯🚀
Bro you gotta promote your survey more, this is poor marketing
Well I guess I could have posted it more on X. I did remind people on the blog about it 4 times.
I’m going through your activity feed on substack and don’t see any survey article restacks, note reminders and final reminder announcement
I am really, really surprised by how many Bolshevists you have reading you. And likers of Charles Murray, Zionist? Interesting. But also not interesting. I used to like him too. Then I read into who is actually responsible for the brownifying of all White nations on Earth. He's an enabler, at best.
Thanks for the survey! I apologize for saying I'd subscribe right now and then not doing so. There weren't any other more appropriate choices for me. I'd like to subscribe. This goes with the, "Poverty is a virtue" comment. Who thinks that? I suppose some do, but I'm not a self-hating hair-shirt-wearing nihilist. Again, I'd like to subscribe. I literally have two beans to rub together to my name. We've been working on our startups for two years now - and the market is insane for my husband's particular field. The jobs have all been shipped to India, or all the White men have been replaced by Indians here in the States thanks to the Universalists. So... again, we're doing what we can to get back to where we were before we had to sell our land, our house, and move in with family - but... sometimes all the hard work in the world isn't enough. We continue to work hard anyway. It's super fun, the uncertainty. Meantime, I still like to read. Thanks for making some of your content free for me. When I do have money - you're on the list. Native Europeans should always be doing what they can for each other. *
This long comment is long because until you've been layed off 'cause you're a White guy who costs more than a brown guy, with a wife and kids - and had this happen to you, and your job prospects in a rural area are literally Wendy's management for $12 an hour, you have no fucking clue. And while I hope this doesn't happen to any of my people wherever they are in the world, I also do hope for less really obtuse assumptions as well.
For the record, I chose gluttony as the worst sin. I'm female and American of northwestern European descent. It's bizarre, honestly, to separate envy from gluttony and lust in many ways - but anyhow, sloth is definitely second. - thanks again!
I have a suspicion you're more likely to believe that not all humans have equal value if you have more education. I believe Charles Murray on this. I would love if you could check if it's the case.
(I made a mistake on my previous reply)
Do all humans have equal value? What's your basis of measurement? I'd argue those with college education are more likely to SAY that all humans have equal value (without clarifying whatsoever what that's supposed to mean).
The problem with this question is that it doesn't include "to whom". I'm sure many people answered as if it was "all humans have equal value to me", but I suspect that many more answered "all humans have equal value in the world". The first is a moral stance and the second a fact assessment. The answers make much more sense if you presume most answered the second version than the first, though that may just be my optimism. Subsidiary note: This is why we need God, whether he is real or not. Question for next year: Should we act as if there is a God regardless of whether there is one?