Where are you on the political spectrum?

[greg]

     There are larger differences that underlie the categories, captured at the level of psychology. I like to think I choose my philosophical dispositions, but I don't exactly think that.

Well. I'll think about this today.

     Some people are ideologically ambidextrous. They can look at things from alternative frameworks, others are rigidly framework-dependent.

Yes. This is another dimension as well.

And another is just the tendency for things to get more authoritarian over time because people like order. But there is self awareness of this so often it doesn't.

[greg]

Openness to Experience: High value would be libertarian, low value would be authoritarian.

Extroversion:  Low value would be libertarian, high value would be authoritarian.

Conscientiousness: My "human rights" axis. Low value is lib left, high value is auth right.

Agreeableness: exactly the same as extroversion.

Neuroticism: Being extremely low or extremely high will result in an extreme value in any direction.

[Jo498]

Extroversion:  Low value would be libertarian, high value would be authoritarian.

Why? Shouldn't it rather be the other way round or maybe better not related at all?

Agreeableness: exactly the same as extroversion.

There might be a correlation but certainly not perfect. Many libertarians are extrovert agreeable "salesman" types, sometimes they are libertarians because they do quite well in the current system and believe that they would do even better without taxes, regulations etc. Whereas there are also of cantankerous authoritarians, think of teachers in old movies.

I don't really see a point in introducing more dimensions if one "flattens" the model in the next step by alignments or strong correlations between them. Or in any case, it should be an empirical question if such correlations exist.

[greg]

Why? Shouldn't it rather be the other way round or maybe better not related at all?

It's not strongly related.

But an anarchist society would never require you to have to work with a bunch of people. Meanwhile an authoritarian society would force you into being one of those creepy North Korean marchers or force you to die in war. So I feel like there could be a minor correlation.

There might be a correlation but certainly not perfect. Many libertarians are extrovert agreeable "salesman" types, sometimes they are libertarians because they do quite well in the current system and believe that they would do even better without taxes, regulations etc. Whereas there are also of cantankerous authoritarians, think of teachers in old movies.

Salesmen aren't agreeable, though, they are the textbook example of disagreeable extroverts. Very low agreeableness is dishonesty. Agreeble people will accept no for an answer so won't be as effective.

But lib right can make money as an introvert, too, through the deep web or renting out property, which is my distant retirement strategy (hopefully).

Disagreeable authoritarians... man, i know this one is more difficult. Because it really depends on your position. The way I conceive of it is those people are like helicopter parents- they want what is best for you but it means they know what is best for you and you are just clueless. But what happens when the same person falls into a lower status in society? They probably won't turn into anarchists but will "know their place," which corresponds to agreeableness. This one definitely is more complex...

I don't really see a point in introducing more dimensions if one "flattens" the model in the next step by alignments or strong correlations between them. Or in any case, it should be an empirical question if such correlations exist.

Actually not sure exactly what you mean here, but curious.

[Florestan]

an anarchist society

There has never been, there is presently not, and there will never be an anarchist society. It's an oxymoron.

[drogulus]

There has never been, there is presently not, and there will never be an anarchist society. It's an oxymoron.

     The best we could do is a society of people who "believe in" it.

[Florestan]

     The best we could do is a society of people who "believe in" it.

I should have thought you were utterly opposed to "believing in".

(If your post was ironic, please disregard my comment.)

[greg]

There has never been, there is presently not, and there will never be an anarchist society. It's an oxymoron.

True because there will always be differences even within the same species and reality will favor certain characteristics over others, always leading to power imbalance.

The closest you could get to it is the hilarious concept of anarchomonarchism where the king doesn't actually make rules at all, except for one: it's illegal to create your own government. So if you try to attain power by overthrowing the king, you die. But at the same time it would be the most free society ever. Actually doesn't sound bad, but impossible due to human nature.

[Florestan]

the hilarious concept of anarchomonarchism where the king doesn't actually make rules at all, except for one: it's illegal to create your own government. So if you try to attain power by overthrowing the king, you die.

Can you give me one single example of a serious political thinker or scientist who proposes this kind of society? Or one single example of such a society?

[greg]

Can you give me one single example of a serious political thinker or scientist who proposes this kind of society? Or one single example of such a society?

I'm pretty sure there isn't one. 
It's just a concept.

[Florestan]

I'm pretty sure there isn't one. 
It's just a concept.

Democratic socialism is another concept. 

[SimonNZ]

It occurs to me that Danton and Robespierre would possibly have scored in opposite ways on each part of this test.

Goering and Hitler, also. I could probably go on without too much effort.

[Florestan]

It occurs to me that Danton and Robespierre would possibly have scored in opposite ways on each part of this test.

Goering and Hitler, also.

D, R, G and H might have disagreed upon who should rule, while they all agreed upon that it's themselves who should rule.

[SimonNZ]

I was responding to Gregs over-certain conclusions about personality types a few posts back. Your post is reinforcing my point.

[Florestan]

I was responding more to Gregs over-certain conclusions about personality types a few posts back.

I just wanted to point out that people like those you nominated might be in disagreement about policies but never in their conviction that it's they and they alone who know what's good for the people and therefore should rule.

[SimonNZ]

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying you couldn't have grouped them together as "people like that" from the results of this test.

[greg]

I was responding to Gregs over-certain conclusions about personality types a few posts back. Your post is reinforcing my point.

How am I appearing over-confident?  I'm trying my best to convey that I'm still working these ideas out and still appearing confident?

Mainly agreeableness is hard to factor in. For example, both Antifa and hippies are in the lib left anarcho communist realm, but one is violent and the other isn't, and violence is associated with low agreeableness... so there's some complexity in there.

I have heard about scientific studies of two of the factors (openness and conscientiousness) being easily correlated to political position, and tbh, that is easily observable, so those are the ones I'd be more confident in.

[drogulus]

I should have thought you were utterly opposed to "believing in".

(If your post was ironic, please disregard my comment.)

     It was demonic, given what "believe in" betokeneth.

[Jo498]

But an anarchist society would never require you to have to work with a bunch of people. Meanwhile an authoritarian society would force you into being one of those creepy North Korean marchers or force you to die in war. So I feel like there could be a minor correlation.

First, I have to admit that I apparently misunderstood some of the features of the "personality traits". An anarchist society never existed as others have said. But I grant that there have been societies with regions (literally or societally) where one could largely mind only his own business. However, overall most societies in history generally required far more cooperation because of the lack of machines and convenience products.
Look at Sherlock Holmes: He is a freelance detective with quirky personality who often does not "play by the rules". But he is de facto dependent on Mrs. Hudson's cooking and care as well as on all the other amenities of late Victorian London such as postal service several times a day, cabs waiting on the next street corner etc.
If you go further back in time, most societies were at the same time more anarchist AND more authoritarian than those in more "civilised times". You can mind your own business on your homestead being almost self-sufficient on your farm until the press gang comes along and takes your son away to the army or navy. Also consider the "unwritten rules and laws" that were much stronger in former times where a silly faux-pas sometimes could lead to a duel or in any case make you an outcast from polite society.

With the "flattening" I meant, that when you have 5 or how many dimension in your model, if it's a good model they have to conform to the analogy of mathematical dimensions, i.e. being linearly independent (ideally orthogonal). If C = xA + yB, get rid of C and have a model with n-1 dimensions.

[Florestan]

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying you couldn't have grouped them together as "people like that" from the results of this test.

Yes, it's quite possible.