Dr. Helen Fisher on How Brain Chemistry Determines Personality and Politics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- Biological Anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher talks neurochemistry, political attitudes, and the libertarian brain.
Subscribe to our RUclips channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
----------------
If libertarians are bold, impulsive, quick witted, adventurous, analytical, and willing to ignore social norms, is that because we have especially active dopamine and testosterone systems in our brains?
That's the hypothesis of the biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, who has developed a pioneering framework for classifying human temperaments. She categorizes her subjects by having them take a personality test that's used by online dating sites Match.com and Chemistry.com to better link potential mates. To date, her questionnaire has been taken by more than 14 million people in 30 countries.
Barack Obama, according to Fisher, is high in dopamine, accounting for his optimism, and also in estrogen, which explains the Oval Office rug covered in inspirational quotes. Mitt Romney is in some ways the opposite of a libertarian, high on the serotonin scale, which accounts for his respect for authority, rigidity, and loyalty.
Fisher is a senior fellow at the Kinsey Institute and she's the author of six books, most recently Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage and Why We Stray. She spoke at the Reason Foundation's annual donor weekend in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein.
"Sphunx" by Sk'p is licensed under CC BY NC ND 3.0
Can't wait for a Helen Fisher vs. Jordan Peterson poetry slam.
I agree
Lmao I’m in
Why? What’s the point of contention?
Videographer: Please include the speaker's slides during most of the talk. Occasional shots of the speaker is OK, but most viewers want to understand what she's saying. Notice that she herself turns to the slides while she speaks.
If true, this is fascinating indeed. It's clear that all these types of personalities have always existed, so a physical explanation like this would make sense, and it might suggest why enlightenment occurred among one group over the others.
She clearly lays out that she's *speculating* on those particular people on numerous occasions in the talk and using those as examples to illustrate her underlying studies.
She just described team Mystic, Valor, and Instinct. The colors are even the same.
I actually did correlate exactly to her high testosterone/dopamine political mapping. For whatever it’s worth. Remember guys, this is a hypothesis not a biological law.
I scored highest in testosterone and estrogen. I have no idea what to make of that, though it may explain why my brain feels like it's in a constant battle with itself.
You're trans bruh
You are simultaneously a pussycat and a bad ass.
You are like a Terminator and Gandhi simultaneously.
I love learning stuff like this!
Lobster of course, we cannot speak of psycholgie without them.
Sayed Asif Thanks my french take over at this time
Hahahaha, So what you're saying is........
Don't tell King Triton, or else he may replace you!
Since several years I had the suspicion that biology in general (inheritance, physiology, etc) have a lot to do with not only personality and politics but also in religious believing.
While there are people skeptical IMHO is very logical Dr. Fischer conclusions.
Actually a lot of this sounds dubious, the fact that it’s simple and seemingly logical hardly means it’s right. This whole issue of dopamine and the way she describes it is bizarre and contradixtory
@@l21n18 Yeah, I am also skeptical of all of her findings. Especially when we have a lot to learn about human brain. There are still a lot of things we don't know about neurobiology.
Thanks!
I am very interested in using an instrument with business clients to help them identify the core to there behavior and decision making. I was always skeptical of MBTI and DiSC. Is there an online tool I can learn to use with business clients?
I just took the quiz I am almost equally high on explorer and director with negotiator being in second.
Mrvoid100 same. Are you an anarcho capitalist as well?
I got "rope bunny".
I'm a ravenous Anarcho-Capitalist, and the traits for Seratonin described me much better than the traits for Dopamine.
I'm not surprised. In fact, I think the dominant statistical groups are really the only predisposers toward later belief. (I.e. Everyone's one of the two dominant groups, but some people price themselves out of those groups due to high IQ or exceptional honesty.)
I'm curious how do you control for various biases,like Barnum effect or confirmation bias
I like the glass of water. Nice touch. Annoying when it's a plastic bottle
I have ADD which means that my brain has a lack of dopamine, but I still consider myself a libertarian.
Kirmie44 remember this is population distributions. Just like you might be a short man or a tall woman, but woman are still, in general, shorter than men.
@Grandfather_Din_Racket what is your point here (edit: it's been a long time since I've watched this and don't remember the details)
@Grandfather_Din_Racket cool, thx for the brain lesson. This is obviously something I know very little about!
@Grandfather_Din_Racket cool, thx for the brain lesson. This is obviously something I know very little about!
Where can i take one of these test?
What was the result of her survey of the audience?
She mentioned the Lobsters. Beautiful.
How do these align with the four medieval humors - sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic?
37:26 I’m skeptical of the cause/effect relationship implied by this map.
At the 18-minute mark, Dr.Fisher talks about how you can see a T-personality just by looking at the face/head structure; Asians call this face-reading. I guess there is a scientific link to an old wise-tale.
Alright yes! Someone who gets it. The platinum rule is also what I support.
Where is the questionnaire?
I think of my self libertarian but wonder what I get in such questionnaire.
I'm a social psychologist and I find that caption really offensive. The term "determines" suggests that all our behavior is a foregone inevitable conclusion. I don't agree. To say that behavior has causes is not the same thing as saying it is "determined" in the philosophical sense.
As a social psychologist, I'd like to hope that you don't conflate a visceral reaction you have with the person's claim as being offensive. She's just interpreting the data. I think the data strongly supports a deterministic view, but data aside, that's in no way inherently 'offensive'.
I hope she didn't come up with the caption, and I suspect she did not. As you say, it's grossly misleading clickbait. Moreover, it encourages the type of incomprehension about 75% of these comments are displaying. Certainly, Fisher doesn't hold the view that the fetal wiring plan of the brain alone determines behavior, as she made clear in her presentation. My .02: I think she gets things mostly correct.
Very informative 👌
"Barack Obama is high in estrogen"
quelle surprise
Well I guess it all works out since his husband Michael is so high in testosterone.
Did she really measure this in Obama's blood?
Doubtful. These professional academics are way overrated.
@@xenofunk1 Something I absolutely love, yet in no way have to sell out to establishmentarian peer pressure dogma.
@@brianlarson77 Said like a true Serotonin. This shit is amazing, I mean you act accurately and exactly as one would predict a high serotonin, low estrogen archetypal person would. You even threw the anti-establishment card, the anti-academia card and made a joke that could be considered too far out there for the feely-dovey-liberal crowd… (I did laugh a bit, but I’m not one to get easily offended).
Fun fact: couples where women are more classically more logical and a tad more dominant/business-like, and where the men are more good at writing or working with people or being human relations oriented as well as more kind and charismatic… That stuff happens very, very often. It’s not something that is not often portrayed in mainstream traditional media outlets, but it happens so often in real life it’s not even funny. Goes to show individuals are each truly biologically different and for a reason, nature intended variations like that because diversity, even amongst one gender or one ethnicity or one social group or whatever, augments the chances of genetically diverse and originally coded offspring which has lots of advantages when it comes to the survival of the species. Higher immune system, higher IQ, different facial appearance, combination of polar opposite traits = best of both worlds!
So yeah, it’s normal for Michelle to have gone for someone similar to her in interests for example politics and law, from a similar background and ethnicity, since we seek common ground with partners… But also a huge difference in temperament and in personality. As Fischer said, high testosterone often searches for high estrogen, and high estrogen often searches for high testosterone. Even though there are some high test/high test power couples out there, like Kanye/Kim, but they usually don’t last long it seems, to much in-fighting and headbutting? Lol and high estrogen/high estrogen would be so lovey-dovey 🥰 emoji throwing and cute decorations that… They’d probably forget to pay the bills altogether and would live in a hippie van in the middle of California, whilst also volunteering to work saving small children at an orphanage and adopting 2 cats and 3 puppies. Lmao.
Well fuck I'm serotonin and testesterone,lol
So Im high testosterone and estrogen. How does that work.out.
I score very high on testosterone and dopamine, frankly dopamine and testosterone have very similar traits, in fact google the strong bi-directional relationship T and D have.
for example T according to fischer is high in logic but dopamine is mainly processed in the left brain, the logical hemisphere.
I am suprised I didn't see any1 who shares my profile (high in t and d) all were either dopamine and estrogen or testosterone and serotonin, imo if you are high in dopamine your much more likely to be also high in testosterone and vice versa
Hmm current research somewhat corroborates what you are saying. We do know for example that substances that are known in lab rats and/or humans to raise dopamine in the substancia nigra such as caffeine, guarana, some strains of cannabis, yerba mate, cocaine and other stimulants, strongly increase the incidence of sexual behaviour and risk taking activities. This could be correlated with an increase of testosterone levels by augmenting the dopamine system, in other terms the two systems are intrinsically linked and synergistic.
However… there is also a lot of data out there pointing to the fact that high levels of testosterone in a n individual will naturally create a higher number of serotonin receptors in the brain. Makes sense, since a spike in testosterone is also known to make people cool and concentrated in logic and detail, for example in the face of a giant mammoth 🦣 as had to deal with some of our ancestors. It also hightens certain senses important, yet again, for survival, such as olfaction and sensory touch. Decreases anxiety: there’s even a phase 3 study now in FDA trials for a testosterone nasal spray with small amount of test in it, enough for it to treat anxiety disorders in… women. But just small enough for it to not cause any androgenic physical side effects in them.
Test should in principle do all of this effects by raising serotonin in certain parts of the brain associated with emotional control. Ya know the "cool vibe" factor that gives off say, Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford or Jammie Fox in movies. I guess it’s a bi-directional paradoxical relation, where high dopamine raises testosterone and other neurosteroids, yet test augments serotonin just enough to keep one cool and rational in periods of stress, yet also not enough for it to overdrive the brain with serotonin the way some antidepressants do, which would tank one’s dopamine and make one more ascetic and monk-like. And God knows how much some antideps tank both libido and one’s desire to even move, do sport, take up "dopaminergic" activities. It even changes your taste in music to like more bass and rythmic beats, more repetitive chanting such as in pop, instead of deeply emotional music, underground music or classical stuff.
So it all makes sense. A very , very high serotonin individual would be a very religious and abstinent person, but could still be high in testosterone. Since dopamine associated with sex hormones (test, estrogen, progesterone, etc) is what drives actual libido and attraction and desire, as well as intricate and complicated feelings associated with romanticism.
I scored the same as you and lo and behold, we are a rare kind. I guess the kind of exalted, kind of crazy individuals who are often portrayed in media as "innovators". The main archetype I could find is Steve Jobs, I think Fischer was wrong in classing him in only testosterone, as he is clearly a high dopamine individual as well, very creative and a big innovator, socially skilled and great at moving large crowds of people and making people believe in his projects and presentations. Loved art and was a minimalist, outside the box thinker, yet also was extremely tough-minded, competitive, ruthless and logical when it came to his entrepreneurial endeavours. Plus really into tech all his life, though not as much the detailed electrical engineering side of it as much as Steve Wozniak was. T and D is more about innovators and entrepreneurs, creative individuals also in writing such as Stephen King, Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore (not a high estrogen subject matter lol), music composers not very classical such as Kendrick Lamar, EDM successes, electronic music, not to forget some rock bands. As opposed to T and S which would be more traditional and country. Steve Wozniak probably a good representation of T and S, a very introverted genius with little people skills yet a really good capacity for concentration on details of the first microchips and whatnot.
@@zkcrisyee I guess testosterone is like the big daddy that controls its children (dopamine and serotonin) Testosterone takes all the good stuff (imo) of both serotonin and dopamine and leaves out all the bad stuff of them too for example too much serotonin like you said would turn you into a motionless monk but on the other hand too much dopamine can lead to paranoia and psychosis
But nevertheless i think testosterone mainly stimulates dopamine over serotonin
@@zkcrisyee Hey, dude you really know your stuff, never heard/read about all this. Are you a neuroscientist, do you have a site where I can check/ learn more about this
7:10 Four basic systems. Dopamine. Testrone, Serotonin, Estrogen.13:26 Dopamine. 25:48 Testosterone
Seritonin=Conservatives?
Don't do others what you would not want done to you?
Each of those four systems have positive and negative qualities. Each have advantages and disadvantages. 🤔
Does she know the difference between chemistry and information?
If people would understand that if government operated on libertarian principles, then you'd be as free as you want to do as you think right: you'd be free to live in a communist commune; you'd be free to make healthcare treatments at low cost; you'd be free to establish businesses that treat all employees as if they were all the same (equity) and never harm your customers because you only do good; you'd be free to create services for the homeless, the hungry, the addicts, etc.
I believe I would be very high in both testosterone and estrogen, and low in serotonin, and extremely low in dopamine.
I am a left libertarian of the Georgist school.
I just took her test online though, and found my dopamine was actually higher than my serotonin.
Your score on the Explorer (Dopamine) scale is 17 out of a possible 42, or 40%.
Your score on the Builder (Serotonin) scale is 15 out of a possible 42, or 36%.
Your score on the Director (Testosterone) scale is 33 out of a possible 42, or 79%.
Your score on the Negotiator (Estrogen) scale is 34 out of a possible 42, or 81%
I scored very high on estrogen, testosterone, and dopamine, but average on serotonin.
Dr Helen Get with Dr Mark Gordon for TBI research. This would a great documentary for ReasonTV and help change some lives of Veterans and Disabled contractors from GWOT. @drmarkgordon
This certainly explains why my wife is so attracted to me. I've been wondering for years.
Surprisingly, this parallels MBTI quite well: Estrogen/Testosterone is the 'approach' to life, i.e. the 'Judging' function, divided by these two polarities (which are in my opinion better stated as Estrogen/Testosterone than "Feeling/Thinking"); and Dopamine/Serotonin gives certain orientations which more or less correspond to the Intuition/Sensing dichotomy.
Seems bogus
Testosterone and serotonin have a lot in common.
Tough-mindendess of testosterone types is useful in harsh and hostile enviroments.
Dopamine types are witty because they have great associative memory.
Why does she bring up Obama?
Either it was shot during the time period, or its less controversial to talk about a previous president.
I got 71% testosterone director
64% dopamine explorer
And 60% estrogen negotiator
High logic, high emotion, likes new things new ideas.
Dopamine is extroversion, testosterone is disagreeableness, estrogen is agreeableness, serotonin is conscientiousness.
James Cameron is very high in testosterone.
Brain chemistry is a lagging indicator, not a causal factor.
"He's testosterone on steroids"... steroids like... testosterone? Lol
It may have an influence on our natural inclinations, but I have trouble believing that chemicals alone determine our beliefs. Two centuries ago, practically everyone was libertarian and, now, practically nobody is---and I doubt that a statistical change in brain chemistry is responsible. This is interesting, though.
Whu-hu-hu-hut? Where on Earth do you get that statistic from? Simply because the founders of our country were somewhat libertarian doesn't mean the rest of the population was. Only a third of the population at the time was in favor of the Revolutionary War. I think most people are predisposed to think that a leader or a government can, will and/or should take care of them. This comes from millions of years of evolution where people were made up of tribes, looking to tribal leaders for answers. What this tells us is that libertarians are more evolved! :)
I dnt agree w your stats. Back that up.
Almost nobody was libertarian two centuries ago.
She said at the beginning of the presentation that scientists believe only 40-50% of our politics are determined by genetics....
David Edward Garber its sad that a magazine called "reason" throws human reason (thinking) out the window and says our ideas are a product of chemistry/genes and environment. So what's the point of trying to promote liberty then?
From the transcript: "if flibberty reans are bold impulsive quick-witted adventurous analytical and..."
In the age of ChatGPT4+, can't Google get an AI program that can provide an accurate transcript? "If libertarians are bold, impulsive, quick-witted, adventurous, analytical, and..."
Since DNA establish a preset of each individual person. This means, in theory, it might become possible to know or even to genetically modify what political view a baby will hold/lean in the future right?
It means it's possible to make a good prediction, or to increase the likelihood of a certain leaning, by manipulating the hormone regulation. But you can already predict that based on genetics: Children are likely to have their parents' opinion (or a mixture thereof). We see that even in twin studies of twins adopted by seperate families. But again, it's not as if the environment they grow up in doesn't matter. It matters a great deal.
Every phrase begins with "enhh"
Enjoyed this thoroughly. However, it's funny how the speaker highlighted in a negative judgemental way the testosteron centred states of Nevada and Alaska, plus the DC area, only to conveniently skip over the democratic death zone that is Illinois. Lol
Authoritarianism is based on testosterone, Alexander Lukashenko and Kim Jong Un are Testosterone types.
high growth hormones mean low atrophication rate, therefor sleep less efficiently.
Tbh I think dopamine/estrogen is more libertarian
It's more "naturally capable in politics" ...whether it winds up "libertarian" as opposed to "pseudo-liberal socialist" has more to do with whether the individual is honest enough to self-educate.
Dr. FISHER: Just ordered "The Sex Contract" from Abe books. I have one, forthcoming on Amazon, titled, "Blow-Hards!," you might find interesting, but sans your bona fide.
I just saw her Wired interview, and gosh she really is the female version of Jordan Peterson :/
I generally don't discuss psychotic persons! Testosterone on steroids. 😁😊
As a libertarian woman, I vehemently disagree with your assertion the golden rule is not a sound blueprint to follow. Anyone can have a logical perspective. Some people may not have the best perspective and let their biology control them, but I do not cater to these types. Your presentation helped to point out that testosterone driven people are not always correct despite their logical nature, and that may be true in plenty of circumstances, but the complete and utter disregard, like the tendency o getting emotional when faced with contradicting information or the unfamiliar, is the least efficient kind of person and these high testosterone people are neither guilty of that nor are they likely to be wrong due to their behavioral tendencies. People are deeper than that. The soul is real and you can make the choice to be righteous and good and do your best beyond your biological drives. Telling people what they want to hear is manipulative and highly unnecessary. The platinum rule is a fun little muse, but it’s never going to replace the golden rule.
There may be a little bit of stumbling when she comes to "which software can be loaded onto which hardware" (the golden and silver rules are probably optimal...but the platinum rule is something worth considering when there's a new, more intelligent species on Earth), but I think her overall conception is correct. Moreover, the Libertarian Party and movement is basically worthless because they're drawing all their support from people who are so naturally-disinclined toward political competencies that they're essentially incapable of threatening the establishment. Interestingly, I think we need more "estrogen+dopamine" (female stereotype) brains in the liberty movement. Why? Because this is the type of brain that takes "extreme ownership" for outcomes. (We need those brains to be well-trained with valid philosophy, though...which government-run schools don't do.)
I'm all over on these traits, but a very principled libertarian. This is sorta silly. ...And isn't it contra treating people as individuals?
Ilya S. Understanding people better isn't in conflict with treating them as individuals. Doctors treat people because we have commonalities in our biology. Doesn't mean doctors are commies. They're just scientists and classification is their business.
But as libertarians I think we should be extremely careful about this. This video is pretty cavalier about it.
To the extend something is true, there is nothing about libertarianism that tells you to reject it. Libertarians aren't "all about treating people as groups," so much as they are about respecting property rights, irrespective of your view on predictable group trends.
That being said, I'd be cautious of classifying libertarians that way (high in dopamine/testosterone). The testosterone part is most certainly true on average(extremely analytical, relatively extremely low female population of libertarians, etc.). The other part? I'd expect libertarians to be much more diverse there. Plenty of libertarians are very "conservative" and rule-obsessed, but believe that a free market solution is better in providing such environments (strict rule enforcement, etc.). There's a personality difference between a weed-smoking Hunter S. Thompson kind of libertarian, and some economics student who stumbled upon Rothbard and is enamoured with the consistent ethics.
This is brought up time and time again with things like IQ and race. The answer to your question is that group data is just that, group data. So you can get a sense common traits of a group, but it doesn't mean any one individual in the group is common. They could be an outlier. So you treat people as individuals and judge them on their individual merits without ascribing group traits to that individual in a prejudicial way.
She was drawing dogs that looked like what?
I'm extremely high in dopamine, and very low in estrogen, i'm pretty sure about that.
I wish she would have talked about sex and sex drive more
I wish someone would take calls on automotive related subjects and use them as improv material. I miss Car Talk.
haha... Interesting... I took here test and I am 67% explorer. That supports her finding that explorers are likely to be libertarians. On the other hand, I am actually not sure If I am fully libertarian. I am more interested in what the research shows rather than sticking purely to ideology. I have been interested in economics and in how the best organize society for 15 years now, and I am still not sure whether I am more of anarcho-capitalist or a nordic-style social democrat. LoL. I do explore both sides and both sides have good arguments to make. What is most important for me is what the research says on each policy question, not the ideology.
I left the left because it got filled with all these crazy social justice warriors and 3rd wave feminists I just couldn't be oppressed by them anymore.
Jerry Schwinn You're a good man for leaving. How do you feel now that You're free from those toxic people?
Criminals are high in testosterone.
Jordan Peterson seal of approval
Nicolás Bascuñán she mentioned lobsters, checks out.
L O B S T E R S
sounds like astrology, earth=serotonin, air=dopamine, water=estrogen, fire=testosterone
Tyler Clibbon fire nation invaded the air nomads and boom.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but at no point in this talk are we given any evidence that these different personality types are in any way correlated with the chemicals they are named after. I'm not totally sceptical of her assertions, but there's a lot of supposition in this talk which seems to be very much inspired by conservative American stereotypes (to my eyes at least). To me this reeks of the similarly unfounded Meyers-Briggs pseudoscience, and might similarly be at risk of precluding more people from fulfilling their aims. I don't think I need to elaborate why I get very much concerned when people get overeager in relating biology to personality.
The way she talks about it, I'm pretty sure they used this survey to predict measured levels of those hormones and adapted the survey to be a best predictor.
But there are so many assumptions underlying that. She makes reference to a couple of studies relating the aforementioned chemicals to specific changes in behaviour, but nothing like the slew of interconnected personality traits she goes on to expound. In this talk there is nothing that gives me faith that these surveys are much better than Buzzfeed quizzes for which character you are from your favourite franchise.
We already know the 5 factor model follows from biological precursors to a fairly high degree, and we can know this without knowing the actual precursors. There was a very large set of heritability twin studies done, that prove conclusively, that in the nature vs. nurture debate, something like 40 to 60% of dozens of different psychological traits, no matter how you slice them up, are determined biologically, and not environmentally. This is well established science at this point. We knew about the heritability of personality since like the 1980s.
What we are now learning is that politics somewhat predicted by personality. IF you ask a large number of people to self-report their political identification, consistent patterns in their personality make up emerge. Conservatism for example is highly correlated with disgust sensitivity.
It's not destiny. But the data on some fractional form of biological determinism is fairly clear.
I completely accept that biological factors can affect personality. Was not aware of extent to which twin studies (identical vs fraternal I presume?) have been used to quantify this. I likewise accept that your personality likely plays a large part in your political views relative to the Overton window. What I'm sceptical of is the evidence that testosterone, dopamine, oestrogen and serotonin are related to these particular personality traits.
I think we're familiar by now with the tendency of young far-right people to criticise left-leaning males as low-T, soyboys, cucks and the like, which generally work to preserve gender/sex binaries and degrade those who don't fit typical (fe)male expectations. This is one of the things that makes me cautious of Dr Fisher's content, which seems to be generally in keeping with right wing worldviews.
I also disagree with the idea that the Myers Briggs test is *completely* meaningless, by the way. I remember someone posting a link to an online questionaire on the Ron Paul Forums, back in the day. The result was that among many dozens of people, I'd say about 50, only *one* wasn't either INTJ or INTP. According to the test, these were among the least common combinations of people doing that very test. It's statistically almost impossible for that to be completely random. So clearly *something* about those personality types is grounded in reality. And from just reading the descriptions, or reading the questions, it's clear that it's libertarians' propensity for abstract, analytical thinking, which other, more reputable psychological evaluations proved beyond a doubt.
It's a good theory, but far from complete. I don't think the neurotransmitters (dopamine and serotonin) and the hormones (testosterone and estrogen) should be divided into 4 equal categories. Also what about cortisol? That could cover neuroticism from the big 5 (which really isn't covered in this model)
You mentioned Obama several times and I got sick each time. Why didn't you mention the App name so I can take the test.
Влад Пёрнишер
Psh yeah lol. Obama was a community organizer from Saul alinskys rules for radicals.
another ironically names conservative media outlet..
Reason TV is a Libertarian media outlet
*Magazine*
Even if the purported science in this were to be taken as true, she is still painfully obvious in her insincerity and social currency bias. She has a purely win/lose outlook on everything and really shouldn't be trusted to be anything more than a propagandist.
Seems like a scientific form of astrology.
Seems like a bunch of BS on how to box, label, and number people for purposes of marginalizing those you don't agree with and exalting those that you do. Wonder if she has found a date yet?
My wife's brain chemistry, combined with a good hermitage determined it a good idea to marry me. What an insipid theory.
How many times did she tell you it is a hypothesis? A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.
What an insipid hypothesis.
That's bs. Yes probably once personality is linked to things like dopamine. It's a bit like recongicing a depressed person has less. If you lack or have sufficent of something it's probably influentual
What a snarky, unpleasant person.
Pseudoneuroscience.
How many times did she tell you it is a hypothesis? A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.
Its pretty solid stuff dude.
No offence but i think her understanding of oriental culture is just wrong. She thinks chinese are conformists because little boys line up to wait for trains. Well she should take a look at how the chinese drive: changing lanes without indicating, reversing on motorways, riding motorcycle in the wrong direction on a one way road with your baby in front and wife in the back, loading 10t cargo in a truck with 2t capacity, opening car door when driving through wildlife zoo full of tigers and lions and so on.
As a road originalist I am okay with all of that. The test for good driving should be whether you keep the cherry on your cigarette.
sounds more like astrology than science..
Romney is rigid??? He's the etch - a - sketch candidate! Not nearly rigid enough! A man who probably would not die for anything.
Don't mistake rigidity for intelligence.
I am as libertarian as they come and I don't fit into any of these pigeon holes.
spec24 - She said multiple times that these are not buckets and we all fall into these categories to varying degrees.
They aren't pigeon holes. We all possess these systems in some degree and at varying degrees. It's just that certain systems are more dominant at certain times and in certain minds.
It also is not a measurement of degree of politicization. I know plenty of people who are very libertarian in terms of their political beliefs, but they are dogmatic in their support of it.
the idea that biology influences political temperament is well established. But it's an influence. Influence isn't destiny. It's just a factor. It has almost nothing to do with you as an individual.
Libertarians price themselves out of the mainstream pigeonholes with either high honesty, or high IQ.
Thanks!