"high Conscientiousness implies a high degree of concern for internalized social norms - a tendency to feel good (here and now) when conforming to these social norms/ values - and/or a tendency to feel bad (e.g. guilty, ashamed, afraid) when transgressing or failing to follow these social norms.
And this is what links Conscientiousness to Agreeableness ... . High Agreeableness is a self-evaluation for having a dominating concern with the views of other people - paying close attention to knowing the emotions and wishes of others: that is, a calibration of one's own (observed or perceived) behaviors to stay in line with the expectations or desires of others[.] ...
... a person high in Conscientiousness and also Agreeableness is one who - here and now - derives the greatest satisfaction from his conformity to the social group, and is attentive to cues of social group values: and (more important) who has aversive feelings if he transgresses or he fails to follow social norms, such as would happen if creative thinking was in play."
Agreeableness is the ''feminine' consciousness and Consciousness is the 'masculine'' agreeableness. They are also signs of psychological domestication, specially when it happen without supra-correct scrutiny about social reality.
AntwortenLöschenConsciousnees also seems more abstract, less personal/less in first person interaction, more due to state/government/society social evaluation than to social cicles evaluation...
Or not, sorry if you dislike my comments here in your blog, just tell me and i will stop to comment, to toss my pseudo-and or subjective insights.
It's ok if you're commenting. In many cases I simply do not understand what you're trying to say. In my opinion the statement: "agreeableness is the feminine conscien(?)tiousness and conscien(?)tiousness is the male agreeableness" simply doesn't make any sense. Such statement generates some kind of headache, because you are equating categories which are different.
AntwortenLöschenSo, you don't understand what i mean and not how i write... ok
LöschenWhy for you this simply don't make any sense**
''because you are equating categories which are different.''
Again, very vague...
Agreeableness is more mentalistic, social, emotional, normatively feminine...
Conscientiousness [i'm confusing with consciousness, ok, i apologize for this] is more mechanicist, not so social, related to abstract social rules and not necessarily with interpersonal interactions... what i mean.
Similar to autism and schizophrenia, based on imprinted gene theory.
LöschenSo i said that on normative avg women are more agreeable and men more conscientious.
Mentalism = related to personal things
Mechanicism = related to broader spectrum of things not just or specially personal ones.
Thanks for the explanations, Santoculto. Now I think I understand what you meant with these statements. Although females are more agreeable than men, as far as I know on the whole there is no substantial sex difference in conscientiousness.
LöschenYes, my speculation here is to define agreeableness as a ''female-like'' psychological feature [we know women are, on very avg, considerably more agreeable than men] and conscientiousness as a ''male-like'' psychological feature, the masculine way to be agreeable, more cold, distant and formal than intimate as tend to happen with women. Because conscientiousness seems a larger concept than agreeableness so i think there are some of its facets which will be more masculine-directed than feminine [normatively speaking].
LöschenProbably there are some "heroic" forms or acts of altruism which are far more frequently observed at men than at women. Nevertheless I am not so sure about conscientiousness. If there is a difference in industriousness, it's certainly not large.
LöschenAgreeableness is very similar, a synonimous to SYMPATHY, the capacity to be... well, agreeable. This is the empathy in real and constant time.
LöschenWomen are more emotionally positive, and more emotional anyway, than men, based on our current normative distribution of psycho-cognitive traits.
Men tend to be more sympathetically formal, less emotional or more cold than women.
So i find conscientiousness a mechanicistic version of agreeableness and this a mentalistic version of conscientiousness.
The "big 5" are five seperate entities of the psychological/personality characteristics of people. These 5 categories exist because they are not linked with each other (or very weakly). Former categories which were found to be linked to each other were subsumed into one single category. That's the basic principle behind the big 5. If Dutton/Charlton claim this link exists, where is their empirical evidence?
AntwortenLöschenThe passage wasn't primarily about the relatedness or unrelatedness of agreeableness and conscientiousness, but about the view of the authors that both A and C generate conformity and as such high conscientiousness and high agreeableness should both be negatively associated with genuine creativity.
AntwortenLöschenEven worse to link 3 of the big 5 with each other. Again, the big 5 are 5 independent variables. There might be a cluster of high A plus high C which correlates with low openness (or it's subcategory: creativity), but I still haven't seen empirical evidence.
LöschenConformity is maybe mainly a cultural category, not an aspect of Big 5. Social norms differ between cultures. Conformity to social norms comes close to the subcategory politeness in A. But I don't see much of a relation between conformity to social norms and C - maybe for monks who vow to strive for industriousness and orderliness which is "next to godliness"?
J.B.Peterson often talks about that high C quite often correlates with low O and vice versa. So, there seems to be a cluster, but not a causation.
LöschenI'm low A (obviously), high C and high O. My conformity to social norms is rather dismal and it's burdensome for me if I have to conform.
It really is questionable if genuine creativity can be measured with an openness questionnair.
LöschenColin DeYoung and others wrote about "BigTwo":
LöschenHigher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health?
https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/higher-order-factors-of-the-big-five-predict-conformity-are-there
I enjoyed to read Colin DeYoung's articles but I have to admit that I really don't read much about the Big 5, the "Big 2", or the GFP. It's fun to create some personality questionnaires, but in comparison to intelligence tests or tests that measure real performance their predictive value is relatively low. So often it seems, if one looks at the quantitative level, that much talk about the Big Five traits is really just talk. It always sounds much better verbally than it looks statistically.
LöschenÜberhaupt würde ich mich an deiner Stelle nicht zu sehr auf deren "Überlappungsfreiheit" versteifen, dazu Gerhard Roth:
LöschenPROBLEM DER „BIG FIVE“
Die Kategorien sind inhaltlich inhomogen und nicht überlappungsfrei. Statistisch-faktorenanalytisch gesehen sind nur die Hauptfaktoren Extraversion und Neurotizismus weitgehend überlappungsfrei („orthogonal“).
http://akjf.at/index.php/downloadbereich/category/24-2-kongress-denk-und-handlungsraeume-der-psychologie?download=76:gerhard-roth
In particular the combination of high A and high C.
AntwortenLöschen