"Ambiguity tolerance, or how well you deal with uncertainty, is key in psychology. It measures someone's comfort with unclear info, open-ended problems, or situations lacking clear rules. Folks with high tolerance—like artists or entrepreneurs—embrace the unknown, think creatively, and don't stress over loose ends. They see ambiguity as a chance for innovation, not a threat. Low tolerance types prefer structure, crave specifics, and might feel anxious when plans shift or details are fuzzy. It's not good or bad—just wired differently. Research ties it to personality traits like openness in the Big Five model. In real life, jobs in law, medicine, or tech often reward high tolerance since decisions hinge on incomplete data."
I think this is another example of how personality at perhaps the very fundamental level is about empiricism and rationality. Not as B5 Openness, one dimension of five, but the basic dimension that most things boil down to. It's like a hajnal map of personality.
AntwortenLöschenHi Staffan, thanks for commenting again — I really appreciate it. And thank you for the suggestion; I’m glad you brought that up. I’d be very interested to hear you elaborate a bit further on that point. Have you perhaps covered this in more detail in a particular post on your blog?
AntwortenLöschenI may have, but I had a long break so I'm not sure. But to elaborate, I've had the suspicion for some time that a broad, explanatory theory is possible, but that is perhaps should be cognitive, like that of Jung. And the very basics of cognition is input, output, and whatever happens in between those. There is Gray's theory, but I can't see it as getting to a fundamental level, as for instance extraversion and sensation(seeking) both tap into approach but have different function. Similarly, Thought and introversion are unrelated but both tap into withdraw. For me, I can't think of anything more basic than input and output, so that would be a natural place to look for fundamentals of personality. And from what I've read about factor analysis, at the highest level, items seem to cluster together into something like an empirical and a judgmental factor. But I don't know anyone doing any research on the nature of such factors.
AntwortenLöschenIn my impression, there are two such basic factors, not just as a result of factor analysis, but as a matter of input and output. From an evolutionary perspective, we start of leaning towards input, because we need data to form some internal representation of the world. But with age we become more output, since life is short (or it used to be) and keeping that representation continuously editable would be costly and likely confusing. So we grow up, and now we look at the map rather than the world. But then, there is individual variation in this, some people keep their maps open for new input to a greater extent, those you mentioned above, with ambiguity tolerance. They stay more child-like, for better or worse. The low-editors, on the other hand, grow up fast, and go by the book. This isn't exactly new stuff, I think, but it would be interesting if someone approached the subject in this way. The functions can be seen as different ways of creating input and output. The attitudes, extraversion-introversion, could also be seen from this perspective. It could relate to how dangerous the environment is, how much social interaction is demanded, etc. It does look like a matter of sensory load, extravert engaging because they will have to make a faster decision, when there is danger, or in social interactions, both situations demand that. When it comes to group differences, I think a lot of this can be explained as a product of evolution; at the individual level, maybe just some random thing like recombination.
Sometimes I've been thinking I should sit down and do some serious reading, put relevant data into a note-app like Obsidian and see if I can figure it all out, just from existing data, since I'm not in a situation where I can conduct my own research.
Well that's about it (although lots more to be said, of course).
I wrote a longer comment, but when I pushed the button Veröffentlichen, it vanished. Or is it in moderation?
AntwortenLöschenIt was just in moderation. :-)
AntwortenLöschenThanks for your comment, Staffan.
AntwortenLöschen"But then, there is individual variation in this, some people keep their maps open for new input to a greater extent, those you mentioned above, with ambiguity tolerance. They stay more child-like, for better or worse. The low-editors, on the other hand, grow up fast, and go by the book."
Perhaps this is closely related to the Plasticity dimension proposed by Colin DeYoung?
"Sometimes I've been thinking I should sit down and do some serious reading, put relevant data into a note-app like Obsidian and see if I can figure it all out, just from existing data, since I'm not in a situation where I can conduct my own research."
That sounds like a great idea. I’d genuinely enjoy reading a new post from you on it.
If you were to sit down for some serious reading, what kinds of books or articles would you start with?
Yes, Plasticity is one name that comes up when you look at the highest order. Of course not everyone comes up with two factors, but very often that is the case, and they have that input/output appearance.
LöschenI'm not sure of exact titles as I've pursued other interests for quite a while, but neuroscience, evolution, cognition would be the general fields. I think neurotransmitter systems could make up the biological basis of individual (and group) differences, and one idea I'm toying with is that agriculture might have selected for Thought which may be connected to acetylcholine.
Anyway, I'll keep you posted if I make a return to all of that.