What factor 1 represents is in fact the personality trait of Extraversion, whilst factor 2 is the trait of Neuroticism. The nature of these traits will be the subject of subsequent chapters. What we have done here is tried to understand the way that traits emerge from data.
Personality theorists do not posit their traits a priori, or choose them by Cabbalistic speculation, or by any other 28 Character Matters non-empirical means. In general, they work with lots and lots of data gathered in various ways from real people, and they try to agree on the characteristic factors as placeholders for traits that the data reveal.
This was noticed as long ago as the early s, and frequently replicated with diverse types of data, but the insight seemed to languish. They have been given various names and precise characterizations, and we will meet them one by one later, but Table 3 gives a brief overview for those who are not familiar with them. Dimension High scorers are. Low scorers are. For example, Raymond Catell is well known for a framework using sixteen personality traits. Similarly, Hans Eysenck advocated the view that you can capture much of the variation in personality data with just three 30 Character Matters super-factors, which he called Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism.
The apparent discrepancies just tend to point the way back to the consensus. In fact there is. In one study, people took a personality questionnaire on three occasions six years apart. Character Matters 31 This is extremely high. In fact, it is pretty much the same as the r value you get if people take the test twice with a time interval of six days. It shows that variation due to quirks and accidents of mood is quite limited, and that once you take this into account, the underlying scores are as constant over a decade as they are over a week.
Correlations between ratings from the target themselves and ratings from those who know them well are typically around 0. This has more typically been done in the university laboratory than by gangs of itinerant psychologists jumping out at people all over London, but the results are useful nonetheless. People high in Extraversion really do talk a lot, just as they say they do. When asked to think about or view something stressful or unpleasant, people high in Neuroticism really do become more upset than people low in Neuroticism.
When people high in Agreeableness listen to stories, they really do pay more attention to the mental states of the characters than those low in Agreeableness. We could multiply examples here. The more 32 Character Matters interesting question though, is whether scores on personality inventories really predict outcomes that people outside of academic psychology care about.
That is, do they predict outcomes in real life? Lowell Kelly and James Conley. Data with this level of time depth are a rare and wonderful resource for those of us interested in the long-term patterns of human life. Between and , Kelly recruited couples, mainly from the US state of Connecticut, who were engaged to be married. Kelly kept in touch with them, collecting data on the state of their marriage—that is, both whether it was intact, and how happy they were within it—in the years immediately after their weddings, again in —5, and again in —1.
From these, he extracted an average personality score for four dimensions, which were basically Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness. If either the man or the woman is high in Neuroticism, divorce is much more likely, and if they do stay together, the marriage is less happy, as indicated by the average of his and her independent ratings forty years later.
The negative emotions that the high Neuroticism scorer is prone to experience really do make a difference in real life and in the long haul. There are also other interesting patterns. The accounts of reasons for divorce that Kelly and Conley collected suggest that low Conscientiousness men are basically bad heads of household. Bear in mind that these are couples married before the war, with what we would now regard as a rather traditional gender division of labour. The lack of effect of female Conscientiousness can be attributed to the fact that women of this period did not generally play a provider role.
What distinguishes those who stay in an unhappy marriage from those who divorce is levels of Extraversion and Agreeableness. Again this makes sense. As for Agreeableness, my interpretation would be that someone 34 Character Matters high in empathy and the capacity for fellow-feeling would see when a relationship was causing two people to suffer, and try to work it out one way or another.
Someone with less connection to the mental states of others might just go on despite coldness or even hostility. An even more remarkable study is that begun by Lewis Terman in Terman was interested primarily in intelligence and its effects on life outcomes. By , half of the male Termites and a third of the female Termites had died. Since personality data had been collected back in childhood, this provided a unique opportunity for Howard Friedman and colleagues to examine the effect of personality on longevity.
Strikingly, being low on Conscientiousness is a strong predictor of death, increasing its probability in any given year by about 30 per cent. Why would this be? The chief causes of mortality were cancer and heart disease, and those high Character Matters 35 in Conscientiousness are likely to be protected from these.
They smoke and drink less, for a start, and are probably more scrupulous in other aspects of their behaviour too. Friedman and colleagues also found that those who in childhood were optimistic and sociable had a differential probability of dying. The more sociable and optimistic they were, the more likely they were to die. Yes, more likely. Though this cuts against an obvious intuition we have about the value of positive emotion, it is explicable by the greater risks that extraverts take, as we shall see in Chapter 3.
Being alive and having a successful partnership are profoundly important elements, in both experiential and evolutionary terms, of any human life, and so if some pen-and-paper rating scale that takes ten minutes to complete predicts them, however imperfectly, we should sit up and take notice.
We should try to understand how it could be that such a scale could have any predictive value given the preposterous and unpredictable complexity of human life. That, of course, is what this book is about. I said in the Introduction that personality-trait psychology was undergoing something of a renaissance.
To need a renaissance, you have to have had dark ages, and personality theory 36 Character Matters has had those. Through the s and s, there were a lot of problematic results to explain, and widespread scepticism about the value of measuring a few general personality traits.
I will spend the rest of this chapter looking at the reasons for this scepticism, and seeing how personality-trait theory has emerged strengthened from its trials. When we look at rating data, as we did earlier in this chapter, we conclude that interest in travel, social activities, and sex all go together, and we infer that they are underlain by some common dimension, which we decide to call Extraversion.
Extraversion itself cannot be directly observed, or even measured, apart from through its effects on the ratings from which it is inferred. Thus it cannot possibly explain why someone talks a lot. How do we know they possess dormitive virtue? Because they make people sleep of course. They do at least tell us which human behaviours tend to co-occur.
Thus, the criticism of circularity is both true and, as I shall argue, unfair. It is unfair because personality-trait psychologists do not, in general, believe that we should stop there. It is just one step, and an important one at that. The marriage and longevity results discussed above suggest that they can. In other words, the ultimate aim is to say why some people are more interested in travel than others, or why some people are more prone to depression and anxiety.
This, of course, is the really interesting stage, and it is this challenge that the current renaissance in personality psychology is beginning to take on. Sometimes we are really asking about what the structures in the nervous system are whose functioning gives rise to the trait. In the last few years, we have made striking progress on this front, principally because brain-imaging technologies such as PET and fMRI have become available.
These techniques allow us to measure the size and shape of particular nuclei noninvasively in the brains of awake individuals, but more than this, they allow us to track the changes in metabolic activity of brain structures as the person responds to a particular task. Though these techniques are new, they are already yielding evidence that personality traits have a discoverable brain basis.
A network of brain areas that have long been thought to be involved in emotions and their regulation differ across people in size and structure, in baseline activity, and in Character Matters 39 magnitude of activation when particular tasks are performed. These areas include the amygdala, the anterior cingulate cortex, the nucleus accumbens, and parts of the pre-frontal cortex. These differences have been shown by a sizable number of studies to correlate with personality traits as measured by questionnaire especially Extraversion, Neuroticism, and, to a lesser extent, Conscientiousness , or with other characteristics such as depression that are very strongly linked to personality.
It is very likely they will turn out to be shorthand for suites of differences in neural structure and function across multiple brain regions. This is partly a question of nature and nurture. Behaviour geneticists have techniques for addressing such questions, by comparing the similarity in traits between identical and non-identical twins, or between adoptive and biological siblings.
These situations are all experiments of nature. Thus, by looking at differences in 40 Character Matters correlations—for example, the degree to which identical twins are more similar to each other than non-identical twins—behaviour geneticists can tease out how much of the variation in personality is accounted for by heredity, and how much by shared environment. In a few cases, we even have some idea which genes are involved. We will have more to say about genetics, evolution, and the brain in subsequent chapters, but it is clear that in at least two senses of why, personality research is moving at speed beyond the merely descriptive stage.
It is often claimed that personality theorists think that only the person, not the situation, is important in predicting behaviour. It is also sometimes claimed that the actual predictive power of personality constructs is dismally low. Neither Character Matters 41 of these claims is true, but they are so important as to merit examining in some detail.
Well, of course. Evolution has furnished us with an exquisite set of mental mechanisms that are designed to solve the adaptive problems that our ancestors recurrently faced.
The very essence of all these mechanisms is that they are turned on by a particular class of situation you are in danger , and they facilitate a particular set of responses increases in heart rate, adrenaline and vigilance, desire to leave, and so on. Devices to map situations to sets of behaviours are what natural selection builds into any organism more complex than a virus.
Thus, there is simply no question that a strong predictor of whether someone will be afraid at a given moment or not is whether they are, for example, in a medium-sized cage with a wild bear. The overwhelming effect of the situation 42 Character Matters appears especially clearly when we focus on what have been called strong situations, as in the bear example above. Strong situations are those very close to the prototype which natural selection designed the behaviour for.
A strong situation for fear would be: large carnivore, no cover, nowhere to run, no weapon; whilst a strong situation for sexual arousal might be: maximally attractive available member of target gender, behaving promisingly, in relaxed mood, in intimate setting. Few people would avoid fear in the one case, or attraction in the other. Life, however, does not mainly consist of strong situations. It usually consists of a bewildering series of much weaker situations.
What I mean by weaker is that they contain some cues that might lead them to be categorized a certain way, but are ultimately ambiguous. For example, walking at evening through an unknown neighbourhood, I might perceive some cues potentially indicative of danger; the narrow, shaded streets, large male strangers lumbering about, and so forth.
Such a scene may or may not in fact be dangerous. How can one tell? This is where we should expect to see an effect of individual differences. The scene contains enough cues that the anxiety mechanism will get activated if its threshold for activation in a particular person is rather low. Similarly, we all fume if we are directly, gratuitously, and unambiguously insulted, presumably because Character Matters 43 some reputation-defending mechanism kicks in.
However, in an average working week there are probably a dozen interactions that could conceivably be interpreted as subtle slights or insults. The explanation for the difference is that the threshold for activation of the relevant psychological mechanism differs from person to person. Situations trigger mental mechanisms, which facilitate suites of behaviour, but people differ in how easily or how strongly particular mechanisms get triggered by situational cues.
When rating data from questionnaires are compared to actual behavioural episodes, the correlations tend to be 44 Character Matters quite weak. This is true as far as it goes, but it is worth remembering that all predictive power in psychology is pretty low. Psychology is not like physics, where you can predict the trajectory of an individual object to many decimal places. The best that any kind of psychology can hope for is some predictive power at the statistical level across a group of people.
We will never be at the stage of making exact predictions about what individuals will do and when. Even given this general point, though, it is true that correlations between personality measures and behaviour can be relatively low, particularly when the behavioural measures are based on a one-off, such as what someone will do when faced, on a single occasion, with an experimental set-up.
However, once you aggregate to behaviour across multiple instances, the importance of personality becomes much clearer. Let me illustrate this with an example. For any single one of these instances, being low on the personality trait of Agreeableness might make, say, only a 10 per cent difference to the probability of snapping irritably at that colleague. For predicting snapping in any single episode, then, the power of Character Matters 45 the personality variable is quite weak.
The more we aggregate behaviours across multiple instances, the more important personality as a predictor becomes. Such effects of personality on situations are very common. Why do extraverts have more casual sex than anyone else? It 46 Character Matters may be that many introverts would also like to do so, and if given the appropriate situation, they would. Extraverts are more likely to talk to strangers, get to know people more easily, and go to more parties, parties that are of course full of other extraverts.
Thus, extraverts make a set of choices that lead to situations where the contexts that lead to casual sex are readily available. Even if the act itself is entirely determined by situational cues, extraverts will have it more often simply because of their choice of situations. This kind of relationship between personality and situation is called situation selection. Another example would be transitions into and out of marriage.
You might think that marriage and divorce were quintessential examples of externally originating life events. Thus, we would count them as powerful situational determinants of behaviour.
There is actually a substantial genetic effect on both Character Matters 47 the likelihood of marriage and the likelihood of divorce, as evidenced by the relatively similar marital histories of identical twins. Indeed, the propensities to experience positive and negative life events have recently been found to have substantial genetic heritability, since identical twins are much more similar in terms of life events than fraternal twins are.
Indeed, life itself can be seen as a meandering run through possibility space, in which each act we perform has an effect on the landscape of eventualities we will face next. However, for the introvert, not being able to stop talking is a much rarer event than it is for the extravert. They are just not so often in contexts that push them over their threshold for this behaviour to happen. We each have a characteristic way of being, and aggregating our behaviour across a range of contexts allows that way of being to emerge.
This way of being is very important, since each one of the major personality dimensions has been shown to have consequences for life outcomes, as we shall see in the coming chapters.
In one sense, all personality traits already do this. Neuroticism, for example, is the overactivity of negative emotions, and therefore to say that someone is high in Neuroticism must mean saying that they will react strongly when in that class of situations that can be appraised as containing a threat to the self.
However, this leaves unanswered the question of how broad or narrow the classes of situation should be. Should we measure Neuroticism in general, or, say Neuroticism about disease, Neuroticism about colleague approval, and Neuroticism about personal relationships separately?
When you use the narrower sub-traits, you get higher self-consistency than when you use the broad one. However, you still get some selfconsistency—a substantial amount, actually—when you use the broad one, and of course you get it across a much broader range of situations.
The answer is that we can do both. Measuring the sub-traits will give us maximal predictive power for a rather limited set of situations. It is because of the weak self-consistency of Neuroticism that we can predict that in general people who worry about disease will also worry more than average about other things. Why do these very broad traits exist? After all, you might have had a history of dependable and reliable relationships, but some unsettling brushes with disease.
The answer must be that the mental mechanisms that underlie worrying about disease share brain circuitry with the mental mechanisms that underlie worrying about other things. Any variation in the responsiveness of those shared circuits will show up in all kinds of worrying, not just one kind. The handbrake and the footbrake do different jobs and have some separate components, but they also rely on the same hydraulic system.
The more two components draw on shared machinery, the greater the extent to which the Character Matters 51 performance of one will be a predictor of the performance of the other. Each of those psychological functions will also be affected by non-shared circuits, which is why the intercorrelations are not perfect.
We have seen that a suite of things such as interest in sex, interest in travel, interest in social activities, and competitiveness, all go loosely together to form the Extraversion family. What links these diverse behaviours? I shall argue later that they all draw on the same brain reward circuits. We know that the same brain structures are involved in the anticipation of rewards as diverse as seeing an attractive opposite-face, receiving money, receiving food, and taking an addictive drug.
Some combination of all of these can also be true. Thus it is no surprise that there are families of psychological mechanisms drawing on shared or overlapping resources. Since a synoptic view of personality is the objective of this book, I will concentrate almost entirely on the broad trait level from now on. We have established some key points in this chapter. Personality traits are meaningful, stable, partly genetically inherited consistencies in classes of behaviour.
They can be measured using ratings. They come to have predictive power when aggregated over many instances, and as well as affecting our responses to life events, they affect which life events we are going to have. First, though, we must turn to the question of evolution. Where there were large seeds to be cracked, beaks were thick and powerful. Where there were holes to be explored, beaks were thin and slender.
Since big-beaked parents have big-beaked offspring, and slender-beaked parents have slender-beaked offspring, the populations on each island had gradually come to diverge in their beak characteristics. This of course is natural selection in action, and natural selection produces variation in organisms across varying habitats.
If you plot the frequency distribution of beak sizes on an island, there is a clear central tendency, but there is a wide spread of beak sizes either side of this average. Beak size is highly heritable, which means that it is largely transmitted genetically.
Because this question is so important for everything that follows, we will, in this chapter, be making a short excursus into evolutionary biology.
Heritable means related to differences in genes. The genome is made up of 56 The Beak of the Finch many different genes around 30, in the human case. Each of these genes, when activated, has some biological effect, such as causing the synthesis of a particular protein that is used in our cells. Very often, a gene exists in two or more variant forms in the population. Such variants arise because of genetic mutation. That is, in the copying of genes as sperm and eggs are made, and cells divide, errors may on rare occasions creep in, such that the new genetic sequence differs from its ancestor by some repeated, deleted, transposed, or altered sequence of genetic code.
Once a mutation has happened, the individual bearing it will have a chance of passing it on to their children, who may pass it on to theirs, and so a mutation that starts out in one individual has the potential to become widespread in the population if circumstances and chance aid its spread.
Variation in the genome is relatively abundant. Surveys of human genes suggest that more than half of them The Beak of the Finch 57 have a variant that actually makes a difference to how it does its job, and that exists at some appreciable frequency in the human population.
Very often, there will be an overwhelmingly common form, and a rare variant, and we may simply interpret the latter as a mutated version that has arisen recently and hung around locally for a while, but will go extinct fairly quickly.
In other cases, though, the rarer forms are not so rare, and show every sign of being ancient in origin, since they are widely dispersed across humankind.
On the islands where the optimal beak size is thick, the birds carrying those variants will be the ones who survive and reproduce best. The ones carrying the alternative, thin-beak variants will leave fewer offspring, so that, over the generations, they tend to reduce in proportion until they disappear.
There should be no genetic variation left within the population of a single island. Another way of saying this is that mutation creates genetic variation, and then natural selection winnows it. Winnowing is the agricultural practice of losing all the waste matter in 58 The Beak of the Finch order to be left with just the best stuff. And this is what natural selection does; the genetic variants that make individuals that are best suited to the local environment gradually increase their frequency in the population, until nothing else is left.
However, the fact that twin and family studies show that Neuroticism is heritable shows that this is not in fact the case. This is obviously not true. In humans, there is strong evidence for heritability in intelligence, personality characteristics, height, and many other attributes. It is beyond question that these all affect survival and reproduction.
One just has to point to the examples of personality in relation to marriage and longevity that we have already met in this book. What then could be going on? Each of these is quite a reasonable design, and there is no strong a priori reason to think one would be better than the other. You end up with a mess. This would be even more true when you ended up with just half of each of the integrated suites of genes you needed to make an emotional circuit that worked.
Fifty per cent of an integrated suite of genes is not as good as per cent. It is probably not even 50 per cent as good. It is probably completely useless. Sexual reproduction, then, selects strongly for a species-typical basic architecture.
If you look at the examples I have discussed—height, personality, intelligence—it is clear that these are basically The Beak of the Finch 61 continuous dimensions. There is genetic variation in height, because there are lots of ways genetic variants can cause the growing programme to go just a bit faster, or go on just a bit longer, without disrupting the overall coordination of the system.
Everyone has a body with the same basic body plan, but its size varies from person to person. Everyone has the same negative emotions, but in people high in Neuroticism they are relatively easy to evoke. This is always worth remembering in research on individual differences; we are just dealing with continuous variation over a set of universal mechanisms. Tooby and Cosmides assume that usually there will be an optimal place to be on the continuum in terms of reproductive success, and that the winnowing action of natural selection will go to work until everyone has the genotype most likely to produce this optimal value.
In , on the small islet of Daphne Major, there was a severe drought. The small seeds on which the birds normally fed became rare, and the only possible avenue to survival was to eat larger, tougher seeds that the birds would normally ignore. The Grants measured the thickness of beaks in the population both before and after the drought. Before the drought, the average beak size was 9. The survivors of the drought were drawn disproportionately from the larger-beaked end of the distribution, so that in the post-drought population, the average beak size was now about This is natural selection at work, using ecological conditions to pull the population towards a new, larger-beaked form.
This is all very well, but why does it lead to the maintenance of variation? If drought conditions went on year after year, you would soon have a population all of whom had The Beak of the Finch 63 beaks of 11 millimetres plus. In fact, in , the weather was unusually rainy, and small, soft seeds abounded.
In this year, it was the birds with relatively small beaks who were most likely to survive and reproduce, so the population was tugged back in the other direction. As Coriolanus said in a rather different context, ripeness is all. Even on one very small island, its pull is quite inconsistent along the continuum of beak size. In any given year, there is a best beak size to have, but it is not the same best from year to year.
Given this inconsistency, it is very hard for selection to make the population converge on a single beak-size genotype. This oscillation goes on, ceaselessly, but because of 64 The Beak of the Finch its changeability, selection can never settle on one, universal optimum. If having a thick bill makes you do best when there are droughts and also best when the year is wet, then there is no game on.
Thick bills will simply prevail. Only if thick bills are good in some contexts and bad in others will variation persist. For example, it could be that if everyone else has huge beaks and is cleaning up all the big seeds, then you could do quite well as a smallbeak eating the scraps they ignore, even if big seeds are the most common type available.
This kind of effect is called negative frequency dependent selection. It simply means that sometimes you will do well just as long as your type of individual is rare in the population. As your type becomes the most common one, individuals of some other type might then start to do well because there are few competitors for their niche.
Several genes being involved ensures a steady supply of new variation to keep the process going. Fluctuating selection is not the only force that can lead to the maintenance of genetic variation. To investigate the major alternative, let us consider the train of the peacock.
We all know about how peacocks use their splendid, fan-like train to catch the attention of dowdy, but, to the peacock, fanciable peahens. As it turns out, the peacocks with the most elaborate trains are the most fancied by peahens, with the result that they father the overwhelming majority of peachicks in 66 The Beak of the Finch wild populations.
No monogamy here, remember; the males with the most elaborate trains can impregnate many females, leaving many more misshapen males with no offspring at all. Despite this, there is considerable heritable variation in train elaboration. This is puzzling. The selective advantage of males with the genes for elaborate trains is so overwhelming you would imagine that within a few generations only their genotype would be left. The genes for simpler trains would have gone extinct, and rapidly at that, leaving a single train genotype that led to maximal elaboration.
To understand why this does not happen, we need to consider the numbers of genes involved. Growing an elaborate train is hard. They are big and extremely expensive in terms of energy and protein. You can only grow a perfect one if all the machinery of growth metabolism in your body is working perfectly. In short, growing a perfect train requires so many resources that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that The Beak of the Finch 67 everything about you needs to be working well in order to do it.
Now if every system in your body needs to be working well in order to grow it, then a genetic mutation that has a negative effect on any system in your body is going to show up, indirectly, in your train. When mutations arise in genes, their most common effect is to make the system work a bit less well.
It is easy to see why. Take your car, and randomly mutate one of the components, like the spark plug or a light bulb. Make it a little bit bigger or smaller, or change the relative sizes of its subparts. You might make it work better, and if you did, your new design could get adopted throughout the car industry. This is because the component already has a great deal of design history built into it, and you are just tweaking it at random.
Mutation, then, usually makes things work less well. Given that there are many genes in the genome, and that each one has a small chance of mutating with every generation, there are quite a lot of mutations around.
It has been estimated that each of us carries one or two new ones that arose in the production of sperm and egg by our parents.
In 68 The Beak of the Finch addition, we probably each carry about —2, mutations that arose earlier in our family history, and whose destiny is to be winnowed from the population in the fullness of time. The load of mutations will in general be rather unequally distributed, and when we mate with someone, we want to choose an individual with as few as possible, because we want to give our little ones an unmutated start in life. The males with the best trains are simply of higher genetic quality overall, and they pass this to their offspring of both sexes.
With thousands of genes able to affect the display of the trait, and with each of these having a chance of mutating in every generation, then variation just comes faster than even the strongest selection can winnow it out. Everyone has some harmful mutations. The contest simply becomes who has fewer than his competitors. Fitness-indicator traits, then, retain population genetic variation through the force of mutation alone.
If you are a peahen, you should always mate with the male with the most elaborate train, regardless of the long-term weather forecast.
This is an argument from plausibility rather than a well-demonstrated fact. It is really quite easy to 70 The Beak of the Finch identify situations in which a higher level of any given personality trait would be useful, but also situations where a higher level would be harmful.
In fact, at the extremes, personality dimensions always become pathological, and this is very different from the situation with respect to peacock train elaboration, where more is simply better, and less simply worse.
Only time and further research will tell. Physical symmetry is one obvious one. More symmetrical men are perceived as more attractive, and have more sexual partners, than the rest of us.
There is no drawback to being more symmetrical; you do it if you can. Intelligence tests correlate with reaction time and spatial abilities, and predict performance at practical jobs and tasks that have little to do The Beak of the Finch 71 with academic or scholastic learning. Whatever they measure is some kind of index of how well the nervous system is running overall.
Intelligence is also positively correlated with physical symmetry. There is really no known disadvantage, other things being equal, to being more intelligent. I just think personality traits have a quite different character, as we shall see. That is, it is a variation in the structure of the body. Is there any evidence for genetic variation in behavioural traits in animals? In fact, there is plenty. All kinds of continuous traits that have been studied, in many different types of organism, tend to show variation.
Of course, identifying a personality dimension in a non-human species is a different business from human research. You have to print the questionnaires on water-proof paper for a start. Sometimes it has been possible to show that animal personality traits are heritable, just as they are for humans. When put in a tank with a clear partition through to an adjoining tank containing a pumpkinseed, some guppies will swim closer than others to the predator, and stay near to it for more of the time.
This tendency is rather consistent within individuals on repeated trials. Some guppies are simply disposed to be more wary than others.
In a classic study, Lee Dugatkin assigned guppies to three groups; high wariness, medium wariness, The Beak of the Finch 73 and low wariness, using an adjoining tank task of the type I have just described. He put guppies from each group into a tank with a pumpkinseed. The Beak of the Finch 54 3. Wanderers 79 4.
Worriers 5. Controllers 6. Empathizers 7. Poets 8. The Other Half 9. Oscar Wilde, De Profundis. Page 8 Introduction I do not plead guilty to a shallow view of human nature, when I propose to apply, as it were, a foot-rule to its heights and depths. Francis Galton Lee is a successful, smart, business executive, rising 35 and rising through the ranks at the same time. He is considered effective and dynamic at work. He does not suffer fools gladly, and if he thinks colleagues or suppliers are trying to pull one over on him, he is quick to speak his mind.
As a result, though he is good at what he does, he builds up enemies. He has been to a fair few exotic countries, and for at least some of these, he has decided that he hates the natives. They are too rude, or too slow, or invade his personal space. He hates people who cut him up on the road, or barge in front of him in line, or make him wait. He is quick to get angry when this happens, and not averse to a muttered, usually scatolog- ical, insult.
Drawing on an anonymous packet that … Expand. Atheism and social cognition. Catherine Caldwell-Harris is correct that individual variations in personality and cognitive style affect religiosity, and a good deal of scientific literature suggests that some features of the ty View 1 excerpt, cites background. Who are the "Clever Sillies"?
The intelligence, personality, and motives of clever silly originators and those who follow them. Abstract Charlton's Clever Sillies model argues that high IQ people lack common sense and advocate foolish ideas due to the personality disposition that is associated with high IQ. We argue … Expand. View 2 excerpts, cites background.
Playfulness, Ideas, and Creativity: A Survey. This article investigates whether self-reports about playfulness are related to self-reports about creativity and the alternate uses of objects.
An on-line survey was conducted of how people think … Expand. Highly Influenced. Artificial personality and disfluency. View 3 excerpts, cites methods. Elaborating the Mastery State and the Confidence Frame.
0コメント