Introversion – the hidden face of sanity?

April 26, 2006

Since the birth of Millennium, its members have often pondered the fact that this religion needed even to arise at all. The utility of the Method, the necessity for carefully discovering rather than thoughtlessly declaring moral truths, and the multifaceted benefits of eugenics all tend to strike Seekers as obvious, and the fact that most people, even those who otherwise may appear to be of fairly high intelligence, seem to struggle in the opposite direction, has always been something of a mystery. Various explanations for this phenomenon were casually proposed, some of these invoking cultural factors, but most arguing for the importance of psychometric variables. After extensive discussion, psychological traits proved to be unlikely solutions to the problem. However, although the failure of personality models to satisfactorily explain irrational subjectivity may point to a sociocultural cause for this kind of behavior, the personality approach need not be abandoned entirely. This paper represents an attempt to record the current state of understanding and broaden it by arguing that the personality factor identified as Extraversion/Introversion, while ignored throughout previous discussions, is of crucial importance for the overall tendency to accept reality as it exists.

Before going on, it will be useful to provide a name and some background for the hypothesized trait in question. Since this trait is mysterious (it may not even exist!) it will be dubbed .X. throughout this paper. Trait X in its simplest form is believed to represent the tendency to retain opinions even when available evidence shows them to be unlikely. A person high in trait X is conceptualized as being predisposed towards self-faith, subjectivity, and irrationality; such a person will, it is proposed, enter into discussions without considering as legitimate possibilities any opposing viewpoints which may arise, seeking merely to break down resistance to his own position.

In examining the relationship between this hypothesized trait X and human personality, it will be necessary to consider the six clusters of variable traits which psychometric science has consistently discovered in human beings all over the world. These traits are:

• Intelligence: Comprehension, pattern recognition, problem solving
• Openness: Imagination, aesthetic sense, intellectual curiosity
• Conscientiousness: Organization, persistence, productivity
• Agreeableness: Kindness, sympathy, trust
• Neuroticism: Negative emotionality, particularly anxiety
• Extraversion: Assertiveness, sociability, positive emotionality

It is perhaps easy for personality theorists familiar with the Five Factor Model to jump to the conclusion that psychometric Openness would be the most important trait regarding the expression of trait X; individuals scoring low in Openness are generally described throughout the literature as rigid, inflexible, or dogmatic. Since the relationship between X and Openness probably seems so obvious as to be nearly axiomatic, this paper will explore that possible relationship in some depth.

The cluster of traits identified as psychometric Openness include curiosity, imagination, openness to ideas, unconventionality, and a tendency towards political liberalism. These suggest a tendency to avoid the behaviors associated with trait X, insofar as an Open individual seems more likely to explore ideas and possibilities, and the connection with political liberalism allows the effects of Openness to be explored using political groups as proxies. To quote McCrae (1996), .Voters who preferred candidates like Nixon, Wallace, and Reagan scored higher on Rokeach's Dogmatism scale than did supporters of McGovern and Carter.. Rokeach.s Dogmatism scale predated the five factor model, but had a number of correlates to traits now known to relate to Openness, including authoritarian submission (positively) and aesthetic sensitivity (negatively). Additionally, Democrats have been found to have higher rates of belief in evolution, and lower rates of belief in supernatural and paranormal phenomena such as God, miracles, angels, hell, ghosts, UFOs, witches, astrology, and reincarnation (Singam, 2006). (It is beyond the scope of this essay to examine the veracity of all of these beliefs, so readers will have to judge for themselves whether or not this supports the notion that Openness reduces the expression of trait X.)

Despite all of this, there is a very good reason to reject Openness as the sole factor in the development of this trait: The classic example of trait X is provided by well informed bioegalitarians.those who are aware of the vast body of research regarding the issues of race and mental ability, yet still cling to the notion that all racial groups are of equal ability. The staunchest bioegalitarians are almost always politically liberal, and therefore have a pronounced tendency towards Openness, not away from it. It is (tough-minded) conservatives who are most sympathetic to notions of racial differences, and such people tend to be low in Openness, not high.

In light of the fact that racial realism is an informal tenet of Millennium, this argument of course may merely expose bias on the part of Seekers; after all, atheists would probably insist that Christians display X in rejecting arguments against the nonexistence of God, while advocates of hospital-birth would probably insist that mothers who choose to give birth at home are displaying X in the rejection of their own arguments. Yet Seekers at this time are drawn almost universally from bioegalitarian households, and therefore changed their minds at some point not only on this issue but on a host of others; had they been high in trait X, the theory goes that they would have never even switched religions at all!

But more important is the observation that bioegalitarianism, while ostensibly a scientific position, is different from scientific positions such as those on Einsteinian relativity or evolution. While they may be wrong, evolutionists and physicists show unified agreement on the theories of evolution and relativity, but there is no theory of racial equality. Some bioegalitarians hold that race does not exist, others that race exists but that intelligence does not, others hold that IQ cannot be meaningfully measured, or that IQ is not a heritable trait, while others claim that the IQ differences exist but are merely artifacts of discrimination, or poverty, or poor schooling, or stereotype threat, and do not represent an underlying genetic difference. So the widespread phenomenon of bioegalitarianism, at least on the surface, lacks the character of a genuine scientific position, but instead bears more resemblance to a series of rationalizations. How each person chooses to rationalize this belief does not seem to be of critical importance to the believers in human equality; all that is required is for human equality to be accepted as fact.

So while Openness may yet prove to reduce the expression of trait X in some way, the evidence as it stands is not as supportive of this as might be hoped. If there is a link between X and personality, it may be necessary to look elsewhere in order to find it.

Before considering the possible relevance of personality traits, it is worth mentioning that Intelligence may influence trait X in some way; indeed, studies find that dogmatism relates to low intelligence (Brand, 1987) and reasoning ability is a central aspect of the cluster of abilities tapped into by IQ tests (Wall Street, 1994). But intelligence is ruled out of this discussion.the question is why otherwise intelligent individuals behave in a flagrantly subjective manner.

Conscientiousness may play some role in the development or expression of the combination of behaviors dubbed trait X. Conscientiousness does show minor correlations with religiosity (Saroglau, 2002) and minor negative correlations with belief in the paranormal (Huntley & Peeters, 2002) although these seem to reflect a simple predisposition of opinion rather than to the ability or inability to move past predispositions. It has been observed that self-reported cautiousness and deliberation correlate with the cluster of traits labeled Conscientiousness, but this does not necessarily have anything to do with persistence of belief.individuals high in Conscientiousness may come to better decisions at first, but there is no a priori reason to expect that they will be more flexible about changing them as the need arises. Indeed, deliberation seems to be only a peripheral aspect of this trait, where the more central aspects of Conscientiousness relate to organization, productivity, and persistence. So Conscientiousness does not seem to be related to the trait in question.

Agreeableness does influence a person.s beliefs, but it seems to function in a similar manner to Conscientiousness rather than relating directly to trait X. In studies, Agreeable individuals show higher religiosity (Huntley & Peeters, 2005, Saroglou, 2002), and lower prejudice (Ekehammar et al. 2004). Based on these and similar results, Agreeableness probably introduces an idealistic, emotional criterion which any idea had to pass in order to be accepted; ideas which seemed too harsh would be rejected simply on the grounds that they were harsh. But disagreeable individuals are also found by psychometric inventories to be selfish and untrusting, and might just as easily reject arguments out of sheer, pig-headed suspiciousness, particularly arguments which seemed too sentimental. An idea which appears either harsh or sentimental is not necessarily false on those grounds, and while Agreeableness seems likely to predispose a person towards one sort of beliefs and away from another, trait X is supposed to be the extent to which a person is governed by these predispositions.

In this sense, Agreeableness might show some relationship to illogical patterns of sorting out truth from falsity. A person high in Agreeableness seems likely to agree with what another person says simply out of the desire to get along. Disagreeable individuals do not (except in extreme cases) show a desire not to get along, but they will probably be less likely to agree with someone just for the sake of agreeing with them. So there might be some link between Agreeableness and poor ability to be objective, but not between Agreeableness and trait X as .the tendency to retain opinions even when available evidence shows them to be unlikely;. Agreeable individuals would rather be too willing to abandon opinions without sufficient evidence.

Neuroticism also might link to trait X in some way, insofar as Neuroticism increases emotional reactivity.this emotional reactivity includes a tendency towards anger which would theoretically encourage the cluster of behaviors in trait X. Self-reported impulsivity also shows positive correlations with Neuroticism, indicating that Neuroticism is related to emotional rather than rational decision making processes. And the powerful anxiety component of Neuroticism probably also impedes fair-mindedness and intellectual lability; rather than evaluating propositions on their purely objective merits, people high in Neuroticism should theoretically be anxious when exposed to unusual ideas. Such individuals are often described as having a hyperactive .fight or flight. system which is too easily engaged; it is easy to see how someone high in Neuroticism would have more difficulty approaching a disagreement dispassionately and a greater tendency to view arguments as battles to be fought or run away from. There is some empirical support for this interpretation; Neuroticism is slightly positively related to the tendency to accept parental beliefs. (McCullogh et al, 2003).

Yet at the same time Neurotics are characterized by poor self esteem and depression rather than overconfidence or self-faith, and they often imagine and expect the worst, despite their fear. It is therefore arguable these aspects of Neuroticism could cancel out those previously mentioned by making people anxious about whether or not their current beliefs are true. In other words, even though Neurotics probably do have a greater tendency make decisions impulsively rather than rationally, and to take arguments personally in a way which would lead to dogmatism and inflexibility of opinion, Neuroticism does not relate unambiguously to trait X.

Having reviewed other possible personality traits, the case of Extraversion will finally be considered. It is argued that Extraversion contributes to the expression of trait X for the following reasons, which will be considered each in turn:

• Activity level, Surgency, and Impulsivity. High energy level encourages speaking and doing rather than listening and thinking.
• Optimism, Cheerfulness, and Self Confidence. High self assurance and positive mood leads to the easy assumption that .I am right..
• Assertiveness and Dominance. The extroverted drive to win supersedes the drive to understand.

One of the earliest aspects of Extraversion to be discovered was its relationship with energy level. Extroverts show higher levels of activity and less behavioral restraint than introverts. Given that most people begin any argument with the belief that they are right, only a patient listener who carefully thinks about what is being said and considers the matter for a longer period of time will have the opportunity to incorporate opposing arguments into his ideas before attempting to refute them. Also, self reported impulsivity shows a relationship with Extraversion just as it does with Neuroticism; a person who is unable to resist impulses in an argument rather than considering the issues coolly and rationally would obviously have a greater theoretical tendency towards the hypothesized trait X. It is a general observation of psychologists that people are more likely to defend a statement after they have already said it; impulsive, energetic extroverts would be more likely to speak first and rationalize afterwards.

Of course, it could be argued that an extrovert would have more access to contradictory ideas because of his greater sociability. But most people are well aware of the existence of an opposing view on any controversial issue, and a person would have to be sheltered rather that simply introverted to be unaware of opposing ideas. Introverts, particularly if they are high in Openness, are probably more likely to sit down and explore possible ways they might be wrong without being told as much.

Regarding optimism, cheerfulness, and self-confidence, it is easy to see why Extroverts would be more likely to dismiss the notion that they are wrong and others right. A sober, careful attitude is likely to be more conducive to positional revision than blithe sanguinity, and if self-faith really is an aspect of trait X, then the Extraversion domain is also an aspect of trait X.

But perhaps the best argument for Extraversion as a major underlying force behind trait X is its relationship to assertiveness and dominance. Trait X is believed to relate to precisely this pattern of behavior; realigning beliefs to coincide with the preponderance of the evidence requires submissiveness and an element of humility. A dominant, assertive posture is incompatible with the speculative, tentative posture required for intellectual lability.

The theoretical conclusion is clear enough, but the direct empirical findings necessary to provide more convincing support are still scarce. Still, there are empirical findings pertinent to the subject, and most of these are promising. Studies find that Blacks are Extroverted, and Blacks tend to claim that they are better than average in most academic subjects even when they know that they test poorly (Rushton, 2000)! This example does not by itself demonstrate that Extraversion must be linked to trait X, because there are other cognitive differences between Blacks and other ethnic groups which could also be responsible. However, this finding is in line with the claim that E and X are linked.

As another check on the claim that Extraversion relates to trait X, it.s worth considering cases where X would be a liability or an asset, and seeing whether Extraversion appears related. The most obvious cases were trait X would be an asset are in the professions such as sales, politics, religion, and law; while a minister may be allowed to occasionally change his mind, a salesman, politician, or lawyer who habitually.or even occasionally!.allows himself to be convinced that he is wrong is a failure; politicians, salesmen, lawyers, and ministers do indeed score high in the Extraversion domain (Mount et. al, 2005).

On the other hand, a successful scientist probably needs to be flexible in order to accommodate the ever changing state of knowledge at the fringes of discovery, but the evidence here is more mixed: the findings generally reported are that hard scientists tend to be introverted, whereas soft scientists tend to be more extroverted. This is poorly compatible with the hypothesized link between X and Extraversion, unless the reader will grant that soft science, unlike hard science, is compromised by political, or otherwise extra-scientific, interests. (Is the disgraceful treatment of researchers such as Jensen, Eysenck, Rushton, Brand, Ellis, and others part of a general expression of trait X in the social sciences?)

If these arguments are taken at their face value, they render a powerful conclusion: Psychometric Extraversion ought to be encouraged downwards throughout the Seeker population. This does not mean that any positive action should be taken; it is entirely possible that the natural rates of differential entrance into and defection from the religion will, by themselves, sufficiently depress the average Extraversion of the Seeker population to a point which allows effective utilization of the Method without creating problems which may relate to extreme introversion. Although Extraversion does offer a variety of benefits unrelated to utilization of the Method, including energy, morale, and social competence, all of which may translate directly or indirectly to valuable social and economic use, it seems that these positive traits are not without their price. And while there may be many variables which affect a person.s ability to be fair-minded (such as religious and political affiliation, or personality traits such as Openness or Neuroticism), Extraversion looms large among them.

Still, whether this claim is viewed with skepticism or hopefulness, it is obviously incomplete. What is missing is a means of operationalizing trait X and further testing the hypothesis of a relationship between traits E and X in an experiment. Perhaps the simplest means for testing the relationship is to give a personality inventory to a sample of Seekers and check the scores relative to the population average; since Seekers are believed to be philosophically flexible, they should score towards the low pole of the Extraversion scale. Of course, this may not be a truly objective test, because it presumes that Seekers practice what they preach. But if Seekers are legitimately viewed as a low-X group, then the hypothesis is very promising even at this stage.a low average Extraversion on the part of the Seeker population would seem obvious even without hard data, given the extremely low profile of most Seekers and the near-invisibility of the religious leadership. Still, until a better experiment can be designed and completed, hopefully this essay will by itself serve to stimulate discussion and fill a philosophical void by outlining the problem more thoroughly and providing a possible solution.

Addendum: Rationality and Extraversion

December 13, 2006

Some correlations of interest to the current discussion have recently come to light - specifically, correlations between Extraversion and two relevant facets of the "Openness to Experience" scale. Since the facet names differ throughout the literature, these two facets are variously called "Openness to Ideas" or "Intellect," and "Openness to Feelings" or "Emotionality." Following are descriptions of these two facets by John A. Johnson:

1. "Persons high on Emotionality have good access to and awareness of their own feelings. Low scorers are less aware of their feelings and tend not to express their emotions openly."
2. "High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas."

These two facets, in combination with four others (Openness to Aesthetics, Fantasy, Actions, and Values), are used to determine a person's overall Openness score, as they all load well on the Openness to Experience factor of personality. The especially high loadings on factor O which are typically shown by Intellect originally made Openness to Experience seem the obvious trait relevant to observed differences in trait X, because a lack of "Openness to Ideas" would seem central to the inflexibility of those who refuse to change their opinions. Notice however that Emotionality would probably be less conducive to rational argument and reverses of opinion, because a person with good awareness of and access to his feelings is more likely to incorporate them into his thinking and consider his opinions to be personal, rather than merely provisional.

Although total Openness shows a modest correlation with Extraversion that varies around .3 (Digman, 1997), the 6 facets of Openness show different relationships with Extraversion. The Emotionality or Feelings facet of Openness, unlike the other five facets, showed loadings on two other Big Five traits: Neuroticism at .41, and Extraversion at .52, compared with loadings on Openness of only .52 and .46.

A more recent study specifically examined the loadings of the six facet scales of Openness on Extraversion and Openness and reported its findings alongside those from an earlier sample:

The negative loadings shown by Ideas on Extraversion are striking not only because they are the only negative signs in the table, but because the moderate positive correlation between Extraversion and Openness would lead us to expect to see positive correlations, or at most inconsistent correlations, between all the Openness facets and Extraversion. Although the loadings are small, they show that Ideas is either orthogonal to or negatively related to Extraversion. But look also at the E-loadings shown by the Feelings facet, which are all quite high; in fact, Feelings loads more on Extraversion than any other Openness facet. Consider also the difference between the average factor loadings, which comes to .48. Assuming that the facets of "Openness to Ideas" and "Openness to Feelings" show some congruence with their trait names and descriptions, this leads to the interesting conclusion that, rather than Extraversion per se, it is the disparity between a person's Extraversion and Openness that inhibits acceptance of opposing arguments. In this model, then, Trait-Xers would be conceptualized as closed extraverts, whereas open introverts are predicted to be quick to change their minds when given reason to do so.

But didn't the previous analysis show that Openness was unlikely to be related to trait X? "(T)hose who are aware of the vast body of research regarding the issues of race and mental ability, yet still cling to the notion that all racial groups are of equal ability... are almost always politically liberal, and therefore have a pronounced tendency towards Openness, not away from it." A review of the literature shows that it has long been known that Extraversion correlates with political leftism at approximately .3 (Ray, 1984) and the recent study cited above shows that Openness to Values - a facet of Openness often simply called Liberalism - shows a smaller but nevertheless positive loading on Extraversion. So political Radicalism confounds between Extraversion and Openness, and cannot safely be used to show orthogonality between Openness and trait X; trait X probably comes from the interaction of both low Openness and high Extraversion.

Of course, however evident this conclusion may seem, it does rest on the assumption that the facets have been appropriately named and described, and on the further assumption that the factor loadings arise because of the elements of these two facets which are relevant to the current analysis. It is likely, for instance, that introverts derive more amusement from crosswords and other solitary intellectual tasks than do Extraverts, but that Extraverts more readily enjoy a stimulating discussion which presents them with novel ideas; perhaps the questions measuring Openness to Ideas tapped more into introverted than extraverted behaviors - although there is no a priori reason for this assumption. And while the interpretation and description of psychological constructs is always difficult, the judgment of a professional psychologist can be provisionally accepted in the absence of mitigating evidence.

Readers may further object that while Emotionality does seem predictive of a subjective and irrational basis for formulating opinions, does this really predict a person's resistence to changing their mind? Conceivably individuals high in this facet take their emotions into consideration when forming opinions, but if so then wouldn't they be easily persuaded to alter their beliefs when presented with an emotionally compelling argument? The answer to this objection is that trait X is conceptualized as the observed tendency for individuals "to retain opinions even when available evidence shows them to be unlikely." Changing opinions because of appeals to emotion is not the same as changing opinions because of evidence.

The last objection which might be raised against this analysis is somewhat more subtle: it could be argued that a person scoring high in Openness to Feelings could actually be better equipped to render impartial judgment because such an individual can account for the distorting effect that their emotions may have on their thinking. While this may be true in theory, in practice only someone who devotes himself to thinking rationally and makes an effort to account for the skewing effects of emotion will do this. And the high loadings Emotionality shows on Neuroticism as well as Extraversion suggests that much of the variance in this trait comes from the strength of a person's emotions rather than simple emotional awareness. The distorting effects of stronger emotions may be easier to recognize, but they will probably not be easier to deal with.

In conclusion, these results are consistent with the thesis that Extraversion decreases an individual's ability to change his mind in the face of superior argument because of the heightened emotionality relative to intellectualism displayed by Extraverts. If so, this means that Seekers should focus not only on recruiting and increasing the fertility of introverts, but more specifically should concentrate on the individual disparities between Openness and Extraversion.

References

Barrick, M. R. & Mount MK. (1991). .The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.. Personnel Psychology, 44. 1-26

Brand, Chris (1987). .The importance of general intelligence.. In Modgil & Modgil.s Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy (pp. 251-265). New York: Falmer

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246.1256.

Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., Zakrisson, I. (2004). .What Matters Most to Prejudice: Big Five Personality, Social Dominance Orientation, or Right-Wing Authoritarianism?. European Journal of Personality, 18: 463.482

Huntley, Chris and Peeters, Tim (2005). .Paranormal beliefs, religious beliefs and personality correlates.. Presented in April 2005 at Manchester Metropolitan University, U.K. www.studiosus.nl/scripties/00_paranormalbeliefs.doc

McCrae, RR (1993) "Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality." Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13, 39±55.

McCrae, Robert R. (1996). "Social Consequences of Experiential Openness" Psychololigcal Bulletin 1996 Nov;120(3):323-37

McCullogh, Michael E, Tsang, Jo-Ann, Brion, Sharon (2003). .Personality Traits in Adolescence as Predictors of Religiousness In Early Adulthood: Findings from the Terman Longitudinal Study.. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 8, 980-991

Ray, J. J. (1984) "Political Radicals as Sensation Seekers." The Journal of Social Psychology, I22, 293-294. http://jonjayray.cafe150.com/senseek.html

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. (New York: Basic Books.)

Rushton, Philippe J. (2000). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A life history perspective, 3rd Edition. Charles Darwin Research Inst Pr; 3rd edition

Saroglou, Vassilis (2002) .Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic review.. Personality and Individual Di.erences 32, 15.25. http://tinyurl.com/k5uyq

Singam, Mano. (2006). .The Beliefs of Americans.. Mano Singham.s Web Journal. http://blog.case.edu/mxs24/2006/03/03/the_beliefs_of_americans

Wall Street Journal (1994). .Intelligence, Mainstream Opinions.. Dec. 13, 1994, p A18