Religion and Personality
Posted in atheists on April 14th, 2012 by Jim Newman – Be the first to commentPost by Jim Newman
————————
After I moved from Utah to California, I enjoyed spotting Mormons as I walked around with my friends. As missionaries, even though they wore suits like Jehovah’s witnesses, they stood out. Even in a store I could spot them from business people–though this was less likely to occur than on the street. Mormons, were white, had a crisper haircut, looked like they were more comfortable with walking, and had a more open facial appearance and attitude. I could also spot mormon families by the way they dressed, their hair styles, and the way they interacted. Culture belies character, genetics belies personality, individuality belies social solidarity. And yes, we’d go up and ask. Missionaries love to be talked to because they are by social distaste insular in US society. Frankly, I see missionaries as possible deconverts or at least an excuse to share–now, that I am no longer pissed, that is.
Mormons
Jehovah’s Witness Missionaries tend to be more stiff, diverse, and either hyper dressy fashionable or Goodwill suit.
Jehovah’s Witness
Catholic missionaries tend to try to be more incognito though they stand out within the community. Formal missionaries wear membership clothes to show their religion is special.
Catholic missionary
Vassila Saroglou in his Mind (May issue) article “Are We Born to Be Religious?–Genes and personality influence our attitudes toward religion” discusses how religiosity can be mildly predicted by looking at two of the five personality traits. The five are extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness.
A sidebar talks about how one can look religious. Students (young, naive, untrained people) could spot a religious person 60% of the time. The same sidebar reveals that religious people are more likely to work in education, health, medical services, and humanities. Secularists are more likely to go into engineering, science, and mathematics.
But back to personality. Religious people tend to differ slightly in agreeableness and conscientiousness. First, I have to say these personality tests and categories are odd to me. Anecdotally I range all over the place depending on situation. It is only after 54 years of thinking about it and seeing what I have done in my life versus place that I have glimpsed a better idea of what personality I am. Notably, other people categorize me more easily–bastards, objectifiers.
Unfortunately, this has done two contrary things for me. Made me accept people for who they are. Made me desire to change even more what is egregious in the world. The determined aspects of personality made change even more evitable. Go figure. The more you get personality as determined, the more able you are to target social change. It does make it hard to fight with your spouse but that is more genetically influenced, and then socially supported, anyway.
However, don’t be fooled into thinking politics should be based on genetics. People have the right to be gay whether chosen or birthed. I can imagine no more horrid a tyranny than those based on my choosing
In Saroglou’s study of 70 studies involving 21,000 participants he found 60% of religious versus 40% of nonreligious people were agreeable or conscientious. Tempting to say religion caused people to be like methodical sheep but longitudinal studies show that if you’re an agreeable or conscientious child you will most likely be one as an adult. For me, I was always a contrarian and finding Hitchens was like finding a soul mate and not a mentor.
Indeed irreligious types tend be more creative and rebellious. Socially, religious types, those both agreeable and conscientious, prefer social harmony and personal order. That pretty girl student with perfect but simple hair who always gets A’s could be Catholic. That boy who is always studying and won’t argue to a teacher unless allowed to and then furiously could be a Jew. Those in the middle are Episcopalian. No, just kidding, while these stereotypes have some indication, there is still too much variation. Personality genes aren’t like eye color genes though they hold true.
By the way, if you are an extrovert and open to experience you are more likely to believe in paranormal events. People who are high in conscientiousness but low in openness tend to be authoritarian.
It makes sense on a general level but remember that this means only a 20% difference in groups. Untrained students can tell 60% of the time. While experts or experienced observers could do better, my guess, as this was not tested, it is easy to spot exceptions.
But think of it this way. The largest Electoral win was Grover Cleveland at 62 percent. The largest popular vote win was Bush at 50%. On polarized decisions we don’t differ too much. Indeed, this energizes towards a binary platform. More importantly, it means that small difference matter greatly in populations, politics, and evolution. While I rail on Jonathon Haidt for his research that conservatives experience visceral disgust slightly more than liberals, and hence are more intuitive than rational (so to speak), it still shows in our everyday language and experience, and it still affects effective speech as George Lakoff writes.
The appeal of religiosity and irreligiosity shows in families where parents are one thing and children are another. While it is true that we are all born into our religion, if religious mobility is possible then children will tend to choose, if they choose, according to their personality. This seems like a “duh” moment for many but many people relate choice to opposition to parents. A stern religious dad raises a gay irreligious kid etc. In fact it may have more to do with what DNA happened to come together during sex.
Jim Newman, bright and well
www.brightperide.com and www.frontiersofreason.com
