catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Voting and personality differences

with 44 comments

Spotted via Dienenkes’ anthropology blog, some recent research on personality differences and voting intentions from numbers crunched from the last US presidential elections:

Personality measures of more than 6000 US electors on the Big Five Factors have been collected on the Web through a Web site designed to assess their personality. By means of structural equation modeling the impact of personality factors as well as of demographic variables, such as age and sex, on voting intentions on the forthcoming US presidential elections was investigated. Personality variables accounted for 16% of variance of voting intentions, while gender and age accounted for no more than 3%. High Agreeableness and Openness were predictive of intention to vote for Kerry, while all high Energy, Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability were predictive of intention to vote for Bush. Results are consistent with previous research conducted in a different country, using a different language.

These personality measures are based on the so-called Five Factor model of personality widely used in psychology. Here is an overview of what these measures mean (therefore Energy from the above = Extroversion and Emotional Stability means a low score on Neuroticism):

Openness to experience – Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas; imagination and curiosity (vs conservatism).

Conscientiousness – A tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement (spontaneousness vs planned behaviour).

Extraversion – Energy, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.

Agreeableness – A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others (individualism vs cooperative solutions).

Neuroticism – A tendency to easily experience unpleasant emotions such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability (emotional stability to stimuli).

Advertisements

Written by Admin

November 26, 2006 at 9:41 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

44 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. What characterises libertarians (regardless of who they voted for)?

    Is a libertarian who voted republican really a young, clean cut go-getter or simply has a different strategy and information to a libertarian who voted democrat?

    Mark Hill

    November 26, 2006 at 9:46 pm

  2. Nothing about that in this paper, it only focuses on the Kerry v Bush decision.

    Jason Soon

    November 26, 2006 at 9:46 pm

  3. the neurotic left is almost a tautology…

    c8to

    November 26, 2006 at 11:24 pm

  4. Are US Democrats really left? Real left would probably disagree. Was Bill Clinton left? Or Harry Truman?

    Boris

    November 27, 2006 at 12:52 am

  5. “Are you US dems really left?”

    Is this a trick question? That party makes the ALP look like Right Death Beasts.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 1:34 am

  6. Democrats are FAR more conservative than the Republicans on economics as is the ALP here whereas it is the opposite on social issues.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 8:02 am

  7. Clinton may have had good macro policy. Why is opposition to free trade and continual support of minimum wages “economic conservatism”?

    Mark Hill

    November 27, 2006 at 8:17 am

  8. let me be more specific Democratic president’s are better.

    the Legislature is more proectionist etc.

    Clinton was a much more free trader than either of the Bush’s or Raygun

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 9:36 am

  9. Homer
    Next time try to leave Clinton out of this. It could be very liberating for you.

    Clinton has no views on free trade until Bob Rubin turned up and showed him what it all meant. Clinton was a red neck with no ideas other than getting elected.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 10:44 am

  10. Yawn, JC. Can’t you see the world as anything but divided between stupid, evil lefties and right-thinking righties? It makes you very predictable and uninteresting. Try realising that not all of those who disagree with you are stupid or evil, that not all of those who disagree with you disagree in the same way and that not all of those who disagree with you on one issue will disagree on another.

    I don’t reckon you’d score well on the Openness crtierion.

    derrida derider

    November 27, 2006 at 11:45 am

  11. Derisive
    That’s funny. When the last time you were open, intelligent and not leaning toward evil intentions?

    I am a converted lefty, Derisve. I tried the side of evil uintil I saw the white light.

    And no, no statism will never work.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 11:57 am

  12. My guess is I’d probably score pretty high on almost all 5 dimensions (to clarify high on Emotional Stability, not Neuroticism) with the exception of Energy insofar as it mostly is comprised of Extroversion. So I have most of the Dem and Repub traits.

    Jason Soon

    November 27, 2006 at 12:01 pm

  13. JC, read some books on the Clinton era before you make inaccurate statements.

    Rubin was in from the start by the way

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 12:43 pm

  14. Homer

    Why does everything degenerate to clinton?

    Rubin was Clinton’s economic wiz kid. He ran economic policy from the very beginning. The red neck knew jack shit about economics /free trade when he came in.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 1:38 pm

  15. I keep telling Homer everything he says about the Dems is extrapolated from one Prez – Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton.

    Jason Soon

    November 27, 2006 at 1:45 pm

  16. Homer=clintonphile.

    And he’s telling he I ought to read a book about that era.

    Homer, i lived through it.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 2:10 pm

  17. set him up on a date with Clinton, JC, he really needs to get it out of his system …

    Jason Soon

    November 27, 2006 at 2:27 pm

  18. yawn,
    I said Rubin was in for the start.

    Have a look at the Democratic leadership council and look at the policies they were recommending yonks before Clinton got in and guess who was the major voice???????

    If you lived through it you were asleep!

    Jase,

    I think you will find Carter was more ‘economically rational’ than than Republican that followed him.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 2:47 pm

  19. ” I think you will find Carter was more ‘economically rational’ than than Republican that followed him. ”

    You’re writing this from a asylum, aren’t you Homer?

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 2:54 pm

  20. AN asyum

    Sorry .. shocking edits today.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 2:56 pm

  21. No JC.
    It was only Clinton that finally called an end to Reagan’s extravagances.

    Carter almost did the same to Nixon’s.

    On trade Bush merely followed Reagan’s manged trade with Japan.

    Go do some reading on the DLC and then apologise.

    Anybody following US politics knew Clinton was going to be a candidate for President at some stage.

    He was known as a policy wonk yonks before he became president. He was getting the best advice at a very early stage which is why he looked like the president in the debates of 92.
    It was he who put up the free trade and balanced budget arguments on the DLC.

    You really need to do some homework before you start shooting your mouth off!

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 3:57 pm

  22. you’re wrong homer
    Carter did start the deregulation process. but Reagan took it further. Reagan also appointed more free market people in the regulatory and antitrust agencies. you can’t say that Carter was more free market than Reagan, and you can’t blame the deficits solely on Reagan

    Jason Soon

    November 27, 2006 at 4:01 pm

  23. Jase given you were in nappies then a comparison of AMB and CBO estimates of budget projections showed that ever so coincidentally Reagan ALWAYS overestimated tax revenues.
    When David Stockman wrote his book we knew why.

    I would argue that people appointed by Reagan in the main were business friendly whereas the people appointed by Carter were market friendly.

    I assume you know the difference.
    I was mainly talking about the budget in terms of cleaning up the mess.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 4:05 pm

  24. Homer
    What mess of Reagan’s did your idol clean up.

    Oh, it was the stockmarket roaring up for years.

    No it wasn’t it was the fact that US GDP grew the size of Germany over those 8 years.

    Maybe not, it was the creation of 20 million new jobs over that period.

    Take your pick Homer, which one of these cataclysms did Reagan create?

    Oh I got, it must have been that without Ron as Prez we would still have a soviet union.

    listen dude, you’ve been sleeping for the past 36 years and just woke up.

    now let’s head off to Keating.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 5:42 pm

  25. Jase
    Can we create a Homer page like the frational reserve thread? Call it the ” Homer’s Clinton, Carter, Keating discussion thread” . That way you can have Homer talk about his three heroes without distorting other discussions.

    Home’s, if you wanna meet “Clints” I can arrange it if you like. Seriously, if you’re ever over in the US I can get you to meet the dude. Bring the knee pads though.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 5:48 pm

  26. notice JC has not even attempted to refute the blow out in the budget deficit under Reagan which was only fixed up by Clinton but has also ignored ‘free trade’ Reagan managed trade deal with Japan.

    JC,

    I do not even believe you are into liberal economics you are simply a republican apologist.

    I will acknowledge Clinton only got things done with a Republican congress which I suspect he wanted to have.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 6:42 pm

  27. “will acknowledge Clinton only got things done with a Republican congress ”

    Undermines your arguments straight away Homer. The DLC are NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the Democrats. The fact that they had to rely on a Republican congress to get their agenda up speaks volumes.

    Jason Soon

    November 27, 2006 at 6:48 pm

  28. How does it undermine it Jase when I put a STRONG caveat that ‘economic rationalism’ ( I hate this term) was the province of Democrat Presidents not congress.

    In the US it is the Executive not the Legislature that makes the walking track

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 6:54 pm

  29. Homes

    Feel free to comb the blog world to catch me out on being an apologist for the GOP. If I have ever espoused a non free market policy, get a gun and shoot me. Seriously though, you find one policy and I will donate 1g to your favourite charity.

    They deserved to lose but not to this lot.
    I prefer the GOP to the Dems, Homer. I have never pretended otherwise.

    “notice JC has not even attempted to refute the blow out in the budget deficit under Reagan which was only fixed up by Clinton but has also ignored ‘free trade’ Reagan managed trade deal with Japan.”

    Refute what, Homer, that Reagan was a free trader, well of course he was. But politics is the art of the possible. We had idiots in congress and a cold war to win. The great man made a choice and stuck with it. They were only small trade sanctions anyways. Tokeniusm is what I call it.

    “I will acknowledge Clinton only got things done with a Republican congress which I suspect he wanted to have. ”

    ths definitely makes you certifiable, homes.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 6:59 pm

  30. The trouble with you, homer is that you contort yourself by this fixation you have and never seem to let it go.

    I am the only person on this blog who has catully voted for a libertarian prez, homer. it was harry brown in 96. Speaks volumes to your accusations.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 7:04 pm

  31. ‘economic rationalism’

    That terms doesn’t belong to free market sopporters. It sort of suggests we can control markets.

    It’s what the left uses to hit the free traders with.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 7:06 pm

  32. let me see JC,
    Ray gun was a free trader I guess that is why he put quotas ,agreed of course, on Japanese steel makers.
    If that is free trade give me communism any day.

    I do note that you cannot even try to to attempt to defend his fiscal policy, very Keynesian!!!

    The first time you actually criticise republicans I will take notice until then you are merely just another Republican apologist.

    If you were in the US in 94 then you couldn’t have read many newspapers.
    There were plenty saying Clinton preferred a Republican congress because he could get through his economic program.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 7:42 pm

  33. “I do note that you cannot even try to to attempt to defend his fiscal policy”

    No. it was the dem party in Congress that continued to spend. Reagan was against it,

    he cut taxes homer. If they had frozen spending, the country would have been in suplus by 86.

    “There were plenty saying Clinton preferred a Republican congress because he could get through his economic program.’

    Homes, this isn’t a “fig tree” of your imagination, is it? Name names, homes

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 7:53 pm

  34. NO JC, Ronnie continually was ‘over-optimistic on tax revenues.

    If Ronnie really wanted to cut spending he would have done that but unfortunately he didn’t.

    The Capital gang for a start then read some Krauthammer or Feed Barnes columns.

    Please note no-one like EJ Dionne or simialr

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 27, 2006 at 7:57 pm

  35. Homer are you saying these people said Clinto wanted the Dems out and the GOP in becasue he preferred to work with the GOP? is that what you’re saying?

    Ronnie was correct about revenues. If they had frozen spending the countrynwould have been in suprlus well before he left office. Read bob Bartley’s book – former editor of the WSJ- The seven fat years.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 8:05 pm

  36. JC, I think you are illogical on Clinton. It does not matter who advised him. It was him who chose the advisors, didn’t he?

    The same, perhaps even more so, applies to Raegan. He was even better at that (having much less technical knowledge but better big picture). This is why he was the greatest president of the second half of the century (in my view).

    I just have a picture in my mind when technical experts come to Reagan and say: “you know, Mr president, this star wars program sounds great, but … it is technically unfeasible”. Reagan answers: “Thank you very much for a valuable advice”. And thinks “I couldn’t care less. The cold war is won and lost in the minds of the leaders, not on a battlefield.”

    The technical experts were smart and clever. Raegan was wise.

    Sorry this was slightly off topic.

    Boris

    November 27, 2006 at 10:19 pm

  37. It was Clinton who put up Bush’s NAFTA and CAFTA and the dems voted against it and the GOP for it but it can be argued that both agreements are not free trade but merely more bureaucracy freely administering the trade of subsidised goods, just like the EU.

    rog

    November 27, 2006 at 10:27 pm

  38. boris
    “JC, I think you are illogical on Clinton.”

    Boris, i endured 8 years of the guy coming into NYC on fundraisers almost every other week closing down ave’s forcing me to walk or catch the subway instead of getting into a warm or cool cab.I ended up despising him after a few years.

    And yes, he did choose good advisors on the economic side.

    The first two years of his presidency were appaling though and it was only after he put Rubin in charge at treasury things turned round.

    He was generally too busy fundraising to wreck anything.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 10:38 pm

  39. I didn’t bring him up though. Homer did as he seems obsessed with Clinton and Keating.

    JC.

    November 27, 2006 at 10:39 pm

  40. I am not a fan of Clinton actually. I do agree with JC that the distinct feature of Clinton is that he did not believe in anything at all, and therefore did not achieve much. It is often blamed on the hostile congress. However in the first term Reagan also had a hostile congress, but he knew what he wanted and was pasionate about it, and managed to pursuade the congress to go with him.

    It can be agrued that Reagan knew where he wanted to go but did not know how, and asked his advisors.

    Clinton often knew himself (or thought he did) how to go, but he did not care where to go, and asked his advisors where should he go. A good example is his inquiry into affirmative action. A leader cannot LEAD if he doesn’t know where to go.

    Of course if he does, it doesn’t mean it all will be fine. If he leads in a wrong direction or to a dead end, it’s no good. So good feel for direction is a necessary but by no means a sufficient condition for a leader.

    OOps, off topic.

    Boris

    November 27, 2006 at 11:48 pm

  41. “I just have a picture in my mind when technical experts come to Reagan and say: “you know, Mr president, this star wars program sounds great, but … it is technically unfeasible”. Reagan answers: “Thank you very much for a valuable advice”. And thinks “I couldn’t care less. The cold war is won and lost in the minds of the leaders, not on a battlefield.””

    Boris, I remember seeing old footage of Ullam or Teller (h-bomb inventors) testifying about the X-ray lasers, and seeing it demonstrated. I think the Soviets knew it was a near possibility…

    Mark Hill

    November 28, 2006 at 9:14 am

  42. give up JC you simply do not know what you are talking about.

    Paul Craig Roberts said the problem was underestimating revenues. He was deputy under Secretary in Treasury for Reagan.

    David Stockman who was his original budget director simply says they lied about tax revenues to get the tax cuts that blew the budget out.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 28, 2006 at 10:28 am

  43. What you are saying is entirely subjective and open to interpretation Homer.

    Did they:

    1. Actually lie given projections about recurrent spending and known tax elasticities?

    2. “Lie” by estimating higher revenues due to supply side increases, but still knowing about the large planned defence spending increases?

    3. Cut taxes with an expectation of a larger tax base and plan for an unspecified deficit regardless of the supply side revenue and GDP increases, that is expect to pay off tax liabilities with future higher GDP?

    Yes, it does verge on Keynesianism when it gets vulgar.

    Mark Hill

    November 28, 2006 at 11:01 am

  44. Mark,

    It is a long time since I read Stockman’s book but my guess is 1 it the most accurate of them all.

    As I said it was always amusing back then to see how far out tax revenues were compared to reality.

    the CBO seem to be a lot better at it.

    JC guess who was in charge of the CBO at the time.

    The head of IBCA!!!!

    Irony of ironies so one got some potted history of US fiscal policy in the years following if one subscribed to the Bank Credit Analyst way back then Actually the Bush 1 days

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 28, 2006 at 11:45 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: