There has been some significant research that suggests a person’s political orientation is rooted in their personality.  The global trait of “openness to experience” (one of the Big Five personality factors) correlates negatively with Republican/Conservatism.  Democrats and Liberals correlate positively with “openness to experience”.

So what exactly is openness to experience? Wikipedia describes it as follows:

Openness involves active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity.

People who score low on openness are considered to be closed to experience. They tend to be conventional and traditional in their outlook and behavior. They prefer familiar routines to new experiences, and generally have a narrower range of interests.

What really makes this important is that “openness to experience” along with the rest of the big 5 personality dimensions are highly heritable.  Heritability doesn’t mean destiny.  A trait can have a strong genetic basis without winning the tug-o-war with the environment.  However, in this case heritability suggests that a person doesn’t make political choices based strictly on social influence or rational choice.

Finding the Influence of Body-Type (Somatotype) on Political Orientation

Anytime heritability becomes a factor I am curious to see if somatotype might be involved. So, with this information floating around I figured it would be interesting to see if there is a difference in the body-type of democrats and republicans.

I am at a disadvantage because I don’t have access to a large population that would participate in this kind of research.  So, for this experiment I decided to somatotype known public figures who have identified their party affiliation.  I selected 15 prominent Democrats and 15 prominent Republicans.  The  selection  was based on an individual being considered a serious candidate for president. This method is based on the idea that the rigorous campaigning and consequent polls is likely to produce the quintessence or em-body-ment (useful pun) of what attracts Republicans and Democrats.  So instead of struggling for a good set of representative subjects I am able to piggy-back off of the millions of people involved in the selection process itself.

With practice I have become proficient enough with Sheldon’s technique to determine the somatotype of people based on weight, height, and a rough estimate of the ratio of their upper torso to their lower torso derived from fully clothed casual photographs.. People can be charted on a somatotype chart based on three dimensions or components;  Endomorphy (Gut), Mesomorphy (Muscle), and Ectomorphy (Linearity).  Somatotype is expressed as 3 numbers on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 represents the minimum expression of a component and 7 is the maximum.  If you need more information on Sheldon and his method, just type “somatotype” into Google,  and start with Wikipedia and work your way down.

The results are reported in the following diagram.

You can readily identify the difference between Republicans (red) and Democrats (blue). Democrats (blue) cluster around the center and Republicans are more to the periphery but definitely in the mesomorphic  area.

Interpreting the Results

I must admit that I didn’t anticipate these results.  The Veterans hospital in Boston has accumulated somatotypes for 2,185 veterans.  Back in 1986 I had their research service determine the number of somatotypes that would be considered balanced (5.5 or higher on a scale of 7 expressing degree of balance). The results indicate that roughly 60-65 per cent of that population would lie toward the center of the somatotype diagram.  Based on that bit of research I would have guessed that there would have been no difference between democrats and republicans because they would represent a cross section of the general population.  I was expecting this little experiment to be boring and just a confirmation of the idea that humans tend toward a classic bell curve regardless of their political orientation. As it turned out, not only is there a difference but it is quite definitive.  You don’t need to wear special glasses to see it. My techniques are not error proof but they are very consistent. I would invite anyone who is skilled in Sheldon’s techniques to check my results.

The area of the chart occupied by Republican politicians is clearly mesomorphic. As mesomorphs (muscular) they believe in strength and seek control and power.  It isn’t difficult to understand their insistence that everyone should carry their own load and be willing to work hard.  They are influenced by their own superior physical strength and assume if they can work  three jobs anybody can.  Another problem is their belief that might is right.  Complicated ideas and explanations that don’t involve action with an immediate benefit are viewed with suspicion.

The area of the chart occupied by Democrat politicians is in the middle. The middle-types, not dominated by any single extreme, tend to feel comfortable with their ability to adapt and change.  This is clearly conducive to the Big Five Personality factor called “Openness to Experience”.  The middle is not without problems.  Because of their openness they are more prone to try “new” ideas that may not be ready for the expectations of national policy.  They also have a tendency to believe that all problems can be solved simply by coming up with a clever plan.  After they come up with a program and allocate funds for its execution they lack the ability to do the hard and boring “work” of “managing” the program.

So what does this mean?  Does it mean that a person’s political orientation is completely the result of their biological constitution?  Of course not.  Regional, racial, economic, & ethnic factors figure into each person’s choice.  However, the chart shows that when you are dealing with national elections and numbers in the millions, then the biological substrate starts to show through.   When you look at this chart you will notice that most Republicans were Ectomorphic Mesomorphs low in Endomorphy.  There were three Republicans that found themselves outside the dominant Republican somatotypes and promoted ideas that would get few Republican backers today.

1. Hoover. (5,3,4, [6 balance] When it comes to assessing Herbert Hoover, Republicans at best, are ambivalent.   He actually considered himself a Progressive-Republican and distinguished himself as a committed humanitarian.  His talents and writings covered a wide field from mining technology and mining history to a book promoting the  personal benefits of fishing.  His handling of The Great Depression killed his chances for a second term.  No one knew exactly what to do to end the Depression.  Hoover broke with the laissez-faire tradition of Republicans and instituted government projects to stimulate the economy.  Unfortunately his  demand for a balanced budget prevented his programs from being large enough to have any real effect.

2. Nixon (4,3,4½, [6 balance]) actually dared to introduced price controls.  He also proposed a health care plan similar to “Obamacare” but it was trashed by Ted Kennedy because it wasn’t a single payer system.  Don’t forget nationalized passenger railways. etc. etc. Milton Friedman once said Nixon was the most socialistic president of the 20th century.

3. Reagan. (4,3½,5, [6½ balance] )was originally a democrat who campaigned for Truman and Hubert Humphrey. Watch this video to see the early Reagan.  Same persuasive manner but championing Democrat causes.  http://www.youtube.com/… When you look at the Republican issues today Reagan wouldn’t be a viable candidate for the far right wing.  He raised taxes, increased the size of government,  granted amnesty to illegal aliens, expanded the earned income tax credit for poor people, and believed that nuclear weapons should be abolished.  There is a mythological vine that has grown over Reagan that obscures an unbiased assessment of his deviance from Republican ideals.

Obama is an especially interesting outlier for a Democrat.  He was imagined to be extremely Liberal.  But, he is a reminder that it doesn’t matter what a person professes to be it’s a matter of what he actually does.  Obama (2½,4½,5½, [5½ balance]) is not exactly in the thick of the Republican cluster but he is located just outside toward the types that tend to be Libertarian.  Obama is low in Gut (2½) which means he doesn’t connect well with people.  He really doesn’t like people.  He likes himself and wants people to admire and like him.  The result is that he really never cared passionately  about people’s need of universal healthcare.  He even abandoned the compromise position of the public option.  Would Ted Kennedy (gutsy endomorph) have capitualted to such a faulty health plan?  Obama appears to have just wanted to be credited with a win.  Obama, also apparently didn’t “feel” like a true Democrat when he continued the Bush tax cuts.   The mesomorphic Republicans respect and idolize strength,  and  have no mercy for a weakling who is so ready to compromise.

It should be noted that the two female Republicans have a respectable amount of muscle for being women.  Sarah Palin is 4 endomorphy, 4½ mesomorphy and 3 ectomorphy.  Bachman is 3½ endomorphy, 5 mesomorphy, 2 ectomorphy.   On the other hand the Democrat woman,  Hillary, is right in the heart of the Democrat cluster with 5 endomorphy, 3 mesomorphy and 4 ectomorphy.

Newt Gingrich is an example of a Republican who is out of the range of his party’s typical somatotype. He is 5.5 (endomorphy), 4.0 (mesomorphy), 3.5 (ectomorphy) and 6.0 (centrimorphy (balance) placing him completely on the opposite side of  the somatotype diagram.  Republicans instinctively know that he’s not one of their kind.  One reason they take him seriously is they think he has the “intellectual strength” to do battle with Obama on their behalf.

From a political standpoint it seems that it doesn’t matter what a candidate promises to his base.  The most important thing is where they are situated temperamentally.  If anything gets done it has to be achieved through compromise.  The two sides are never going to agree 100% on important issues.  When you are negotiating it is most important to know what you are willing to give up for what you really want.   If a politician’s deepest “feelings” aren’t in sync with their party there is a high likelihood that when push comes to shove they might behave like the opposite party.  Democrats need to have representatives that are at least a 3½ endomorphy or they won’t have the “guts” to stick to their position.  Republican’s need representatives who are at least a 4½ mesomorphy or they won’t have the “muscle” to fight for their ideals.

Isn’t It Time To Take Somatotype Seriously.

The middle of Sheldon’s chart comes into special focus when considering political orientation.  Including the condition of balance is essential to understanding the full landscape of temperament.  Once you contemplate the effects of a balanced somatotype you end up with the four dimensions of temperament that have persisted as a pattern for at least a couple thousand years.

Phlegmatic Endomorph  

Choleric Mesomorph

Melancholic Ectomorph

Sanguine Centrimorph (Balance)

Although Sheldon had no name for the middle “extreme” and simply referred to it as a 4,4,4 he certainly had some interesting things to say about it. Consider his description of the middle.

In this pattern (4,4,4) all three primary components of

temperament are as strongly represented as they can usually be

tolerated, one by another.  To call a man a 4,4,4 may be

tantamount to crediting him with humor.  Whatever else humor

may be, it certainly is characterized by two qualities:

(1) An inclination toward detachment – the quality of regarding

life and self lightly: (2) An inclination to tolerate and to enjoy

incompatibilities at a high level of awareness.”

The Varieties Of Delinquent Youths. New York:  Harper, 1949

Isn’t this describing the factor of “openness” that characterizes the Liberal political view?

PRACTICAL APPLICATION:

The chart gives some insight into the predicament of Democrats in winning an election. Because Democrats tend to be toward the middle of the chart they are victims of a divergence of opinions.    Their openness and creativity is their undoing.  On the other hand Republicans being at the periphery of the chart share one main feeling – fear of change and loss of identity.  While 60 percent of the population are mid-range somatotypes  they are fragmented.  The 40 percent on the periphery that make up conservatives only have to get less than 25 percent of the middle types to have a majority.  A mere one third of the middle (20 percent of voters) subscribe to the liberal ideas identified with Democrats.  For Democrats elections are like an old western cattle round-up.  They have to work hard just to get them to the market.

The most immediate insight is that the left-right, liberal-conservative, divide may never be eliminated but it can be bridged.  The first step is to realize that there is something very deep and biological about these two different ways of looking at the world.  Both views can lead to successful results under specific circumstances.  Since people aren’t going to be persuaded to become more “open” or more “authoritarian” these two tribes have to make compromises.  But compromise requires the ability to move in many directions. Compromise requires something conservatives struggle with – openness.  Compromise is dependent on the creativity of the middle.  Occasionally Republicans produce a candidate that is closer to the middle.  A Republican that is toward the middle is probably advantageous for the passing of legislation that pleases Democrats.  A Newt Gingrich is distasteful to Republicans but he may turn out to be better than a Democrat that galvanizes the paranoid right.  The same might be said for Romney.  Romney has shown that he can work with Democrats.   Sometimes losing can be winning.

The “four temperaments”  are the oldest and most enduring typology.  Whenever type is discussed the Classic Temperaments are at least given a brief nod of recognition. Today, various type theorists use that ancient model and go on to elaborate the 4 types into 12 types based on various combainations of the four temperaments.  The following is a listing of temperament combinations:

Any search engine will lead you to a discussion of these temperaments.

The Four Temperaments Mapped Onto Standard Somatotype Chart

Myers-Briggs is an extension of Jung’s system of psychological types.  The glaring problem with the Myers-Briggs personality classifications is that it is based on the idea that everyone can be put in an either-or category. You have to be either Extraverted or Introverted.  You must be a Sensation type or an Intuitive type.

You are either a Thinking type or a Feeling type.  You are put in either the Perception box or the judgement box.  The test questions are built on this assumption forcing the test-taker into choosing between opposites.

Nature doesn’t work that way.  For an example consider the weather. Suppose you applied the either/or model to weather prediction.  You decide 50 degrees Fahrenheit is the midpoint for temperature.  You make the midpoint for humidity 50%.  You make the midpoint for wind speed 25 miles per hour.  There is no partly cloudy.  The sky is either sunny or overcast.  The weatherman looks at the data and discovers it’s 52 degrees, the humidity is 55% the wind is 19 miles per hour and there are clouds low on the horizon.  So how does he describe the weather?

“Today its going to be overcast, hot and humid with a light breeze”
Is that a useful description?  That’s what can happen with a test like the MBTI.  It is no wonder that the Myers-Briggs has reliability problems.  So many people fall into the middle ranges that only a slight change in mood, health, amount of sleep, general stress levels can push a person into a different category.  You only need to browse the MBTI discussion boards to see how many people are struggling with variable test results.

Yet, millions believe it.  Fortune 100 companies make personnel decisions based on it.  Career consultants steer clients into occupations because the tests say they are a perfect fit.  Dating services make similar matches.

It is tempting to just discard the MBTI because of these well-known problems.  But it is important to find out what is working well enough to hold the interest of so many people.  So what IS working?  Humans are attracted to idea systems.  Figuring out all those combinations of dichotomies is very engaging.  The promise of discovering your real self among the various permutations of functions and attitudes drives a person to achieve some kind of closure.

The most valuable part of the process is that one of the 16 types is bound to fit comfortably enough to be declared a match.  Once that happens you have a convert.  And as so often happens the convert is so elated with their salvation that they set out on a path to enlighten friends and family. Eventually, you have a network of people discussing their sacred callings. As flawed as the process is, it still produces clusters of traits that probably describe real persons.  This is no less true of astrology and the four humor temperament theories.  Although the scaffolding has long been removed by the scrutiny of the scientific method, the buildings still remain standing. The buildings are the type descriptions and are useful in discussing personality.  Consider astrology as an example.  Science has shown that the position of planets, whether at conception or birth can’t explain personality.  Still, some people feel their astrological sign explains it all.  It isn’t unreasonable to believe that at least one out of four people will find one particular “sign” will be at least 50% accurate in its description of their personality.  That’s sufficient to win a convert.

Let’s look a little closer at the problem of the bipolarity of the MBTI (Jungian) functions and attitudes.  The main problem is that all the functions are necessary to all organisms.  We all think, feel, do and see. We differ however in our preferences for these functions.  Some of us are DOERS while others are FEELERS.  Some of us are THINKERS and others are SEERS.  This is what is referred to as our dominant function.  If we add a secondary (auxiliary) system to the mix (temperament means “mixture”) we then become FEELING-DOERS, THINKING-SEERS, DOER-THINKERS for a total of twelve combinations.  If you consider the rejected, weakest, inferior function/system, you have 24 permutations.  Note that this means you can have THINKING-FEELERS, and DOER (Sensation)-SEERS (Intuition). Jung never figured that out.

We need to remember that types necessarily create some boundary problems.  They are convenient for zeroing in on a probable space but each person must be considered as an individual person situated on a continuum of dimension variables.  For instance, what does it mean when your dominant function is only slightly higher or equal to your auxiliary function. It makes a real difference.

Let us now attempt to map onto the Triangular Somatotype Chart, the probable location of the various MBTI personalities.  Remember my typological scheme involves twelve primary types (24 types if you include the inferior system).  Some of these will fit perfectly.  Others are at best educated guesses.  If there are only twelve primary types it can be expected that some of the MBTI types will prove to be redundant or not different enough to really be considered a distinct type.  As of this time there really is no written test that you can rely on to settle the matter. Some may say that this is a perfect scenario for a pseudo-science.  If test results don’t match the somatotype you can simply plead that the test is invalid or that the subjects are severely disturbed.

A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE PERSONALITY RESEARCH PROBLEM

It is clear that pencil and paper personality tests have failed because of the obvious problems of reliability and validity.  Some kind of objective measurement would solve these problems.  There needs to be a way of bypassing the black box.  The data goes in and like a roulette wheel no on knows where its going to stop spinning.  Sheldon and others have suspected that there might be physical correlates of temperament.  The problem is finding out which physical measurements are likely to be useful. Phrenology (head bump mapping) was a noble attempt.  It was scientific because its statements were falsifiable. Unfortunately, for the phrenologists their theory was shown to be false.  At this point if a person continues to believe phrenology then they are no longer behaving as scientists.
Some try to group Sheldon with the phrenologists.  This is a mistake.  No one has ever attempted to duplicate Sheldon’s research.

There have been attempts to correlate questionable paper and pencil tests with Sheldon’s somatotyping but these attempts were not exactly the same thing Sheldon did.  But, nevertheless, there were low correlations in the direction Sheldon would have predicted.  So, Sheldon’s work was never proven false.  Sheldon relied on several consultations with a subject for close to a year with each of the 200 subjects he rated in his temperament research.  The fatal public relations flaw is that Sheldon assessed the temperaments himself raising the issue of the “halo” effect where a researcher is suspected of seeing only data that supports his theory.  But no one tried to repeat his research using a disinterested group of psychologists to collect the temperament data by means of similar interviewing techniques.

There is another way this could be investigated.  Suppose you got a group of 200 or more people with the same somatotype?  Let them discuss their lives with each other in an online social network situation.  If there are strong similarities they will most likely discover them.  My prediction is that significant discoveries would emerge form this process. This research could be carried out for the nominal fee of only $10 per person.   That would be a small investment for what could possibly be achieved.  It is at least as important as mapping the human genome.  Just think what it would mean to have an accurate method of determining a person’s temperament.  It is not out of realm of possibility that  a paper and pencil test might emerge from such research that would really be accurate and at the same time could be cross checked against physical measurements.

LOCATION OF MBTI  TYPES IN A SOMATOTYPE CHART

Here is the problem:

“I (Jung) had to abandon the idea of the superordinate position of the ego. … I saw that everything, all paths I had been following, all steps I had taken, were leading back to a single point — namely, to the mid-point. It became increasingly plain to me that the mandala is the centre. It is the exponent of all paths. It is the path to the centre, to individuation.

… I knew that in finding the mandala as an expression of the self I had attained what was for me the ultimate.” – C. G. Jung. Memories, Dreams, Reflections

Jung fell victim to “box” thinking.  He was searching for any figure that would systematize the four functions.  Jung grabbed the most obvious geometric form available to the western mind .  He naturally thought of the square.  This is about as enlightened as saying “cat” when asked in the word association game “what comes to your mind when you hear the word dog?”  Jung believed the mandala was the best expression of the relationships between the four functions. Even though we tend to think of a  mandala as a square it can vary culturally.  For instance the Yin- Yang symbol (Taijitu) is a kind of harmonizing of four dimensions. Actually mandala is sanscrit for “circle”.  For whatever reason (probably a tendency toward dichotomous thinking) Jung chose the cross as the main figure for illustrating the relations of the four functions.  The diagram below ends up as Jung’s definitive structure.

A square may be an obvious choice when picking a figure to represent four basic elements but it creates a big question.  That question concerns the meaning of the middle of the square.  What happens when a person is balanced on all four functions.   Jung apparently felt that individuation ought to move a person to the center of the square where a person would achieve equal strength in all four functions.  No such person can possibly exist.  We are individuals to the extent that we present an imbalance in our function preferences.  It is this imbalance that is best utilized in the context of a group with “gifts differing” for the enrichment of the whole. The real job for a human is not to see how they can be complete by themselves but how they can, by understanding their assets and limitations, form a synergy within their community.

The even distribution of energy is death.  There is no value- no energy to homogenization. Wind is a good example.  Wind is the movement of air due to the inequality of temperature at two locations. At the point where the pressures equalize the flow stops.

Many psychological tests that are expressed as a score on various scales refer to “flat” or “tight” patterns.  These terms refer to the situation where all the scales are practically equal.  Whenever this kind of profile is encountered it raises a red flag.  Generally something is not exactly right when this happens.  A counselor uses this signal as a reason to probe for possible causes. The point here is to illustrate that individuation as a process of equalizing the four functions may not be desirable.  However, an awareness of the rank order of the strength of these functions is of utmost importance, because that’s what guides a person’s social preferences for vocation, mate, friends and understanding their enemies.

The problem with the “square” model is that once you explain the center you now have a “fifth” factor.  What are you going to do?  Are you going to conceive of a pentangular polygon to accommodate that “fifth” function? You have to stop somewhere.  The place to stop is at the beginning. There is quite a bit of agreement on the significance of four-ness. But is there a better way of conceiving four-ness using a geometrical figure?

ENTER THE TRIANGLE

Instead of thinking about a chair with four legs we need to think about the old-fashioned milking stool.  I don’t know if Jung ever met Buckminster Fuller but if he didn’t he should have. Both had a fascination with four-ness,but Fuller found the triangle to be the shape of preference if not necessity.

Consider the results if Jung and “Bucky” would have collaborated:

That’s as far as I care to go with this.  From this point on it is a matter of unraveling Jung’s poorly conceived labeling of the basic functions.  The solution is to understand that the functions need to reflect actual organismic systems.  There is almost a universal understanding that we are feelers, doers, thinkers and seers.  We feel, do, think and see.  So, we can map this as follows: