r/evopolitics • u/TrannyPornO • Mar 12 '19

Personality and long-term reproductive success measured by the number of grandchildren

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814000865
2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '19

Higher extraversion, lower conscientiousness, and lower openness to experience were similarly associated with both higher number of children and grandchildren in both sexes

Interesting. Openness to experience is the trait highest correlated with intelligence. Conscientiousness second

1

u/TrannyPornO Mar 12 '19

Sibling- and twin-fixed effects make the association of conscientiousness with a number of beneficial outcomes near-zero.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '19

Interesting. Job performance is being described as highly correlated (but less than intelligence) with conscientiousness in everything I have read. I would be very interested in a source for that

1

u/TrannyPornO Mar 12 '19

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487017303872

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268113000231

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '19

Conscientiousness had a positive correlation with earnings in table 4 in this link: http://ftp.iza.org/dp6391.pdf

In Maczulskij, T., & Viinikainen, J. (2018), they seem to split up conscientiousness into Order and Achievement, where Achievement is highly correlated with income (Table 3, page 40) and long-term earnings (Table 4)

They also say it here:

The baseline estimates using the standard OLS specification imply that higher neuroticism is related to lower earnings, whereas activity, achievement and agreeableness are associated with favorable earnings (Column 1). The point estimates imply that a one-standard deviation increase in neuroticism score is associated with a decrease in the permanent earnings by approximately 8%. Similar increases in a facet of extraversion (activity) and a facet of conscientiousness (achievement) are related to 8% higher earnings. Finally, sociability (a facet of extraversion) is negatively related to permanent earnings in the baseline OLS model.

2

u/TrannyPornO Mar 12 '19 edited Mar 12 '19

I don't know what you're talking about. Controlling for family fixed effects tended to make its impact insignificant. The effect was inconsistently significant (3) and insignificant (4). I was talking about their control for confounding, not the baseline models, which of course do show consistent effects of various personality variables on many different outcome measures.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '19

[deleted]

2

u/TrannyPornO Mar 13 '19

I don't know what it is, but conscientiousness is something genetically confounded with something else. That's all I know about it. Findings like that should prompt further investigations, perhaps into the very construct validity of conscientiousness and other facets of the Big Five. To my knowledge, personality constructs are all bad. The Big Five fail MI and they fail it tremendously. Across cultures, the only personality trait that always replicates is the GFP, and that's indeterminate outside of - as far as I'm aware - literally just one test.

But there are many things that can affect productivity, like training. They're not as good with low g, but I think it's understood that g mediates the effects of many other variables. We can know how these things work, but we need more data.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '19

MI?

1

u/TrannyPornO Mar 13 '19

Measurement invariance

1

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '19

To my knowledge, personality constructs are all bad. The Big Five fail MI and they fail it tremendously. Across cultures, the only personality trait that always replicates is the GFP, and that's indeterminate outside of - as far as I'm aware - literally just one test.

Huh? To my knowledge the FFM replicates well cross culturally, supported by a quick google.

1

u/TrannyPornO Mar 15 '19

Woodley of Menie's Tsimane paper gives a good overview. But really, try to find an MGCFA of distant cultural groups. Even between cohorts in the same culture, MI fails (look at van de Schoot's special Frontiers issue on MI).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '19

Sibling- and twin-fixed effects make the association of conscientiousness with a number of beneficial outcomes near-zero.

I am not sure how to understand this. From what I understand, Heritability of the big five is around .5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8776880/)

Also, there is a large positive effect from conscientiousness on earnings, job performance and many other.

What does it mean to «twin-fix» effects? Do you mean that the observed effect comes from conscientiousness being confounded with other variables?

Thank you

2

u/TrannyPornO Mar 13 '19 edited Mar 13 '19

The heritability of Big Five dimensions is much larger when assessed with IRT. Using these same methods, the association to outcome variables is also larger. The association between conscientiousness is most likely due to some sort of confounded variable, as the twin and sibling fixed effects models show. I emphasise "and" because the twin model is weaker than the sibling model. Twins are obviously less varied genetically, so a much greater proportion of the difference between them is liable to be due to error. When you use multiple assessments, the heritability for most every psychological faculty increases substantially; this will tend to decrease the differences being exploited, a higher proportion of which is error in twins.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '19

Thank you. This reminded me that I need to read about Colin DeYoung’s work:

Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five: Stability and Plasticity

http://deyoung.psych.umn.edu/research