Seems to go along pretty well with existing stereotypes. Big-city easterners are extraverted, selfish, and neurotic; the South and Midwest are both friendly but a bit stodgy, and traditional New England is taciturn.

Big-city easterners are extraverted

Not according to the map, the most extraverted region seems to be the upper mid-west, which doesn't make any sense to me.

yeah, i have to read the whole paper i guess....

Haven't read the paper, just guessing: Extraversion may be related to ethnic homogeneity, not perfectly, obviously.

People could be more gregarious, active, happy, and feel warmth toward others when those others are like themselves -- as Putnam's study of diversity's negative effect on social capital predicts.

The West Coast and most of the East Coast (not to be confused with the eastern coastline of the US) are low, while the Midwest and Mountain regions are high. The Southeast is pretty diverse, but also high in Extraversion... don't know what that exception is about.

don't know what that exception is about.

fried chicken.

It's odd that neuroticism is high in both the Northeast (not surprising) and also in several Deep South states (very surprising).

The extraversion doesn't surprise me. The Midwest is known for yah-sure friendliness and Putnam-ideal communities as opposed to the atomized coastal cities. On the other hand, now that I think of it there are a lot of Finns in the Midwest.

NJ and PA are on the extraverted side, and those have a high concentration of city-dwellers. The New England results might be traditional taciturnity (think Silent Cal) - or social pressures of a more recent vintage.

Re: Razib posted a map on SB showing that the Eastern regions of a wide landmass have greater temporal differences in weather, while the Western regions are more mild:

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/ 200..._it_matters.php

Maybe that's related to the breeding conditions of some pathogen (perhaps Toxomplasma Gondii) whose infections cause higher Neuroticism, or higher N could be a facultative response to high bug load.

Whatever it is, it looks like climate type matters.

don't know what that exception is about.

fried chicken.

Au contraire, mon frere! It's all about the barbecue. More than a few people near where I grew up swear up and down that if they could get all the world's leaders together for a barbecue, all would be well.

I travel a great deal around the country. The fact that different regions of the country have differing personalities is something I noticed early on in my trips. The most agreeable lots seem to be in the midwest, southwest, and gulf coast states.

Hmm, the barbecue states as it were....

A logger friend of mine says that jokes about Finns still have an edge to them in that world and can get you in trouble. In the 20s and 30s a high proportion American Finns were Communists who had fled a civil war.

Extraversion and openness seem to be reciprocal, where as agreeableness fits with extraversion. I guess extraversion is a conventional sort of jolly friendliness, whereas openness is less gregarious but more accepting of novelty.

"Conscientiousness" seems to mean some sort of guilty obsessive Christian rule following. I have a lot of trouble thinking of Missourans as being much more conscientious than Iowans.

Pretty mushy, I'd say.

Allow me to suggest that man is a social animal and therefore the sparsity of population has historically forced people in the Midwest to be a little more extroverted than average.

The Wiki definition of openness couldn't be more ludicrous.


"Don't lie, cheat or steal". "Conduct yourself with character," and "live up to your words" are concepts that exemplify "guilty obsessive Christian rule following?"

Stunning cognitive ability there, chap.
Really enlightened thought process.
You wouldn't have a wee bit of prejudice there, would you?

Hi, Michael. Do you know anything about the Midwest? Most people here live in towns which are indeed less dense than New York City, but it's not at all like the parts of Montana or Nevada where your nearest neighbor is 10 miles away.

And lo!, people in Montana are not extraverted! In short, your explanation does not work, though that question is really moot since you have your facts wrong about the Midwest too. Value-added: less than zero.

If you had bothered to read the very short post of mine that you objected to, you would have noticed that I didn't see any way that Missouri is much more conscientious than Iowa -- more or less the opposite, I'd guess. But Missouri is much more fundamentalist than Iowa.

The labels of the qualities are crappy.

I admit that I cheated. Razib posted a little more data here, and it makes interpretation of the maps a little easier.

What is it that tells me this is the sort of "research" that gives social psychology a bad name?

I was born, raised, live and wrote this post from Omaha, Nebraska.
I have also lived in both Iowa, and Missouri. Des Moines and Booneville.

I mentioned in no way the subject of Missouri or Iowa. I ignored your comparison. I have lived in both places, and your assertion is nonsense.
People are no more conscientious in Iowa than Missouri, nor vice versa.

No I attacked your premise, your definition of conscientious, which I roundly ridiculed, and you studiously avoided.


I also highlighted your obvious prejudice and lack of enlightenment when it comes to "Christians." But you missed that as well.

Really funny.

chill on the ridicule OK? it doesn't make for value-added discussion.

Sorry, sir, but I intend to ridicule any kind prejudice every chance I get, to expose it for the cognitive dearth that it both is and engenders.

Sorry if I offended the host.

I'll take my leave now, should you wish...

Did Boston show up on the sanctimonious measure?

Where's Puerto Rico? (Yeah, yeah, I know: it's not a state.)

I agree that Iowans and Missourans are probably not much different in terms of conscientiousness, but the maps we're talking about showed that they were at opposite extremes. I suggested that "conscientiousness" was not the difference between the two states, but some sort of narrow-minded fundamentalism.
>
> The one-word labels used in the study are no good; the same is true of the term "extraversion", which seems to describe sociality or community involvement. (Your own personal definition of conscientiousness is completely irrelevant. I was trying to figure out what definition the study was using)
>
> And as I explained, your explanation of Midwestern extraversion was worth nothing.
>
> John Emerson
>
>
Please do not use my personal e-mail.
Please keep all correspondence on the board.
Not your fault, and I'm not angry, just prefer to keep the argument there.
I'll respond on the board.
Mike

"No, Razib doesn't want us to do that. It's here or nowhere."

"Well, I have no idea whom that is [I assume he is the blog owner or moderator.] If he does not want public discussion of the ideas presented, then he should probably disable or eliminate comments.
Mike"

"If you do not want emails, don't post your email.

He doesn't feel that our argument provides value to his readers, and he's probably right.

John"

Ummmm, that is why I wrote this: " Not your fault, and I'm not angry, just prefer to keep the argument there."
I didn't read the requirements carefully enough, but on most blogs, or at least many, your e-mail is required.
So I typed it as a matter of habit.
You are the first, ever, in 10 years, to send to my private e-mail.

And you suggested that "conscientiousness" {Defined by Websters: 1 : governed by or conforming to the dictates of conscience : scrupulous 2 : meticulous , careful }
is "guilty obsessive Christian rule following." Well, buddy, it doesn't mention Christian or any other religion. But your camels nose of prejudice forces it's way into the tent.

It doesn't really matter what definition the study used. It is either a credible definition or it is not. Logic tests that. Either the results are valid based on a valid premise, or the conclusion is flawed.

My definition of extraversion was Websters, and in that light, it makes perfect sense. Both in the broad and narrow senses. I know it because I have lived it, and seen many others live it.

Yes, your argument has no value, as your are prejudiced, and you continue to avoid being called on the carpet about it. Additionally, you made the assumption that I'm not from the Midwest. Again, you lose.

You want a value laden argument? Try some intellectual honesty.

And try to imagine how a sparsely populated area might make social animals slightly more extroverted. I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out.

Additionally, if the blog owner doesn't wish to ferret out prejudice of all kinds on his blog, he has no credibility either.

David Duke's blog has no credibility, just like Al Sharpton.

Your prejudice and dishonesty harms this blog owner. Makes it less likely folks will come back.
Mike
Don't know how the font color got out of whack.

"You're a whiny little moron. There's no reason for you to stink up Razib's blog with your idiot, hysterical cut and paste. If you had things you wanted to say to me, you could have said them on email. You had nothing to say to Razib's readers, as I explained."

I'd be careful what you call me. I'm 6'4, 240, taught hand to hand combat, and was a sniper on the rifle team at Kemper Military College, when I lived in Booneville. Considering that you are now repeatedly sending to my personal e-mail address after repeatedly being told not to, I consider your behavior threatening, intimidating, abusive, and stalker-ish.
I suggest that you leave it alone, lest you find a result you're not interested in.
Mike

Blog owner: FYI...one of your posters is engaging in harassing and threatening behavior. I am walking away.

I'm going to let this drop, but there's no way in which sending emails is threatening and harassing behavior.

this is weird.