merge furcons4

yt/Why Furries Need Conservatives.md

@@ -10,23 +10,23 @@ Why Furries Need Conservatives
 
 ## First: Openness, or openness to experience, is synonymous with creativity. [tony stark and peter parker] It is characterized by inventiveness and curiosity. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are free and limitless to their exploration and experimentation. Those who score low in this trait are more consistent and cautious. Broadly, this trait reflects to the ability and interest in processing complex stimuli. There is no correlative link between sex and this trait, though women tend to score higher on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings, while men score higher on the Ideas facet.
 
-## Conscientiousness is synonymous with orderliness. Conscientous people are efficient and organized. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are clearly, tightly drawn, and where everything remains in its proper place. [lego movie lord business irl] Those who score low in this trait are more extravagant and careless. Women score higher in some facets of conscientiousness, such as order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. These findings have not been replicated across cultures, so no correlation has been proven between conscientiousness and sex. Fascinatingly enough, those who score high in this trait are far more likely to react sharply to a stimulus such as a bad smell, a dirty word, or some sort of categorical insult. This facet is called a Novelty Aversion.
+## Conscientiousness is synonymous with orderliness. Conscientous people are efficient and organized. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are clearly, tightly drawn, and where everything remains in its proper place. [lego movie lord business irl] Those who score low in this trait are more extravagant and careless. Women score higher in some facets of conscientiousness, such as order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. These findings have not been replicated across cultures, so no correlation has been proven between conscientiousness and sex. Fascinatingly enough, those who score high in this trait are far more likely to react sharply to a stimulus such as a bad smell, a dirty word, or some sort of categorical insult. This facet is called Novelty Aversion, a psychological tendency to avoid or dislike new or unfamiliar stimuli, situations, or experiences.
 
 ## Extraversion is synonymous with sociability. [turk from tarzan?] Extraverts are outgoing and energetic. They feel comfortable where the people are, and they prefer to get to know them. Those who score low in this trait are more solitary and reserved. Males score higher in some facets of this trait, women on others. This one tends to be relatively balanced.
 
 ## Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. Highly agreeable people are quite friendly by disposition, want others to be happy, and want others to like them as well. They tend towards cooperation, social harmony, and the consideration of other's concerns. Those who score high in agreeableness find it difficult to put themselves first, even when they need to. Those who score low in this trait are more critical and judgemental. Female humans consistently score higher for agreeableness, while males are far more likely to be disagreeable, though there are exceptions to every rule, and they are rare. [stoic and valka, astrid and hiccup]
 
-## [piglet] Neuroticism is synonymous with negative emotion. Neurotic people are senstive and nervous by disposition. They feel comfortable nowhere, because everywhere the senses are activated, there are things to worry the conscience about. Those who score low in this trait are more resilient, confident, and damn lucky. Women disproportionately score higher in trait neuroticism, likely in correlation to their far lower risk tolerance in comparison to their male counterparts. Women are disproporationately anxious and have low self-esteem, though men tend to defeat women in anger, or Anger Hostility.
+## [piglet] Neuroticism is synonymous with negative emotion. Neurotic people are senstive and nervous by disposition. They feel comfortable nowhere, because everywhere the senses are activated, there are things to worry the conscience about. Those who score low in this trait are more resilient, confident, and damn lucky. Women disproportionately score higher in trait neuroticism, likely in correlation to their far lower risk tolerance in comparison to their male counterparts. Women are disproporationately more anxious and have low self-esteem, though men tend to defeat women in anger, or Anger Hostility.
 
-## If you're interested in learning more about the data explored here, I've linked a couple articles in the description. If any of the descriptions I've provided remind you of yourself, perhaps you'll be interested in taking a test. You can purchase one at understandmyself.com or if you're poor and stingy, like me, there are plenty of free tests online.
+## If you're interested in learning more about the data explored here, I've linked a couple articles in the description. If any of the descriptions I've provided remind you of yourself, perhaps you'll be interested in taking a test. You can purchase one at understandmyself.com or if you're poor and stingy, like me, there are plenty of free tests online. Just don't waste your time with Meyers-Briggs, because it's worthless pseudoscience. <!-- this is an intellectually cowardly line but i wrote it here anyway... hmm...-->
 
-## These traits are constraining, but not entirely immovable. It is possible to mitigate the downsides of each trait. For example, some highly Agreeable individuals will find it difficult, indeed, they may consider it kryptonite to put their needs before the needs of others. This may hamper their ability to advance in their career path. Such people can take Assertiveness training, which employs a strategy a bit like this: every time your needs are trampled, or you're overlooked, or made to feel lesser than, you will feel resentment welling up inside. The natural inclination of the Agreeable is to quash that resentment. Assertiveness training encourages the Agreeable one to channel that resentment into a form that can put their needs first. Sometimes life itself puts you through Assertiveness training; I, for one, started out incredibly Agreeable, then became progressively more disagreeable as that was taken advantage of, and dismissed. Such is life. Those who cannot learn to stop sacrificing themselves, will be devoured by their own empathy. <!-- too bleak?-->
+## These traits are constraining, but not entirely immovable. It is possible to mitigate the downsides of each trait. For example, some highly Agreeable individuals will find it difficult, indeed, they may consider it kryptonite to put their needs before the needs of others. This may hamper their ability to advance in their career path, for example. Such people can take Assertiveness training, which employs a strategy a bit like this: every time your needs are trampled, or you're overlooked, or made to feel lesser than, you will feel resentment welling up inside. The natural inclination of the Agreeable is to quash that resentment and to suffer silently, even for the sake of their aggressors. Assertiveness training encourages the Agreeable one to channel that resentment into a form that can put their needs first. Sometimes life itself puts you through Assertiveness training; I, for one, started out incredibly Agreeable, then became progressively more disagreeable as that was taken advantage of, and dismissed. Such is life. Those who cannot learn to stop sacrificing themselves, will be devoured by their own empathy. <!-- too bleak?-->
 
 ## So now that I've thoroghly simplified, or perhaps complicated, the sociopolitical landscape, now we can square that with our understanding of the occupants of said landascape.
 
 ## This landscape is embedded within the most broad landscape that we all exist in: the narrative landscape. First, everything in the universe can be fundamentally categorized into two groups: that which we know, and that which we do not know. The territory of the Unknown, or Chaos, is vast and expansive, far more than any one of us can ever know. The territory of the Known, or Order, is small, finite, and precious. We, as rationally self-interested beings, intelligent and self-conscious, are designed to make chaos into order. Regardless of our big five trait scores, we all have a part to play within this Order, whether it's in preserving it, or whether it's in disrupting it for its benefit.
 
-## Let's start with conservatives, after all, that's why we're in this mess. The conservative temperament is primarily conscientious, and secondarily disagreeable. I believe the latter is an outgrowth of the former, though it could be vice versa and likely varies per person. Conscientious people prefer rules, order, and categorizations. They are quite novelty-averse, meaning that which is new, or Chaos, causes them to react highly cautiously and distrustfully and on the extreme end, violently. This is why those with a conservative temperament may suffer from out-group homogeneity bias in a more abject way than their liberal counterparts. This bias, for those who don't know, is a human universal. It is the tendency to erronously percieve that one's in-group is more diverse than out-groups. You see, when we're with our in-group, we percieve that group as diverse, because we know each member by name. We each share an abstracted ideal, values, a common conceptual schema, so we may behave similarly to one another, and we have our own culture, customs, inside jokes, and other common behaviors, but we're all individuals and thus we do not think as one. When you neither know nor understand the out-group, it's far easier to dismiss them as monotypic, when that group is just as diverse as the in-group. This is a human universal because again, Chaos is so expansive that we must simplify it into digestible categories in order to efficiently deal with it. Once we bring more light [lion king] upon the Chaos, and bring more of it to Order, the additional information is sufficient to bring even more of it to proper order. But until we can understand each other more deeply, we must categorize each other in order to continue living our lives without getting a headache.
+## Let's start with conservatives, after all, that's why we're in this mess. The conservative temperament is primarily conscientious, and secondarily disagreeable. <!--I'm not sure where I picked this up but this isn't remotely true; there is no correllation between conscientiousness and disagreeability.--> I believe the latter is an outgrowth of the former, though it could be vice versa and likely varies per person. Conscientious people prefer rules, order, and categorizations. They are quite novelty-averse, meaning that which is new, or Chaos, causes them to react highly cautiously and distrustfully and on the extreme end, violently. This is why those with a conservative temperament may suffer from out-group homogeneity bias in a more abject way than their liberal counterparts. This bias, for those who don't know, is a human universal. It is the tendency to erronously percieve that one's in-group is more diverse than out-groups. You see, when we're with our in-group, we percieve that group as diverse, because we know each member by name. We each share an abstracted ideal, values, a common conceptual schema, so we may behave similarly to one another, and we have our own culture, customs, inside jokes, and other common behaviors, but we're all individuals and thus we do not think as one. When you neither know nor understand the out-group, it's far easier to dismiss them as monotypic, when that group is just as diverse as the in-group. This is a human universal because again, Chaos is so expansive that we must simplify it into digestible categories in order to efficiently deal with it. Once we bring more light [lion king] upon the Chaos, and bring more of it to Order, the additional information is sufficient to bring even more of it to proper order. But until we can understand each other more deeply, we must categorize each other in order to continue living our lives without getting a headache.
 
 ## Those with a conservative temperament are not comfortable where the bondaries are not well-defined. They are not comfortable with Chaos. They see extravagance and carelessness as tantamount to suicide. They aren't completely risk-averse, and can be blinded by disagreeableness, but they're risk-averse enough to maintain Order well enough to make the Order habitable and prosperous. Often, their dedication to Order can reach near-autistic levels. [10 cloverfield lane] Living under such an Order can be oppresive. It will feel especailly oppressive to those high in Openness, who see Order as limitation and confinement. It's not difficult to imagine how this conflict arises. To be efficient and organized, is to be judgemental; when an ideal or aim is set, a judgement is required in assessing whether the mark has been hit or missed. [robin hood? brave?] Pure conscientiousness sees a missed mark, otherwise defined as a Sin, as an objective failure, and will seek to rectify it without delay or shame. Those who score low in conscientiousness don't care when they miss the mark, and hardly even see it worthwhile to aim in the first place. Conscientious individuals can't help but to see missed marks wherever they look, and will often point out their existence to whomever will listen. This makes them critical and judgemental, which is categorically disagreeable. Thus, the Conservative Ethos tends to come off as cold and heartless, and at its most disagreeable, downright disdainful and rude. This, clearly, is when their liberal counterparts are least happy with them.