Do you have any cites for the rigidity assertion? (Seems like they’re logically separate questions; it’s not obvious how malleable non-genetic contributors would be.)
I have kept an eye out for Conscientiousness interventions for the past 2 or 3 years, searched on occasion, and have seen nothing ever suggested except possibly stimulants like amphetamines. Possible instances like military experience generally turn out to be selection effects. As well, the Duckworth paper linked in the sibling comment, extensively discusses the numerous correlates and versions of Conscientiousness before adulthood stretching all the way back to early infancy.
So, as much as I’d like there to be some easy environmental intervention to boost my own Conscientiousness, I haven’t found any.
Given the research that you cited, I have updated my probability estimate – that Conscientiousness is indeed rigid, higher from my original estimate of 75%. Wikipedia provides very accommodating definitions of Conscientiousness, inclusive of many behaviors such as being efficient and systematic, elements such as self-discipline and thoroughness, aspects of industriousness such as productivity and work ethic, and finally a strong association with procrastination.
The following are popular posts that try to understand and promote ways in which we can optimize some of the multiple facets of Conscientiousness listed above :
If it is not obvious by now, the following questions have me deeply conflicted:
Is it a waste of time for most, to invest into these sort of posts, because Conscientiousness is rigid?
If these sort of posts are not a waste of time, and you can optimize certain facets of Conscientiousness
via the many methods provided, then is Conscientiousness still rigid?
Perhaps Conscientiousness is boost-able, but on the low end? Perhaps the efficacy of these posts are over estimated?
Is it a waste of time for most, to invest into these sort of posts, because Conscientiousness is rigid?
I think you should first ask, what is meant, statistically, by the results we’re describing as ‘rigid’. If ~50% of population variance is genetically linked, what does that mean in practice?
Second, one should then ask, is there such a thing as ‘being efficient with Conscientiousness’? Somewhat like willpower—are there better or worse ways of deploying willpower? What would this even mean?
Conscientiousness is fairly rigid; it is, however, about as hereditable as IQ or less, from the 2 studies I have on hand:
“Genetic and environmental effects on openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness: An adoption/twin study”%20-%20Genetic%20and%20Environmental%20Effects%20on%20Openness%20to%20Experience,%20Agreeableness,%20and%20Conscientiousness-%20An%20Adoption%3ATwin%20Study.pdf), Bergeman et al 1993: 29% of variance
“Heritability of the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Their Facets: A Twin Study”, Jang et al 1996: 44%
Do you have any cites for the rigidity assertion? (Seems like they’re logically separate questions; it’s not obvious how malleable non-genetic contributors would be.)
I have kept an eye out for Conscientiousness interventions for the past 2 or 3 years, searched on occasion, and have seen nothing ever suggested except possibly stimulants like amphetamines. Possible instances like military experience generally turn out to be selection effects. As well, the Duckworth paper linked in the sibling comment, extensively discusses the numerous correlates and versions of Conscientiousness before adulthood stretching all the way back to early infancy.
So, as much as I’d like there to be some easy environmental intervention to boost my own Conscientiousness, I haven’t found any.
Given the research that you cited, I have updated my probability estimate – that Conscientiousness is indeed rigid, higher from my original estimate of 75%. Wikipedia provides very accommodating definitions of Conscientiousness, inclusive of many behaviors such as being efficient and systematic, elements such as self-discipline and thoroughness, aspects of industriousness such as productivity and work ethic, and finally a strong association with procrastination.
The following are popular posts that try to understand and promote ways in which we can optimize some of the multiple facets of Conscientiousness listed above :
Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge
My Algorithm for Beating Procrastination
Ugh fields](http://lesswrong.com/lw/21b/ugh_fields/
Defeating Ugh Fields In Practice
Anti-Akrasia Technique: Structured Procrastination
If it is not obvious by now, the following questions have me deeply conflicted:
Is it a waste of time for most, to invest into these sort of posts, because Conscientiousness is rigid?
If these sort of posts are not a waste of time, and you can optimize certain facets of Conscientiousness via the many methods provided, then is Conscientiousness still rigid?
Perhaps Conscientiousness is boost-able, but on the low end? Perhaps the efficacy of these posts are over estimated?
I think you should first ask, what is meant, statistically, by the results we’re describing as ‘rigid’. If ~50% of population variance is genetically linked, what does that mean in practice?
Second, one should then ask, is there such a thing as ‘being efficient with Conscientiousness’? Somewhat like willpower—are there better or worse ways of deploying willpower? What would this even mean?