You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Is it inevitable that the parties in a 2-party system be split along the personality divide we see now (high openness + low conscientiousness vs. low openness + high conscientiousness), or do the party platforms basically determine how the US divvies itself up psychosocially?
Related: do we think less of Trait X because The Other Team has it, or do we think less of The Other Team because they have Trait X?
I think less of The Other Team mostly because 99% of them fail to offer an alternative vision that I, being nonbinary femme, can survive within. (the other 1% are, like, neoreactionary femboys) So I rarely get to the point of abstracting that out to traits.
Being part of the team with high Openness, on a political level, is a pact that I'm compelled to make, because the alternatives are either powerless or untenable. Hence, technically (2). But "low Openness, but includes me" feels way murkier, especially if they're Agreeable.
It may be the case that the way we talk about Trait X is different when The Other Team has it versus when we exhibit it. See, for example, “Language use in intergroup contexts: the linguistic intergroup bias.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2614663/
We think less of The Other Team because they oppose us. The rest is justification, not reason.
Different countries have different political spectrums and a different political menu from which voters choose. Which means that it is not totally baked in the cake. Generally divides will exist bw openness vs conscientiousness but they will manifest themselves in different ways.
I'd guess both. Not sure which came first, but it's probably self-reinforcing.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
