For many years, writers of all political persuasions have divided people into the "independent-thinkers" and the "sheep". Of course, people who think like they do are the independent-thinkers and the others are the sheep.
This article follows the same very old and tired pattern, and it's a shame, because I really enjoy most of Paul Graham's essays.
Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective, data-driven way? Real data on this might be quite interesting.
> Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective, data-driven way?
Broadly, yes.
The Five Factor Model includes axes for openness (what Graham divides has as "conventional-minded" to "independent-minded") and agreeableness (Graham's "aggressive" to "passive"). The FFM is well supported by various lines of evidence.
Graham's model however overlooks three other axes: conscientiousness, extraversion-introversion and neuroticism. Plus it doesn't allow for any nuance, based on a binary classification when in fact the spectra of human behaviour are incredibly wide and nuanced.
The characterisation of folks as "tattletales", "sheep", "dreamy" and "naughty" doesn't suggest an attempt at good-faith discussion.
This article follows the same very old and tired pattern, and it's a shame, because I really enjoy most of Paul Graham's essays.
Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective, data-driven way? Real data on this might be quite interesting.