Aligning Our Personality Dimensions
Our underlying personality dimensions act as the invisible machinery driving human behavior, illustrating that, on the inside, we are not a single, unified entity, but rather a collection of different drives and tendencies that rarely pull us in the exact same direction. People sometimes describe the mind using concepts like the “reptilian brain,” with its supposedly different motivations and priorities. Others point to the influence of hormones, genes, habits, and society. However you frame it, it’s clear that many forces at play and they shape our behavior in a complex way.
I explained all this to myself a long time ago using scales, or, more precisely, personality dimensions.
To me, personality remains a unified whole, albeit one composed of many internal influences. There are countless behavioral programs running inside us, and each exerts its own pull. The influence of these programs can be represented along various spectrums. There are many such dimensions, but I find four of them particularly noticeable:
- Instinctiveness
- Traditionalism
- Social Value
- Reverence
We all fall somewhere on each of these dimensions—some closer to the edges, some near the middle. Their combination largely shapes our behavior and our compatibility with others. What’s interesting is that in some respects we are drawn to people who resemble us, while in others we are fascinated by those who are our opposites, as though they complete something within us.
Traditionalism
When the packs of our ape-like ancestors gradually evolved into societies, traditions emerged. Animals also exhibit rudimentary forms of learned behavior and social traditions, but culture, in its full sense, is ultimately a human phenomenon. Today we all live within cultures and feel their influence constantly. The differences between cultures shape almost everything around us.
Yet each of us is influenced by culture and tradition to different degrees. This is where the dimension of Traditionalism comes from. I used to call it “culturedness,” but that term tends to be misleading because people associate it with good manners or broad education.
On one end of the spectrum are people who strongly prefer to follow the norms and traditions of their group. On the other are those who prefer to decide everything for themselves. Importantly, the size of that group can vary dramatically. It may be an entire civilization, a nation, a religion, a profession, or even a close-knit circle of friends.
Punks and other countercultural groups provide a good example. They may reject mainstream traditions, but if they strictly follow the norms and codes of their own community, that still reflects high Traditionalism. The traditions are different, but the underlying personality trait remains the same.
The same applies to many religious and conservative people. Even some underground artists and musicians, despite rebelling against mainstream culture, may operate within highly structured traditions of their own. The content of the tradition changes; the inclination toward tradition does not.
Instinctiveness
Rationality ↔ Instinctiveness
Instinctiveness is one of the most important dimensions in my model.
We are all constantly influenced by instincts, while our capacity for reason allows us to regulate and sometimes override them. Human beings possess an unusually developed ability to reflect, plan, and restrain immediate impulses. In a sense, there is a continuous negotiation between instinctive drives and rational judgment.
Where a person falls on this spectrum depends largely on how often reason prevails over instinct, and how effectively they can resist instinctive arguments when those arguments conflict with their long-term interests or values.
Of course, instincts are not the only voice in this internal debate. Habits, traditions, and cultural expectations are always present as well. Because Instinctiveness and Traditionalism interact so strongly, I’ll return to their relationship later when discussing compatibility.
Social Value
Social Value is closely related to what is often called rank.
Of course, rank itself is more complicated than a single number. There is actual rank, perceived rank, realized rank, and probably several other variations. For the purposes of this model, I group them together under the broader concept of Social Value.
Living creatures form hierarchies. Hundreds of millions of years ago, long before trees appeared on Earth, hierarchies already existed. Human societies are no exception. In fact, most societies contain multiple overlapping hierarchies. Among them, two are especially important: the hierarchy of competence and the hierarchy of social status.
Modern civilization attempts, at least in theory, to function as a meritocracy. The more value a person creates, the more rewards they receive. In practice, this works imperfectly. Luck, inheritance, manipulation, corruption, and countless other factors complicate the picture.
As a result, people often evaluate one another through a broader and less formal sense of Social Value. We constantly assess who deserves respect, trust, influence, attention, and resources. Whether those assessments are fair is another matter entirely.
It’s easy to see why such instincts developed. When our ancestors successfully hunted a mammoth, the meat was not distributed solely among the hunters. Those who remained behind also received a share, and the distribution often reflected status within the tribe.
Popular culture frequently simplifies hierarchy using labels such as Alpha, Beta, and Omega. Reality is far more nuanced than these categories suggest, but they remain useful shorthand for discussing status and rank.
Our Social Value influences how we see ourselves, how others see us, how we communicate, and even who we choose to associate with. Although cultures often develop customs and institutions designed to soften the harsh edges of hierarchy, differences in Social Value remain a powerful force in human behavior.
Reverence
Reverence describes how deeply we feel responsibility for our actions and their consequences.
It’s tempting to simply call this conscience, but I mean something slightly broader. Reverence encompasses conscience, empathy, responsibility, humanity, and the ability to see beyond one’s immediate interests.
A person who can control their instincts through reason and bypass tradition when it suits them will inevitably face moral dilemmas. On one side may stand a deep awareness of the consequences of their actions; on the other, a cold indifference to those consequences.
There may be a goal—often rooted in resentment, ambition, trauma, or some personal obsession—and there is a path toward that goal. Whatever lies along that path becomes secondary. Other people become obstacles, tools, or collateral damage.
Naturally, most of us would prefer not to live in a society filled with such people. Crossing paths with them can range from unpleasant to dangerous. Even if you appear to be on the same side, loyalty may prove temporary.
At the same time, people with low Reverence can be remarkably successful in certain environments. Unburdened by empathy, guilt, or concern for broader consequences, they may become highly effective at manipulating individuals, organizations, and sometimes entire populations.
Fortunately, truly extreme cases are rare. In many people, instincts, traditions, emotions, and social expectations act as natural restraints. These forces do not always prevent harmful behavior, but they often limit it or expose it.
And so, as with the other dimensions, each of us falls somewhere along this spectrum.
The Mutual Correlations: How Dimensions Interact
Now let’s look at how these dimensions interact.
First, consider the first three dimensions: Instinctiveness, Traditionalism, and Social Value.
Obviously, people do not exist at the absolute extremes of these spectrums. Most of us occupy positions somewhere in between. But for the sake of analysis, let’s divide each dimension into three broad zones: high, medium, and low.
Once people are grouped this way, an interesting pattern appears. My own observations suggest that strong long-term relationships tend to involve significant alignment across all three of these dimensions.
To be clear, such alignment is merely a prerequisite. It is far from sufficient on its own to guarantee a successful relationship. But when significant mismatches exist, the foundation is often placed under considerable strain.
Historically, Social Value was probably the dominant factor. Traditionalism later became increasingly important as human societies grew more complex and culture became essential to survival and social cohesion.
Instinctiveness was always present as well, but for much of history the majority of people clustered within a relatively narrow range. A hundred years ago, most people were both highly traditional and highly instinctive. Differences in Social Value often played a much larger role in determining compatibility.
If we use the simplified three-zone model, there would effectively have been only a small number of common combinations. Finding a compatible partner was therefore a much simpler problem.
With industrialization, mass education, scientific thinking, rising living standards, and increasing individualism, people began spreading out across these dimensions. Decisions increasingly reflected conscious reasoning rather than instinct alone, and many people began questioning traditions that previous generations accepted automatically.
As a result, the number of possible combinations expanded dramatically. If we divide three dimensions into three zones each, we end up with twenty-seven possible groups. Assuming, purely for illustration, that these groups are evenly distributed, only about 3.7% of people would fall into the same category.
The situation becomes even more complicated because our positions on these dimensions are not fixed. They change throughout life.
This may help explain why so many relationships that begin successfully later struggle. One partner may become less instinctive and more analytical. Another may become more attached to tradition. One partner may experience significant growth in Social Value, while the other develops intellectually, emotionally, or professionally in a different direction.
Even if two people begin highly aligned, movement along one or more dimensions can create growing tension over time.
Again, alignment across these dimensions is only one ingredient in long-term relationship stability. It is not sufficient on its own, nor is it the only factor that matters. But I suspect it is a more important factor than most people realize.
This topic is enormous, and I have only scratched the surface here. My goal was simply to outline the framework itself. Whether we are talking about relationships, politics, economics, culture, religion, or even war, I increasingly find that these four dimensions provide a useful lens through which to understand human behavior. They do not explain everything, but they explain far more than I once expected.
Tags: psychologyphilosophyrelationships
