For those who are asking about my definition of "conscientiousness...."
So, it would appear that I have indeed been holding onto a misconception of conscientiousness. I looked up the entry in the American Heritage dictionary and indeed, the word basically means "principled" or "industrious."
For whatever reason, I have believed for years that it referred to something like "self-awareness." Part of me wishes I had simply twisted, intentionally, the definition to make this article work, but that's not so! I was genuinely mistaken as to what the word meant.
I really don't know where this confusion came from. It may have been a case of mistaking the meaning of conscientiousness with one of the effects. See, for example, this definition, that connects conscientiousness to impulse control: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/conscientiousness.
In short, I just goofed this one up! That being said, I don't think the substance of the article is changed by this. I just needed a different word than "conscientiousness," and the connection to the Financial Times piece should have been less direct.
Thanks to those who pointed this out. Sorry for the confusion, and I'll try hard to be more...conscientiousness...about my definitions!
Well, for what it's worth, I use "conscientious" the same way you do--and just did in a conversation, which I found ironic since I read this article yesterday. I ended up doing the same thing you did and, at first, found the entirety of the internet disagreeing with our (clearly right!) usage.
But it just seemed too odd to me to find that you and I--who have never met--use the word in the same way. So after six or seven different wordings in Google, I finally found some confirmation that we're not just crazy or making it up.
I found the last one particularly enlightening, since they define conscientiousness as "being mindful of those around you, from friends and family, to colleagues and even strangers. A conscientious person will be conscious of the first impression that they make on others when they are introduced to new people, for instance." And this article is particularly talking about the Big Five traits, which is exactly what you were discussing.
Not that I have any technical ground on which to stand in saying this, but it feels like a semantic shift between what conscientious means (actually being organized and disciplined) to the reason for being that way (an awareness of the impact of our actions on others). I did some more googling to try to find other examples of words doing that, but Google couldn't figure out what I was trying to ask it and I need to get back to work...
But that's all just to say, I wanted to at least give you some evidence that you were not "genuinely mistaken", as least not individually. And on that, your article made perfect sense to me as written and was helpful as your writing always is.
How did the study define conscientiousness besides considering it a personality trait? I’m just wondering if the study has any relevance toward your argument of millennials and younger losing the ability to see themselves as others see them.
As another Brit, I was coming here to say exactly the same as Berkeley Young. In fact I have just looked for a definition of conscientiousness online and I can't find any that aligns with its use in this article.
I am a personality researcher studying the Big Five traits, among other individual differences. Among personality researchers, this is simply not true: "The purpose of all these zealous personality tests and the cultish communities that form around them is to reinforce the ironclad law that my relationship to you begins and ends with recognition of who I am." My field by and large embraces the reality and possibility that people's personalities change! Unfortunately, weird things happen when our research goes out into the wild, and then it gets used by others to promote the existing therapeutic culture, which is often all about affirming who we all are, as if it is not possible for those individual differences to be sinful or to be something we can change.
That's a helpful distinction. I think it's often the case the case that professional research is more measured and nuanced than the popular distillations of it. In the case of personality profiling, I don't think most people think of these as dynamic categories, but as fixed ones. That's probably because of the popular literature.
I've never come across this definition of 'conscientiousness'. Is it an American understanding of the word? The standard definition (for a Brit, at least), is "the quality of wishing to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly."
While I agree with many of the observations made in this article, the article seems, unfortunately, to be based upon a false assumption. The writer does say, “that’s how I define conscientiousness”; but that is NOT how psychiatrists define it and the graph is based upon the psychiatric definition. In psychiatry literature, the simple “definition” is: “Conscientiousness – impulsive, disorganized vs. disciplined, careful”. I really appreciate Samuel James’ writing and have enjoyed many of his articles. I think he should reconsider this one, though. Although I don’t disagree with his conclusions about millenials, his premise is faulty right out of the gate.
Oh and now I see his comment below, acknowledging his error in definition. I should have been more “conscientious” … to thoroughly read all the comments - before I posted mine! Mea culpa.
Overall, I agree with the idea that the degree of individual autonomy our society, particularly the very online portions of it, pushes is both unsustainable and absurdly self-centered (see the transgender movement and COVID-19). However, I want to caveat something with the "nourish, not drain" thing: While you shouldn't cut and run from a relationship because there's a season where you're the one who gives and they're the one who takes, if there's a relationship that's been going on for a really long time (like, say, years or decades), you've always been the giver, there is no sign of that ever changing, and the other party is a fully functional adult, I don't think it's a sign of selfishness or lack of conscientiousness to say "I'm done," barring some kind of other obligation.
For those who are asking about my definition of "conscientiousness...."
So, it would appear that I have indeed been holding onto a misconception of conscientiousness. I looked up the entry in the American Heritage dictionary and indeed, the word basically means "principled" or "industrious."
For whatever reason, I have believed for years that it referred to something like "self-awareness." Part of me wishes I had simply twisted, intentionally, the definition to make this article work, but that's not so! I was genuinely mistaken as to what the word meant.
I really don't know where this confusion came from. It may have been a case of mistaking the meaning of conscientiousness with one of the effects. See, for example, this definition, that connects conscientiousness to impulse control: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/conscientiousness.
In short, I just goofed this one up! That being said, I don't think the substance of the article is changed by this. I just needed a different word than "conscientiousness," and the connection to the Financial Times piece should have been less direct.
Thanks to those who pointed this out. Sorry for the confusion, and I'll try hard to be more...conscientiousness...about my definitions!
Well, for what it's worth, I use "conscientious" the same way you do--and just did in a conversation, which I found ironic since I read this article yesterday. I ended up doing the same thing you did and, at first, found the entirety of the internet disagreeing with our (clearly right!) usage.
But it just seemed too odd to me to find that you and I--who have never met--use the word in the same way. So after six or seven different wordings in Google, I finally found some confirmation that we're not just crazy or making it up.
https://aaronmayer.medium.com/conscientiousness-b54c57b6180a
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/1edst0p/meaning_of_conscientious/
https://www.psychologistworld.com/influence-personality/conscientiousness-personality-trait
I found the last one particularly enlightening, since they define conscientiousness as "being mindful of those around you, from friends and family, to colleagues and even strangers. A conscientious person will be conscious of the first impression that they make on others when they are introduced to new people, for instance." And this article is particularly talking about the Big Five traits, which is exactly what you were discussing.
Not that I have any technical ground on which to stand in saying this, but it feels like a semantic shift between what conscientious means (actually being organized and disciplined) to the reason for being that way (an awareness of the impact of our actions on others). I did some more googling to try to find other examples of words doing that, but Google couldn't figure out what I was trying to ask it and I need to get back to work...
But that's all just to say, I wanted to at least give you some evidence that you were not "genuinely mistaken", as least not individually. And on that, your article made perfect sense to me as written and was helpful as your writing always is.
How did the study define conscientiousness besides considering it a personality trait? I’m just wondering if the study has any relevance toward your argument of millennials and younger losing the ability to see themselves as others see them.
As another Brit, I was coming here to say exactly the same as Berkeley Young. In fact I have just looked for a definition of conscientiousness online and I can't find any that aligns with its use in this article.
Thanks, Ruth. See my comment just posted on the piece.
I am a personality researcher studying the Big Five traits, among other individual differences. Among personality researchers, this is simply not true: "The purpose of all these zealous personality tests and the cultish communities that form around them is to reinforce the ironclad law that my relationship to you begins and ends with recognition of who I am." My field by and large embraces the reality and possibility that people's personalities change! Unfortunately, weird things happen when our research goes out into the wild, and then it gets used by others to promote the existing therapeutic culture, which is often all about affirming who we all are, as if it is not possible for those individual differences to be sinful or to be something we can change.
That's a helpful distinction. I think it's often the case the case that professional research is more measured and nuanced than the popular distillations of it. In the case of personality profiling, I don't think most people think of these as dynamic categories, but as fixed ones. That's probably because of the popular literature.
It's because of the stupid MBTI discourse, I suspect!
I've never come across this definition of 'conscientiousness'. Is it an American understanding of the word? The standard definition (for a Brit, at least), is "the quality of wishing to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly."
Thanks, Berkeley. See my comment just posted.
I am not really a huge Pink Floyd fan (stridently Zeppelin, but I digress...) but might this be the best rock lyric ever? From "Wish You Were Here":
"Did you exchange
A walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
Amazing, and ineffably sad, how quickly the world is trending towards this.
While I agree with many of the observations made in this article, the article seems, unfortunately, to be based upon a false assumption. The writer does say, “that’s how I define conscientiousness”; but that is NOT how psychiatrists define it and the graph is based upon the psychiatric definition. In psychiatry literature, the simple “definition” is: “Conscientiousness – impulsive, disorganized vs. disciplined, careful”. I really appreciate Samuel James’ writing and have enjoyed many of his articles. I think he should reconsider this one, though. Although I don’t disagree with his conclusions about millenials, his premise is faulty right out of the gate.
Oh and now I see his comment below, acknowledging his error in definition. I should have been more “conscientious” … to thoroughly read all the comments - before I posted mine! Mea culpa.
This article is pure gold.
Overall, I agree with the idea that the degree of individual autonomy our society, particularly the very online portions of it, pushes is both unsustainable and absurdly self-centered (see the transgender movement and COVID-19). However, I want to caveat something with the "nourish, not drain" thing: While you shouldn't cut and run from a relationship because there's a season where you're the one who gives and they're the one who takes, if there's a relationship that's been going on for a really long time (like, say, years or decades), you've always been the giver, there is no sign of that ever changing, and the other party is a fully functional adult, I don't think it's a sign of selfishness or lack of conscientiousness to say "I'm done," barring some kind of other obligation.
Great article and observations!