It is obvious to me that liberals are entirely different than conservatives, but why is that? Like so many things these days I find myself thinking back to experiences that I had in the past to come up with answers for today’s questions.
Many years ago I took a sales training class called the Versatile Salesperson. The premise was that if a salesperson was left to their own devices, they would probably only successfully connect with customers who had the same personality styles. However; if you could train a salesperson to be more versatile, they would be able to relate to a wider range of personalities. This would greatly increase their sales effectiveness. It seemed very logical and in practice actually worked quite well.
While that lesson served me well many years ago, I think it has also helped me to understand the differences between a liberal and a conservative. When I reflect back on that sales training, it taught me that people generally have a dominant personality style or trait and they are secondary in another trait. These styles or traits are listed in the box below.
The four quadrants are four distinctly different personality styles. The styles diametrically opposite from each other are opposing styles and are quite different from each other. As a result, when a person is dominant in a style such as analytical, they are usually quite weak in the expressive style and vice versa.
Therefore, a person’s secondary style can almost always be found in an adjoining quadrant to their dominant style.
While everybody has some level of association with all four styles, it is a rare individual that is truly versatile across all four quadrants. I personally thought this training proved to be quite valuable in training sale personnel to be more adaptable and relate better with their clients. However, I also came to understand that where a person fits on the chart pretty much tells us what they are going to do in life.
I will try to provide some examples of this. When referring to styles, I will always list the dominant style first followed by the secondary style. As an example, engineers are often dominant in the analytical quadrant and secondary in the driver quadrant. So, they would be analytical driver. However, there are some engineers that are analytical amiable. I think these are the people that tend to go more into technical sales.
Other examples include physicians who tend to be analytical amiable, teachers who tend to be expressive amiable, ministers that tend to be amiable expressive, business people tend to be driver analytical and so on. Because these are generalizations, you will always be able to identify somebody you know that doesn’t quite fit this pattern. However, I think in “general” it is really quite accurate.
As you will always find in life, there are some outliers to this description. I think one example of this is the rare individual that is versatile across all four quadrants. I believe these are the people that often become CEOs in the business world. I also think that you will find some people that are tightly wound into a single quadrant. I think a good example of this would be Sheldon on the CBS show the Big Bang. I think it would be fair to characterize him as an analytical analytical so tightly wound into a single quadrant that he is incapable of relating to people in the other three quadrants.
Since I have such a strong belief in the validity of what I have just communicated, I found myself trying to use it to help me understand the differences between a liberal and a conservative. I think when a person studies the “typical” liberal you will generally find that they fit into the bottom two quadrants. Conversely, I think you will find that most conservatives are usually in the top two quadrants. Yes, I really do think liberals and conservatives are different and it can be quantified.
Again, I am sure that as people think through this they will come up with all kinds of exceptions to this statement. However, I believe that if you continue to think about the issue you will also realize that they are “exceptions” and that “generally” the rule applies.
There is a reason that there are very few Republicans that are dynamic speakers, they just do not fit into the expressive quadrant. Oh yes, there are some like Marco Rubio. However, for every Rubio there are a lot more like George W. Bush who really struggle getting their verbal messages across.
But on the other hand, the Republicans are blessed with many good people that solidly fit into the top two quadrants. These are the quadrants where you will find your strong managers, leaders, governors and presidents. They have the ability to govern well, but are not overly impressive on the podium or the campaign trail.
I think President Obama provides another excellent case study. I personally believe that Obama is a classic expressive amiable. So when Obama is constantly on the campaign trail rather than being in DC governing, when people ask why he never ran anything before becoming President, when people criticize him for being over his head and not governing well, we now know why. Obama is a classic liberal that is an expressive amiable and his strengths and skills do not lie in the quadrants where we typically find our best presidents.
I think we need to understand there are no good or bad styles, no right or wrong styles; they just are what make people different. I also think it goes a long way in explaining the differences between liberals and conservatives. And most importantly, I hope it helps to reaffirm my belief that the correct way for liberals and conservatives to work together is to COMPLEMENT each other’s strengths not to compromise on their principles.
Jammer
“So when Obama is constantly…rather than being in DC governing…”
From http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20093801.html –
“So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.
Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off — 28 days.”
Dude! Unwash your little conservative brain, or at least air it out a little.
According to this article (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-confronted-by-local-reporter-about-non-stop-and-expensive-first-family-vacations/):
“Last summer, CBS News reported on the number of days that Obama had spent on vacation and compared it to the vacation days of Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton. The issue of the cost to country was not brought up in this comparison, just the number of days.
According to the stats kept by CBS’ Mark Knoller, both Bush and Reagan spent more time away from Washington DC than Obama has. However, it should be noted that the Reagan and Bush vacations were typically spent on their ranches. The Obama family vacations include exotic and exclusive (read “expensive”) locations around the planet.”
Do the research on the cost of the Obama family’s vacations as compared to Bush, Reagan and Clinton. We are talking millions of dollars, all at taxpayer expense. Clinton was one of the most frugal of all the presidents, not only with vacations but in government spending, too. Obama has and continues to spend more than any other president on both.
The comment is exclusively related to time not spent in DC “governing,” not about what type of time it is, who pays for it or whether it is spent at a ranch, a Motel 6 or a campaign bus. But since you bring it up, Bush, Reagan and Clinton vacations were all pre-9/11; have you seen what the Olympics are costing this year? I don’t need to do research to know how much complicated and expensive life is these days, or to know that I (nor you) will ever be able to have a ranch to go to. By the way, Im sure Nancy and Barbara were doing all the cooking and the washing while at the ranch, just to save you and me some money…
Rather be in DC, I really was not personally thinking about vacation days when I made my comment. My thought went to all of the campaign and fundraising trips that Obama has taken. I never really thought of vacation days, it is funny that is what came to your mind.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/148396935.html?refer=y
These types of trips started almost immediately after Obama was elected. My impression was that this guy does not want to stay in DC and govern; he wants to be on the campaign trail. And my belief is the reason for this is that Obama’s personality traits of an expressive amiable better fits the campaign trail than does running a country from an office in DC.
Time away from DC is time away from DC. And since you equate time away from DC with unwillingness to govern, who is more unwilling in the end?
I can sincerely say that I don’t know what you are trying to communicate. However, please do not misinterpret my comment to say that I personally think Obama being away from DC is bad. In fact, I actually prefer that he leaves and never returns. I think the article below expounds on that.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/joseph-farah/president-obama-takes-another-vacation.html
My entire point is that liberals are different than conservatives and what makes a person a liberal makes them want to talk a lot and be liked. Those are perfect skills for the campaign trail and that is where Obama has spent the majority of his time.
Here’s the thing. Jammer isn’t from NMB or even Florida. He may not realize that most of my readers are Democrats, most likely voted for Obama, and will probably do so again. For this reason, I try to refrain from getting into partisan politics in my columns. There’s no sense alienating my own readers. Besides, both Republicans and Democrats give me equal opportunities to criticize. Corruption comes in every party.
Uncle, uncle! I give up! Champagne Liberal that I am, I will be in Italy for the next couple of weeks. Ciao Bellos!
Sounds like you will be in a nice area. Ciao
Wow, Jammer went quite quickly from “liberals and conservatives have different skills and can complement one another” in the first column to “conservatives are smart and ambitious (and end up on top), and liberals are blowhards who want everyone to like them” (and end up on the bottom). And this expert psychological analysis of the American political scene is based on a sales training class? AYFKM? Granted, I’m no expert on the talking heads, as I generally don’t need someone to tell me how I should interpret or think about something, so I don’t usually read or watch them. But this is just plain juvenile and simplistic. Moreover, trying to disguise the message by ending it with “we’re all just different” is obviously manipulative…which is, of course, the very basis of salesmanship.
I’ll not bother to refute any particular claims based on Jammer’s “theory” except for one. George W. Bush struggled to express himself not because he was analytical and driven, but because he was a complete moron with a minimal grasp of his own native language. Princess Pea expresses herself more eloquently, and she’s never seen the inside of a classroom.
I think you are completely wrong in your comment. I never said that liberals ended up on the bottom. If I ever do this message again, I will rework the box with the quadrants and switch them around. Then you can be in the top two quadrants. 😉
Let’s try to analyze this issue. Instead of having two wings of the political spectrum called liberals and conservatives, let’s think of this way. How about we call one the wing of COMPASSION and problem identification? When you look at the personality styles of the “typical” (remember not all) liberal, they fit this role very nicely.
Now if the other wing is problem solving and conservation of resources, the personality styles of the “typical” (once again remember not all) conservative fits this extremely well. And trust me, we need both of these wings working TOGETHER.
I will flatly state that liberals have the most noble and even best goals in the world. Their personality styles make them the best at identifying the UNMET needs of the country. However, that is where they need the conservatives because the conservatives are better at building the solutions for these problems.
If you want me to throw a ding at the conservatives, I will be happy to do so. Because they can be so analytical at times, they don’t always recognize the unmet needs of the country. It doesn’t mean they don’t care, because THEY DO. However, their skill sets just don’t allow them to be that good at it.
I maintain that there is a way to work together and that is to COMPLEMENT each other.
Jammer’s second column and he gets “hate mail” already? He beat me. It took me a few months to make enemies. 😈
Hate is a strong EMOTION. The evidence continues to mount. I think it is consistent for a liberal to respond with an emotion rather than to analyze the message and discuss it. I accept it, how we respond is just different.
I was just being flip. That’s the way I respond to contention most of the time. I don’t think an emotional reaction is restricted to liberals. I tend to get very emotional about things that rub me the wrong way, and I don’t consider myself to be a liberal. While your trait styles are very interesting and can be indicative of a person’s political leanings, I think it’s overly broad. I have friends on both ends of the political spectrum, including all the shades in between, and their personality traits are quite varied. For example, I’ve met both liberals and conservatives who speak and write eloquently, and they can gently persuade me to see things their way, even if I don’t agree with their philosophy. By contrast, I know people from both sides of the aisle that I can’t stand equally. I find that a keen sense of humor is a sign of great intellectual substance, and those who possess that trait can usually rise above petty partisan rhetoric. The ability to laugh at ourselves is one I find most admirable and desirable. The ability to make fun of people is even better. Princess Pea would agree. And she doesn’t suffer fools. 😎
There are exceptions to every rule. However, it is common for people to identify the exceptions and then use that to discount that the rule just might apply.
The other thing to remember is that very few people outside of Sheldon on the Big Bang are completely void of these traits. Even I am capable of uttering two and sometimes three understandable sentences.
Actually anger is probably the more appropriate word, Remember, I am a conservative and I don’t always express myself the best. 😳
I am not so surprised that Jammer calls me an emotional idiot with no analytical skills. Now I see after reloading the comments that he contends I am angry (and “common”) as well, which further suggests, uneducated and devoid of reason. Then he tries to soften the insult by saying that he is a conservative and cannot therefore express himself. You’re not fooling anyone, Jammer. It’s quite clear that you consider those with “compassion” idiots, and those with “problem-solving and conservation-of-resources skills” far superior. While I might be an emotional-idiot liberal in your eyes, don’t think for a moment that you will fool me with semantics. I speak, read and write English quite well. Almost as well as our Gadfly.
BTW, the television show you referred to is not the Big Bang, but The Big Bang Theory.
I’m shocked that either of you categorized this as hate mail, as I thought it was quite restrained, and it was only one short comment out of many that this blog generated. I’ve been following this blog for almost three years, and I’ve seen a whole lot of hate mail. I don’t think my last post qualified. But then again, I’m a stupid liberal who lacks analytical skills and just wants to bloviate and make people like me, right? According to your scientific (sales training) assessment.
Well Fast, I never called you an idiot and I don’t know what the “common” part is about either. But you are correct, the full name of the TV show is the Big Bang Theory. However, around our house we just call it the Big Bang. So, that is what led to my mistake. I am sorry if that offended you.
Also, I never said you have NO analytical skills. In fact, if you reread what I wrote I tried to say that everybody as some level of all styles with the possible exception of Sheldon. What I said was that when a person is strong or dominant in one quadrant, it is typical they are weak in the opposing quadrant, not void.
So, can I take it that you disagree with my theory and have no interest in working together?
“However, it is common for people to identify the exceptions and then use that to discount that the rule just might apply.”
Yes, you did call me common.
“The evidence continues to mount. I think it is consistent for a liberal to respond with an emotion rather than to analyze the message and discuss it.”
Yes, you did call me an idiot. In typical salesman style, you just changed the words, and hoped I wouldn’t notice.
“My entire point is that liberals are different than conservatives and what makes a person a liberal makes them want to talk a lot and be liked.”
This statement is just about the most puerile and simplistic analysis I’ve ever heard. You are taking a person’s (liberal) political convictions and reducing them to a personality or mental disorder. Well, let me be the proverbial rule that proves the exception (which of course makes me “common” in your eyes). I don’t like to talk much, and I don’t give a rat’s ass who likes me.
As for us “working together,” wtf does that mean? I don’t know you, you don’t know me, and I’m pretty sure we’ll never meet. Go back into your world, Jammer. I think it’s a long, long way from here.
Sounds like you had a bad day?
Also, you seem to have deep rooted hostility toward sales people. By the way, I am not a sales rep today nor was I a sales rep when I took that course. So, if you are mad at me, please don’t take it out on sales people. They are the people that help make the economy go. If you are in business, you should know that nothing happens until somebody makes a sale.
You do make a semi-valid point about my comment; “My entire point is that liberals are different than conservatives and what makes a person a liberal makes them want to talk a lot and be liked.”
That really was not worded the best. However, it is far from a simplistic analysis. While you may not agree with it, a lot of thought was involved. Think about all of the amiable expressives in the world and what they do for a living: Minister, teacher, movie stars, newspaper people, newscasters to name a few. I really do think they fit that personality style and there is nothing wrong with it. And I will ask you the question, just what political leaning are MOST (remember not ALL) of them? I will not give you my opinion as you seem not to be too interested in it.
Hope your weekend goes better.
My day was just fine. And don’t confuse hostility with disdain. I disdain people who manipulate people into buying something they don’t need or even want, and in general use tactics like those described in the web sites you pointed to as a way to “succeed in business” without having any real worthwhile skills to offer a prospective employer. A sales person who serves a purpose is someone who assists someone in identifying what they need, if they require that assistance. Most of us know what we want and need, and buy it unassisted. WE make the economy go, when we have the money to do so.
I don’t know any teachers, movie stars, newspaper people or newscasters, so I couldn’t begin to speculate on their political leanings. But ministers…gee, it seems to me that a whole lot of those religious types have hijacked the Republican party for their own agenda. That agenda is neither amiable nor expressive; it is hateful, and exclusive.
I can’t figure you out, Jammer. You started out as a political analyst. Then you became a psychologist. Now you’re a business analyst, or rather a promoter of self-help-books-to-make-money analyst. Just what is it you are after here?
Fast, I can see that you really don’t understand the business world.
When it comes to sales people, I think they generally fall into two categories. They are either expressive amiables or analytical expressives. The first type do the best in commodity non-value added type sales while the analytical expressives generally do the best in either technical sales or valued added sales where the real value they offer the customer is the solution their product provides for the customer. The reason for this is that a lot of analytical questioning is required. The sales rep needs to identify the customer problem in financial terms, quantify a profit improvement solution for the customer using their product or service and then take a position as a manager of that profit improvement solution if he is to have the customer buy from him. It is probably a lot more complex issue than you realize based upon your very simplistic reply.
It is interesting how you are obsessed with the issue of sales. This concept fits many different aspects of business from HR, recruiting, marketing all the way to upper management. There was even one comment from a person on one of those sites that stated how it benefited them in many aspects of their life outside of business. You seem to have some perversion towards sales people – interesting.
And as for your minister comment, I think you point out an exception to the rule. I think in general most Southern Baptist ministers tend to be conservative Republicans. However, I think the VAST majority of all other ministers in most other religions tend to be extreme liberal democrats.
Now go and find a salesman to hug. It will make you both feel better.
Oh BTW…the Yin-yang should be reversed, with the Red on the Right.
I put the image there. I also wouldn’t know if it’s upside down, backwards or inside out since I’m not up on all that stuff. I just snagged the pic from google images. I guess I could blame Bush. Then again, Al Gore invented the internet, so let’s blame him. Yay! W gets a pass for once. If you happen to run into him let him know. That should make his day. Now, what were we talking about?
That was a joke. The symbol is traditionally black and white. I was saying that in this version, the red should be on the right (wing), and the blue on the left.
The joke obviously went not over my head but zoomed past at lightning speed. Senior moment, I guess.
Alas, we all have them.
Unfortunately most of the discussion has been around how this concept does not work. I guess that was to be expected in today’s divisive political climate. However, I was hoping for more discussion around how this concept can be applied in the business world. It really is so very helpful and I am surprised every day by how few people are aware of it.
If you Google (analytical driver amiable expressive), you will get numerous sites where you can learn more about it. The concept has been used for years for a variety of different fields. I haven’t seen it, but I would be that one could repackage this concept into the “Versatile Employee – How to survive in the corporate world”. When you think about working in a big company, over the years you are going to have many different bosses and they will tend to be different. It would be nice to know how to effectively communicate with them and keep them happy.
I have dug out several sites to look at, but again there are dozens more. One site is:
http://www.ahfx.net/weblog/37
I think it gives a very clear bullet point type explanation of the four different quadrants.
Another site is:
http://www.allbusiness.com/articles/CareerAdvice/1605-27-1955.html
It gets a little bit more detailed. Don’t let the first page bore you, make sure you go on. The real good stuff starts on page 2.
A third site is:
http://www.softed.com/resources/Docs/SSW0.4.pdf
This is a pdf file that contains a slide presentation about the concept.
And one final site is:
http://www.colorfulleadership.info/papers/4-quadrant.htm
This site is really interesting in that it talks about how long this concept has been used and how it has been adapted by many different people. I thought it was interesting to read that this four quadrant concept began in the second century AD in Rome. There have been many adaptations to it since.
I was really impressed by the version I was introduced to all those years ago and more importantly have seen in the years since that it really is quite accurate. I realize there are some people that doubt me on this liberal conservative thing, but keep paying attention and I think at some point in time you will say, I think he was right.
I think the discussion of how this concept doesn’t work has nothing to do with a divisive political climate. I think it is more likely because it is complete and utter BULLSHIT. Based on the last example you provided, you are more or less suggesting that cupping and blood-letting would solve all the world’s problems. I certainly like to hope we’ve progressed a bit beyond that.
Didn’t read any of the links did you?
You know, if you had either taken the course or studied the concept and then compared it to real life examples for several years and said it did not work, I would accept your opinion as a valid data point. However, when you merely issue an emotional BS, it is really difficult to reply to that type of comment.
Au contraire, mon frere. I read them all. It was not an emotional BS. It was an analytical BS callout. (OMG, alert the media…a liberal had an analytical thought!) Don’t make the mistake of thinking you are dealing with C minus here, even though we live in a C minus world. I’m a little above that.
I see now that you have also called me a pervert. That’s a good one. I see you have also (again) called me an idiot because I don’t understand the complex world of “business” and “sales.” Yet I have had a job, or rather many jobs, for the last 40 years, and I didn’t need any self-help-get-rich-quick-books to help me get them. I have skills that are clearly valued, and I never needed any psychobabble nonsense to help me get a job.
As for the ministers, puh-leease. Most of them are aligned with the right, or those in the news anyway. Surely you cannot deny that.
OK then Mr. Analytical, please answer the following questions:
1. When did you take the course?
2. For how many years have employed the concepts and made comparisons to real life activities.
3. Please list some specific observations that led to your conclusion.
And you are simply wrong on the clergy thing. Here are a couple of links that prove my point.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-07-07/entertainment/ca-306_1_general-conference-delegates
http://mrclm.blogspot.com/2009/03/mainline-protestant-clergy-identify-as.html
“In a paper in press at the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, Jacob Hirsh, Megan Walberg and Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto asked approximately 1,300 people in the U.S. and Canada their political orientations. Then they measured respondents’ religiousness (e.g., how important they feel church services are) and their spirituality (e.g., whether they’ve ever felt deeply connected with the universe). They also assessed respondents’ personalities and personal values.
The more religious a person is, the more conservative he is, and this relationship is strongly mediated by the value placed on tradition — respect for customs and institutions. But even though religiousness and spirituality are highly correlated, the more spiritual a person is, the more liberal he is. This relationship is mediated by the value placed on universalism — social tolerance and concern for everyone’s welfare.”
Here is the link for the complete article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-hutson/conservatives-more-religious-liberals-more-spiritual_b_1553460.html
I have Google on my computer too.
1. I never took the course, because I had no need to.
2. See number 1.
3. See number 1.
As to the pervert comment, I was poking fun at you, because clearly when you first said I had a “perversion” toward salespeople, you really meant “aversion.” I was making fun at your using the wrong word. Ironically, perversion, in the sense of distorting the truth by misconstruing the words, is what inspired me to respond to your initial article in the first place. Because however many times you deny calling me and all liberals idiots, that is exactly what you did in your original column, and in just about every single response. You just used different words and hoped that us wanna-be-liked little libtards wouldn’t notice, because we’re too focused on wanting to be liked. Once again your treatment of those who disagree with you is condescending and completely transparent. I know when I’m being called an idiot, and I don’t need a motivational class to teach me that.
Fast, here is just one more before I call it a night. I would like to provide you a definition of the word perversion as I used it.
Here is a definition from the following website:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pervert
per·vert (pr-vûrt)
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts
1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse
4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort:
Do you see meaning number 4? That is what I was referring to when I used the term. It had nothing to do with the often used “street” definition of the word. You must hang around with a pretty rough crowd for you to have jumped to the conclusion that you did.
And finally, I have never called you an idiot regardless of the number of times that you have made that claim. In this instance I merely said that I didn’t think you understood the world of business and based upon your comments, I am still inclined to think that.
OK, how about one more — you were mumbling something about self help get rich quick books. I will provide you a link below to the people that I took the course from. They are one of the largest and most respected training companies in the word and they are dedicated to helping companies improve their GREATEST ASSET – THEIR PEOPLE. They work with the world’s largest companies in 45 different countries. I think you may have MISCONSTRUED OR INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED that one also.
http://wilsonlearning.com/
Fast, I am going to make one last reply to you. It really doesn’t pay to continue this discussion as it is obvious that you have no intention of being open minded and trying to understand something that you have never been exposed to before.
Also, you continue to portray yourself as an “analytical” person. However, it is interesting that you have never asked me a single legitimate question about my theory. All of your comments have been TELLING me something. When you look at the different styles, the opposite of an “analytical” person is an “expressive” person. An analytical person would be asking all kinds of questions trying to find information on which they could formulate an opinion or answer. An expressive person would merely be TELLING me what they think based solely on feelings.
You clearly indicated that you had no previous experience with this issue and you did not ask a single question about it. That tells me two things, first you are not an analytical person regardless of how many times you TELL me you are and second, you do not have a sincere interest in learning about the issue.
Finally, you CONTINUE to push this thing on religion. You keep trying to prove that religious people are more conservative than non-religious people. I don’t doubt that for a moment. I fully accept that premise. However, that was not the issue. The issue was that the people that choose to go into the ministry as an occupation are much more likely to be liberal. I provided some proof statements on that. However, you continue to deny that and TELL me the answer to a DIFFERENT issue.
Therefore, I am not going to reply to future insincere communications from you. That is assuming that I can figure out which of the five different identities you decide to use on your comments.
It was four, not five. Put that in your analytical hat.
Oh, Jammer. Why would I bother to ask you a question about your theory? It doesn’t require any question, or analysis. It’s BS pure and simple, and quite transparent on its face. That you would use that to discredit me is back in your court. Right where it belongs.
I’m glad you’ve decided to give up on this, because as you state, I am not “open-minded,” i.e, not willing to consider your point of view. As idiotic and expressive as I am, I think your statement speaks volumes. My first objection to your original column was that you basically said that conservatives are brilliant, and liberals are stupid. You minced your words to couch the message, but I don’t think you fooled anyone. You certainly didn’t fool me.
So, if you must have the last word, then have it. It is yours. Not that anyone cares.