How your personality shapes your politics

Social psychologist Dannagal Young breaks down the link between our psychology and politics, showing how personality types largely fall into people who prioritize openness and flexibility (liberals) and those who prefer order and certainty (conservatives). Hear why both sets of traits are crucial to any society -- and how our differences are being dangerously exploited to divide us. What if things weren't that way?

I'm a political and social psychologist.

I study how people understand the world

and what this means for society
and for democracy ...

which, as it turns out, is quite a lot.

Some people see the world
as safe and good,

and this allows them
to be OK with uncertainty

and to take time to explore and play.

Others are acutely aware
of threats in their environment,

so they prioritize order
and predictability

over openness and experimentation.

In my academic research,

I study how these two approaches
shape how we think and feel

about everything from art to politics.

I also explore how political elites

and partisan media
use these very differences

to engender hatred and fear

and how the economics of our media system
exploit these same divides.

But after studying this,

I have come away not with a sense
that we are doomed to be divided

but that it's up to us
to see both sets of traits

as necessary and even valuable.

Take for example two men who have been
so influential in my own life.

First, my late husband, Mike.

He was an artist who saw the world
as safe and good.

He welcomed ambiguity
and play in his life.

In fact, we met through improv comedy

where he taught improvisers
to listen and be open

and to be comfortable not knowing
what was going to happen next.

After we got married and had our baby boy,

Mike was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

And through months
of hospitalizations and surgeries,

I followed Mike's lead,

trying to practice being open,

trying to be OK not knowing
what was going to happen next.

It was Mike's tolerance for ambiguity

that allowed me to survive
those months of uncertainty,

and that helped me explore new ways
to rebuild my life after he died.

About a year and a half
after Mike passed away,

I met my current husband, PJ.

PJ is a criminal prosecutor

who sees the world as potentially good

provided that threats
are properly managed.

He also is someone
who embraces order and predictability

in his daily routine,

in the foods that he eats,

in his selection of wardrobe.

And PJ has a vicious wit,

but he's also morally very serious

with a strong sense of duty and purpose.

And he values tradition,
loyalty and family,

which is why at the age of 28

he did not hesitate to marry a widow,

adopt her baby boy

and raise him as his son.

It was PJ's need for certainty and closure

that brought stability to our lives.

I share these two stories of Mike and PJ

not just because they're personal,

but because they illustrate two things
that I have found in my own research.

First, that our psychological traits
shape how we engage with the world,

and second,

that both of these approaches
make all of our lives possible.

Tragically though, political and economic
incentives of our media environment

seek to exploit these differences

to get us angry,

to get our attention,

to get clicks

and to turn us against one another.

And it works.

It works in part because
these same sets of traits

are related to core
political and cultural beliefs.

For years, political
psychologists have studied

how our psychological traits
shape our political beliefs.

We've conducted experiments to understand

how our psychology and our politics shape
how we respond to apolitical stimuli.

And this research has shown

that those people
who are less concerned with threats,

who are tolerant of ambiguity,

these people tend to be
more culturally and socially liberal

on matters like immigration
or crime or sexuality.

And because they're tolerant of ambiguity,

they also tend to be OK with nuance

and they enjoy thinking
for the sake of thinking,

which helps explain why it is

that there are distinct aesthetic
preferences on the left and the right,

with liberals more likely
than conservatives

to appreciate things like abstract art

or even stories that lack a clear ending.

In my experimental work,

I've also found that these
differences help explain

why ironic, political satire
is more likely to be appreciated

and understood by liberals
than conservatives.

On the other hand,

those people who
are monitoring for threats,

who prefer certainty and closure,

those tend to be our political,
cultural, social conservatives.

Because they're on alert,

they also make decisions
quickly and efficiently,

guided by intuition and emotion.

And we've found
that these traits help explain

why conservatives enjoy
political opinion talk programming

that clearly and efficiently
identifies threats and enemies.

What is essential though

is that these propensities
are not absolute --

they're not fixed.

There are liberals
who are monitoring for threats

just as there are conservatives
who are tolerant of ambiguity.

In fact, PJ's political beliefs

are not that radically different
from those that Mike held.

The link between psychology
and politics is contingent on context:

who we're with
and what's going on around us.

The problem is that right now,

our dominant context,

our political and media context,

actually needs these
differences to be absolute,

to be reinforced

and even to be weaponized.

For reasons related to power and profit,

some in politics and media
want us to believe

that those people who approach
the world differently from us --

the Mikes or the PJs --

themselves are dangerous.

And social media platforms
use algorithms and microtargeting

to deliver divisive messages

in our preferred messaging aesthetic.

Messages that relate to politics,
culture and race.

And we see the devastating effects
of these messages every single day.

Americans who are angry
and fearful of the other side.

Charges of the other side
destroying America.

But stop and think for a moment.

What would happen if those differences
had never been weaponized?

It is liberal inclinations
towards openness and flexibility

that allow us to cope with uncertainty

and that allow us to explore new paths
towards innovation, creativity --

scientific discovery.

Think of things like space travel
or cures for diseases

or art that imagines
and reimagines a better world.

And those conservative inclinations
towards vigilance and security

and tradition.

These are the things that motivate us

to do what must be done

for our own protection and stability.

Think of the safety
that's offered by our armed forces

or the security of our banking system.

Or think about the stability

that's offered by such democratic
institutions as jury duty,

or cultural traditions
like fireworks on the Fourth of July.

What if the real threat
posed to society and democracy

is not actually posed by the other side?

What if the real danger is posed
by political and media elites

who try to get us to think

that we'd be better off
without the other side

and who use these divisions
for their own personal,

financial, political benefit?

Mike and PJ engaged
with the world very differently,

but these distinct approaches
continue to enrich my life every day.

Instead of our political and media context

determining that
the other side is the enemy

and lulling us into believing
that that's true,

what if we choose to create the context?

Real people connecting
with other real people,

appreciating these two approaches
for what they are:

necessary gifts that can help us all
survive and thrive together.

Thank you.