A Few Links, 8/24/2025
Steve Stewart-Williams on Personality Traits; Tej Parikh on the intangible economy; Dan Wang on China and the U.S.; Curtis Yarvin on philanthropy and power
Steve Stewart-Williams writes,
Big Five traits predict success in different domains. Conscientiousness, for instance, is a rocket booster for achievement at work and school. Emotional stability (the flipside of neuroticism) pays dividends for relationships and life satisfaction. And low agreeableness can be an advantage in leadership.
…neuroticism is genetically linked to depression, openness is genetically linked to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and extraversion is genetically linked to ADHD.
These findings fit with the idea that at least some so-called disorders represent the extremes of the distributions of ordinary personality traits, rather than discrete syndromes.
Another interesting quote:
Recent research shows that AI can predict people’s Big Five traits from nothing more than a photo. At this stage, the accuracy isn’t mind-blowing. But AI is already better at it than we are. And who knows what it’ll be like in ten years (which is about half a century in AI years)?
Presumably the AI can do better still if it has access to your speech patterns?
Then there is this:
Plasticity (Extraversion + Openness) is about change: seeking novelty, trying new strategies, pushing boundaries.
Stability (Conscientiousness + Agreeableness + low Neuroticism) is about preserving what you’ve already got: maintaining order, keeping relationships running smoothly, regulating emotions.
I think of myself as seeking novelty in intellectual and business domains. But I see myself as seeking stability in personal finance and relationships.
This may be my biggest concern about personality psychology. To what extent are an individual’s traits domain-independent? What if someone saw us in different domains and concluded that we have multiple personalities?
There is a chapter on personality psychology in The Social Code
Fifty years ago, the assets held by S&P 500 companies were predominantly physical — factories, equipment, inventory et cetera. But today, it is estimated that around 90 per cent of their assets are intangible, ranging from intellectual property, brand value and networks, to code, content, talent and knowledge.
…America is also, by far, the largest source of measured intangible investment in the WIPO’s sample. Last year, investment reached $4.7tn in current prices, nearly twice the combined total of France, Germany, the UK and Japan.
For all intents and purposes, the US is an intangibles-driven economy.
Some people worry about this. They long for an America that builds things. Pointer from Niccolo Soldo
Long-time readers know that I have written a lot about intangible capital. It is mentioned in the chapter on Creative Destruction in The Social Code. It is the central theme in the book that I co-authored with Nick Schulz. Essays about it are here and here.
On a related note, Dan Wang talks about China as an engineering-oriented polity and the U.S. as a lawyer-oriented polity.
Soldo also points to the notorious Curtis Yarvin, who writes,
Philanthropy should not be confused with charity. The purpose of charity is to succor our fellow human beings as all major religions demand. The purpose of philanthropy is to convert money into power: more specifically, structural or “soft” power.
That strikes me as clear, succinct, and correct. I wish that I could say the same for the rest of the essay.
substacks referenced above:
@
@
@
Walter Mischel made similar points about the situation’s importance and damaged personality psychology’s reputation for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person–situation_debate
“Although significant efforts to ramp up artillery ammunition production — efforts that have cost billions of dollars — the U.S. has still not reached its planned output targets. As of June 2025, the total monthly production volume of 155mm artillery rounds stands at 40,000 units.
This was reported by John Reim, head of the U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office for Ammunition and Armaments, in an interview with Defense One. According to the Pentagon’s plans announced in February 2024, the target for April 2025 was set at 75,000 rounds per month, with a goal of reaching 100,000 by October 2025.”
--https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/us_is_falling_short_on_155mm_artillery_shell_production_current_output_and_1_million_goal_timeline-14894.html
“The United States Navy’s industrial base is facing a full-blown crisis, threatening America’s status as the world’s dominant naval power… … The US Navy Is Losing the Warship Race to China—And It’s a National Crisis”
--https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/the-us-navys-shipbuilding-crisis-is-real/
“The US defense industrial base—the layered network of manufacturers, foundries, suppliers, and skilled workers that builds our military—needs major improvements. Raw material costs are rising. Many contractors rely on sole-source suppliers. And nearly all are constrained by labor shortages and limited surge capacity. These weaknesses are emerging at a time of rising global tension, particularly amid intensifying strategic competition with China.”
--https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-the-defense-industrial-base-is-so-hard-to-fix
With apologies to the late Lou Reed,
Vicious
You hit me with intangibles
You do it every hour
Oh baby you’re so vicious