Dear Heidi,



Disgust is a most interesting affect that is arguably indicative of
characteristics of gender and personality. I quote recent research, which
is broadly replicated elsewhere, below.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Disgust Sensitivity as a Function of the Big Five and Gender



Druschel, Barry & Sherman, Martin. (1999). Disgust Sensitivity as a
Function of the Big Five and Gender. Personality and Individual
Differences. 26. 739-748. 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00196-2.



Abstract

Relationships among disgust sensitivity, the Big Five, and gender were
explored using a sample of 132 men and women undergraduates. Results
indicated that disgust sensitivity does vary according to gender, which is
consistent with previous research, with women reporting greater sensitivity
to disgust stimuli than do men. The data also supported the hypothesized
positive relationship between neuroticism and disgust sensitivity as well
as a negative relationship between openness to experience and disgust
sensitivity. In addition, positive relationships were found between two
other Big Five factors (Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) and disgust
sensitivity. These results suggest that a better understanding of the
disgust sensitive individual may come about by studying accompanying
personality characteristics.

DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00196-2

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>





As a person who shows up, in the Big Five, as high on openness to
experience and very low on agreeableness and conscientiousness (both of
which – the positive (openness) and the negative (disagreeable and lacking
in conscientiousness) correlate to creativity), I experience very very low
levels of disgust.



That is, I am male, creative, open to experience, disagreeable, lazy and
hard to disgust (if not nearly impossible).



All of that is part of my intersectionality.



If someone else’s intersectionality looks like, female, closed to
experience, lacking in creativity, very agreeable, and very conscientious,
then they are likely to experience very high levels of disgust.



Hitler, for example, shows up as high on the disgust scale. He was very
very fussy about cleanliness and personal hygiene.



So, given that some members of a community will show high on disgust, what
is the use of disgust? If you undertake the lecture series by Sapolsky,
available on YouTube, you will hear his biological account of disgust as an
evolved way of resisting things and people that are distant to our
community because distant people, in particular, are likely to be carrying
viruses that our group has not previously encountered. You could think here
of the impact of Spanish flu at the end of WWII on indigenous populations
such as the Maori in New Zealand who were nearly destroyed because the NZ
government knowingly allowed returning soldiers, with Spanish flu, off
ships.



As a child, in infants school, the headmistress one day, out of the blue,
bothered to tell me I was an impudent little boy. How strange. What did she
mean? I thought and thought about this for days on end. Impudent means, of
course, without shame. Was it true that I was and possible still am,
without shame?



Well yes. I am without shame. Does this mean I cannot be shamed, which
would mean I am shameless? Well, no. I can have shame put upon me, just as
Sartre says. Shame is put upon us from the outside world. For example, Adam
and Eve were without shame until God put shame upon them. Your request that
I should be ashamed is an invitation for me to put shame on myself. Best of
luck with that one.



What exactly is the use of shame? In traditional societies, offending
members where publicly shamed as a way of bringing them back into the moral
centre of the group. Think of Jesus stopping the shaming of a women – who
here has not sinned, let him cast the first stone. Jesus replaces the
ritual of public shaming with the sacrament of forgiveness – go freely and
sin no more.



We are a Christian society rather than a traditional society, I presume,
but still we have the remnants of our tribal past. We still attempt to
publicly shame people.



After shaming, in traditional societies, we can observe the internalisation
of these efforts to modify the behaviours of individuals to bring them into
alignment with the group. We have Super Egos to remind us, even when no one
else is around, that we should and should not behave in certain ways. The
outcome of this internal process is often guilt.



I don’t experience guilt. Guilt, for me, is evidence that the individual
has not understood their own actions sufficiently. Guilty people in fact
are looking for reintegration into a group through some kind of atonement.
In Christian terms, one needs no such rituals of atonement. One requires
knowledge to overcome the error of one’s ways. This is the Socratic model
as well. A sinner would cease to sin if they became aware of what they were
doing. Indian schools of Buddhism also follow this model that evil arises
out of ignorance or a lack of knowledge. My form of Buddhism embraces
instant judgment. That is, you either know or you don’t know. And, if you
don’t know, you’d better run like mad before the tiger eats you.



There seems to be a recent shift from guilt as a way of controlling
aberrant behaviour towards anxiety. That is, rather than being controlled
and brought into line by shame, from the group, or guilt from inside
oneself, we now are haunted by an external and infinitely extendable OTHER.
This kind of anxiety can be clearly seen in the case of social media. Young
women are destroying the lives of their fellows by operating as OTHER
police. Why?



This is not happening in the same way with young men on social media and
the Internet. Young men compete in assertive and disagreeable ways for an
observable status – you can win the game, you can win the game with skill,
you can win the game with eloquence and care and insight – you can become a
hero, and this cannot be taken away from you.



In the case of young women on the Internet all you can do is be destroyed
by the anxiety of the ever-present possibility that the OTHER will call you
UGLY, STUPID, whatever. There is no way of proving you are not ugly. There
is no battle field on Facebook where you can be discerned in your
character. Recent research by Jonathan Haight and Greg Lukianoff points out
the direct connection between young girls on social media and the drastic
rise in anxiety and depression amongst female university students.



So, I suppose, the question is: should I be resisted as a dangerous
outsider who carries the virus of Socrates?



keith


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------