According to New Scientist, psychologists are just coming to realise that five personality dimensions are not enough.

The accepted five are:
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Openness to new experiences.

The overlooked trait is known (says New Scientist) as honesty-humility, but (as with the others) it covers the range from people who are high in this trait, to those dishonest-arrogant people who are lacking in it.

My question is, how could psychologists possibly have overlooked this trait, where it is so obviously a key driver to behaviour in all activities requiring group co-operation?

Could it be that for this trait to improve the genetic fitness of any given gene pool there are two further requirements?:
- The dishonest-arrogant end of the range should only be present in a small proportion of individuals.
- The remainder of the group should be high in yet another unrecognised trait “gullibility”, “acceptance of authority”, or “believing what you are told”.

If we accept the reality of these traits (and I don’t see how we can deny them), then what implications does this have for selection and control of political leaders, and for selection and management of leaders in the workplace?

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to New Scientist, psychologists are just coming to realise that five personality dimensions are not enough.

The accepted five are:
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Openness to new experiences.

The overlooked trait is known (says New Scientist) as honesty-humility, but (as with the others) it covers the range from people who are high in this trait, to those dishonest-arrogant people who are lacking in it.

My question is, how could psychologists possibly have overlooked this trait, where it is so obviously a key driver to behaviour in all activities requiring group co-operation?

Could it be that for this trait to improve the genetic fitness of any given gene pool there are two further requirements?:
- The dishonest-arrogant end of the range should only be present in a small proportion of individuals.
- The remainder of the group should be high in yet another unrecognised trait “gullibility”, “acceptance of authority”, or “believing what you are told”.

If we accept the reality of these traits (and I don’t see how we can deny them), then what implications does this have for selection and control of political leaders, and for selection and management of leaders in the workplace?

It seems that most politician especially leaders can’t be trusted they seem to have a low amount of honesty and humility in their personality traits, perhaps that’s the key to getting ahead in politics, which if so really doesn’t get you much hope in a political party that actually cares about the welfare of its populace or the long term future of it nation. Perhaps leaders should be choosen from those that actually don’t want the job but are competent enough to do it properly

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to New Scientist, psychologists are just coming to realise that five personality dimensions are not enough.

The accepted five are:
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Openness to new experiences.

The overlooked trait is known (says New Scientist) as honesty-humility, but (as with the others) it covers the range from people who are high in this trait, to those dishonest-arrogant people who are lacking in it.

My question is, how could psychologists possibly have overlooked this trait, where it is so obviously a key driver to behaviour in all activities requiring group co-operation?

Could it be that for this trait to improve the genetic fitness of any given gene pool there are two further requirements?:
- The dishonest-arrogant end of the range should only be present in a small proportion of individuals.
- The remainder of the group should be high in yet another unrecognised trait “gullibility”, “acceptance of authority”, or “believing what you are told”.

If we accept the reality of these traits (and I don’t see how we can deny them), then what implications does this have for selection and control of political leaders, and for selection and management of leaders in the workplace?

If you have chemicals in the body controlling 74 emotions then no, 5 traits are obviously not enough

gets on 100 meter high horse with extra long ladder and trumpet

When psychologists realize that the emotions are chemically driven, psychology can enter the 21st century

CN – where did you get 74 emotions from?

Since emotions do not have well defined boundaries, you can have any number you like.

But emotions are not just chemically driven. It’s an interaction thing.

>>The remainder of the group should be high in yet another unrecognised trait “gullibility”, “acceptance of authority”, or “believing what you are told”.<<

You need this one for commerce to work, too.

There are at least 385 emotions according to
http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1190/459

And that’s just the positive ones.

buffy said:

>>The remainder of the group should be high in yet another unrecognised trait “gullibility”, “acceptance of authority”, or “believing what you are told”.<<

You need this one for commerce to work, too.

Yes, people low in that particular trait seem to end up in small business :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

There are at least 385 emotions according to
http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1190/459

And that’s just the positive ones.

I wonder how different they are chemically, it must be quite subtle variations of ratios

they’re generalizing categorization tools/concepts, it’d be the effort and ojectives of applying them that too becomes part of the categorization outcome.

Acceptance of authority is a hard one, not quite sure I trust most higher authority

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

>>The remainder of the group should be high in yet another unrecognised trait “gullibility”, “acceptance of authority”, or “believing what you are told”.<<

You need this one for commerce to work, too.

Yes, people low in that particular trait seem to end up in small business :)

I was told another story this morning about someone going to the opposition for the “two pairs for $198” deal. And coming away with one pair for $600. Which didn’t work. And they hadn’t gone back to complain. That I simply don’t get. If it doesn’t work, get it fixed. I thought we were supposed to be consumer savvy these days.

>The overlooked trait is known (says New Scientist) as honesty-humility, but (as with the others) it covers the range from people who are high in this trait, to those dishonest-arrogant people who are lacking in it.
My question is, how could psychologists possibly have overlooked this trait, where it is so obviously a key driver to behaviour in all activities requiring group co-operation?”

Or, is it related to a trait (mechanism of the mind) that tends to limit impositions from others and group forces?

The Rev Dodgson said:

CN – where did you get 74 emotions from?

Since emotions do not have well defined boundaries, you can have any number you like.

But emotions are not just chemically driven. It’s an interaction thing.

http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1190/459

Are they facial expressions

I typed Emotion into Google and it was the first link

Sorry, I counted wrong its 72 not 74

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

Affection
Anger
Angst
Anguish
Annoyance
Anxiety
Apathy
Arousal
Awe
Boredom
Confidence
Contempt
Contentment
Courage
Curiosity
Depression
Desire
Despair
Disappointment
Disgust
Distrust
Dread
Ecstasy
Embarrassment
Envy
Euphoria
Excitement
Fear
Frustration
Gratitude
Grief
Guilt
Happiness
Hatred
Hope
Horror
Hostility
Hurt
Hysteria
Indifference
Interest
Jealousy
Joy
Loathing
Loneliness
Love
Lust
Outrage
Panic
Passion
Pity
Pleasure
Pride
Rage
Regret
Relief
Remorse
Sadness
Satisfaction
Schadenfreude
Self-confidence
Shame
Shock
Shyness
Sorrow
Suffering
Surprise
Trust
Wonder
Worry
Zeal
Zest

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CN – where did you get 74 emotions from?

Since emotions do not have well defined boundaries, you can have any number you like.

But emotions are not just chemically driven. It’s an interaction thing.

http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1190/459

Are they facial expressions

I typed Emotion into Google and it was the first link

Sorry, I counted wrong its 72 not 74

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

Affection
Anger
Angst
Anguish
Annoyance
Anxiety
Apathy
Arousal
Awe
Boredom
Confidence
Contempt
Contentment
Courage
Curiosity
Depression
Desire
Despair
Disappointment
Disgust
Distrust
Dread
Ecstasy
Embarrassment
Envy
Euphoria
Excitement
Fear
Frustration
Gratitude
Grief
Guilt
Happiness
Hatred
Hope
Horror
Hostility
Hurt
Hysteria
Indifference
Interest
Jealousy
Joy
Loathing
Loneliness
Love
Lust
Outrage
Panic
Passion
Pity
Pleasure
Pride
Rage
Regret
Relief
Remorse
Sadness
Satisfaction
Schadenfreude
Self-confidence
Shame
Shock
Shyness
Sorrow
Suffering
Surprise
Trust
Wonder
Worry
Zeal
Zest

and there are ranges of all those 72 emotions

slightly angry to extremely angry etc

and would be interesting to discover the relationship between emotions and which chemicals are causing it

there might be 72 chemicals for each emotion or maybe a few chemicals but slightly altered for each emotion

the psychology industry can keep its head in the sand

or they can come into the 21st century

WHEN THEY BOTHER TO LEARN SOME SCIENCE, BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY

CrazyNeutrino said:

Sorry, I counted wrong its 72 not 74

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

Affection
Anger
…
Zeal
Zest

OK, but that’s an arbitrary subdivision. You could easily combine many of those, or subdivide them further.

A scientific approach would be to identify the chemicals that affect emotions, then look at how they react with the brain and other bodily activities.

I have no idea to what extent that has or has not been done.

>honesty-humility

honesty by itself is a practical device for limiting imposition from others (humans off the bat are highly social), and the social world without a good toolbox of tricks/mechanisms to limit the impositions’d be disfunctional (notice a lot of of people that get locked up are in a way hypersocial – given to inappropriate impositions on others).

CrazyNeutrino said:

the psychology industry can keep its head in the sand

or they can come into the 21st century

WHEN THEY BOTHER TO LEARN SOME SCIENCE, BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY

It’s not just chemicals.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

the psychology industry can keep its head in the sand

or they can come into the 21st century

WHEN THEY BOTHER TO LEARN SOME SCIENCE, BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY

It’s not just chemicals.

Yes its also interactions as you said

also past experiences comes into play as well

and the level of education

and the level of emotional intelligence

the ability to be aware of your emotions so that you can control them

and other factors

but it seems to me that they are coming up with theory after theory while cycling around the obvious that the body is a chemical factory which creates emotions to a response

something like that

but what research has been done?

and why is it taking so long for them to see the obvious

Cymek said:

It seems that most politician especially leaders can’t be trusted they seem to have a low amount of honesty and humility in their personality traits, perhaps that’s the key to getting ahead in politics, which if so really doesn’t get you much hope in a political party that actually cares about the welfare of its populace or the long term future of it nation. Perhaps leaders should be choosen from those that actually don’t want the job but are competent enough to do it properly

I think pollies are broadly representative of the people who elect them.

>I think pollies are broadly representative of the people who elect them.

excepting of course the extent of the ambition to broadly represent other people

real world > body senses > body reacts to what its sensing

Tiger

body senses the tiger through seeing

body reacted to what its sensing = fear

psychology is still a work in progress

and it need to come into the 21 century

wake up

transition said:

>I think pollies are broadly representative of the people who elect them.

excepting of course the extent of the ambition to broadly represent other people

True. Not everyone wants to work in management.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

It seems that most politician especially leaders can’t be trusted they seem to have a low amount of honesty and humility in their personality traits, perhaps that’s the key to getting ahead in politics, which if so really doesn’t get you much hope in a political party that actually cares about the welfare of its populace or the long term future of it nation. Perhaps leaders should be choosen from those that actually don’t want the job but are competent enough to do it properly

I think pollies are broadly representative of the people who elect them.

I disagree.

They are the ones who are best at manipulating those around them for their own narrow self-benefit.

too many people want to separate mind and body

stop doing it

the brain is part of the body

get over it

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

It seems that most politician especially leaders can’t be trusted they seem to have a low amount of honesty and humility in their personality traits, perhaps that’s the key to getting ahead in politics, which if so really doesn’t get you much hope in a political party that actually cares about the welfare of its populace or the long term future of it nation. Perhaps leaders should be choosen from those that actually don’t want the job but are competent enough to do it properly

I think pollies are broadly representative of the people who elect them.

I disagree.

They are the ones who are best at manipulating those around them for their own narrow self-benefit.

All the politicians I know personally are broadly committed to good government and representing their constituents in the best and fairest way possible.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think pollies are broadly representative of the people who elect them.

I disagree.

They are the ones who are best at manipulating those around them for their own narrow self-benefit.

All the politicians I know personally are broadly committed to good government and representing their constituents in the best and fairest way possible.

Which is why they are not the leaders of a party that has any hope of becoming the government.

Unless they are the leaders of one of those two parties, in which case I disagree with your assessment.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Unless they are the leaders of one of those two parties, in which case I disagree with your assessment.

… or agree with your irony, as the case may be.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Unless they are the leaders of one of those two parties, in which case I disagree with your assessment.

You’d be very naive to believe the Greens are any different.

why are psychologists overlooking that emotions are controlled by chemicals in the body interacting with the world through the senses

it seems so obvious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

do we let them come up with theory after theory

how many theories are there now?

Ill stop banging my head against the brick wall

Please don’t pollute this thread CN.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ill stop banging my head against the brick wall

Thanks.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Please don’t pollute this thread CN.

that’s it Im leaving the forum

Ill be progressive elsewhere

Back-room shenanigans are just part of the cut and thrust of political/managerial roles. If you have ever been on a school or sporting club board, or worked in HR or management you would be very familiar with it.

I wonder if it’s possible to test what chemical ratios in the brain create which specific emotions

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think pollies are broadly representative of the people who elect them.

I disagree.

They are the ones who are best at manipulating those around them for their own narrow self-benefit.

All the politicians I know personally are broadly committed to good government and representing their constituents in the best and fairest way possible.

Well not all pollies belong to the Greens.

The Rev Dodgson said:

My question is, how could psychologists possibly have overlooked this trait, where it is so obviously a key driver to behaviour in all activities requiring group co-operation?

Who knows why it was overlooked. Perhaps it was believed that it was sufficiently covered under conscientiousness.

I’m not convinced that honesty-humility is _so obviously a key driver to behaviour in all activities requiring group co-operation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Could it be that for this trait to improve the genetic fitness of any given gene pool there are two further requirements?: – The dishonest-arrogant end of the range should only be present in a small proportion of individuals. – The remainder of the group should be high in yet another unrecognised trait “gullibility”, “acceptance of authority”, or “believing what you are told”.

With all of the personality traits, normal population distribution would form bell-curves. Obviously being at the ends of the curves i.e. being extremely honest or dishonest etc. is uncommon but also undesirable.

Gullibility, acceptance of authority and believing what you are told are not unrecognised. They come under the umbrellas of agreeableness and openness to new experiences.

The Rev Dodgson said:

If we accept the reality of these traits (and I don’t see how we can deny them), then what implications does this have for selection and control of political leaders, and for selection and management of leaders in the workplace?

For leaders in the workplace, it helps if they are very agreeable, open to new experiences and own a holiday home and a boat. Not really.

All leaders must fall somewhere near the middle of the bell-curve for all of the listed traits. This makes them balanced individuals who can relate to others and vice-versa.

Political shenanigans involving the Greens:

http://www.news.com.au/national/christine-milne-resigns-as-greens-leader/story-fncynjr2-1227338254396

CrazyNeutrino said:

why are psychologists overlooking that emotions are controlled by chemicals in the body interacting with the world through the senses

it seems so obvious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

do we let them come up with theory after theory

how many theories are there now?

Perhaps if emotions are nothing more than chemical reactions it the cheapens them and means humans are nothing special

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think pollies are broadly representative of the people who elect them.

I disagree.

They are the ones who are best at manipulating those around them for their own narrow self-benefit.

All the politicians I know personally are broadly committed to good government and representing their constituents in the best and fairest way possible.

people that enter politics typically do so because they have strong ideological beliefs; this usually manifests as an underlying commitment to the provision of good government (as they see it) – so broadly I agree with Witty. I don’t think that politicians are ‘inherently untrustworthy’, but I do think that toeing the party line often means that individuals need to make compromises on their own beliefs to satisfy the position of the party.

I also believe that politicians have a tendency to say things that they believe people want to hear (which I guess is a personality trait failure all of its own), and this often means that they are forced into positions where they are have to go back on their word.

Mostly politics is about compromise and that means you always upset someone. If you go pure ideological then that is guaranteed to upset the half of constituents thst don’t agree with your ideology. You have to balance pragmatism with idealism, and in the real world idealism is almost always compromised or arrives accompanied with unacceptable costs.

Speedy said:

With all of the personality traits, normal population distribution would form bell-curves. Obviously being at the ends of the curves i.e. being extremely honest or dishonest etc. is uncommon but also undesirable.

It isn’t necessarily undesirable to be at the ends. In many cases the optimum for group success may be for the majority to be at one end, with a small number at the other end.

Speedy said:

Gullibility, acceptance of authority and believing what you are told are not unrecognised. They come under the umbrellas of agreeableness and openness to new experiences.

There is some overlap between many of the categories, but I don’t think that agreeableness and openness to new experience adequately cover acceptance of authority.

Speedy said:

For leaders in the workplace, it helps if they are very agreeable, open to new experiences and own a holiday home and a boat. Not really.

All leaders must fall somewhere near the middle of the bell-curve for all of the listed traits. This makes them balanced individuals who can relate to others and vice-versa.

Observation suggests that the actual distribution of traits in leaders is no-where near the middle, particularly for the Machiavellian and gullibility traits.

>My question is, how could psychologists possibly have overlooked this trait, where it is so obviously a key driver to behaviour in all activities requiring group co-operation?

Why the consternation? Psychology is surely the softest of sciences.. worse than meteorology.

diddly-squat said:

people that enter politics typically do so because they have strong ideological beliefs; this usually manifests as an underlying commitment to the provision of good government (as they see it) – so broadly I agree with Witty. I don’t think that politicians are ‘inherently untrustworthy’, but I do think that toeing the party line often means that individuals need to make compromises on their own beliefs to satisfy the position of the party.

I also believe that politicians have a tendency to say things that they believe people want to hear (which I guess is a personality trait failure all of its own), and this often means that they are forced into positions where they are have to go back on their word.

My contention is that evolutionary processes will ensure that any grouping that exists in a competitive environment will develop to consist of a large majority working for the benefit of the group, and a small minority working for their own narrow benefit.

Observation of the current political leaders in Australia seems to support this hypothesis.

The Rev Dodgson said:

It isn’t necessarily undesirable to be at the ends. In many cases the optimum for group success may be for the majority to be at one end, with a small number at the other end.

Oh you mean like a cult? I thought cults, even the successful ones, were not a good thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Observation suggests that the actual distribution of traits in leaders is no-where near the middle, particularly for the Machiavellian and gullibility traits.

Average Joe’s gullibility falls smack-bang in the middle of the bell-curve. I think you suggested earlier that leaders require a great following of gullibles, which doesn’t really add up in the general population.

>You have to balance pragmatism with idealism, and in the real world idealism is almost always compromised or arrives accompanied with unacceptable costs.

and there’s idealized pragmatism, and even pragmatic idealizations

don’t mind me diluting the power of the rhetorical terms now

>The remainder of the group should be high in yet another unrecognised trait “gullibility”, “acceptance of authority”, or “believing what you are told”.

OTOH, there are gullible people who are very selective as to what authorities they accept. Conspiracy theorists, for example, tend to be very anti-government. And there are lots of religious believers who bow to their holy texts and leaders etc but are hostile to secular authorities.

>Perhaps if emotions are nothing more than chemical reactions it the cheapens them and means humans are nothing special

How ‘bout minds have structure, neurons connected together

You get fuck all without structure.

transition said:

>You have to balance pragmatism with idealism, and in the real world idealism is almost always compromised or arrives accompanied with unacceptable costs.

and there’s idealized pragmatism, and even pragmatic idealizations

don’t mind me diluting the power of the rhetorical terms now

I have no problems with you attempting to make complicated a straight forward sentence that was in no way rhetorical. I understand you like to use language to confuse.

>I have no problems with you attempting to make complicated a straight forward sentence that was in no way rhetorical. I understand you like to use language to confuse.

can I extract from that the concept of “pragmatism/pragmatic” never easily lends to ideological uses.

transition said:

>I have no problems with you attempting to make complicated a straight forward sentence that was in no way rhetorical. I understand you like to use language to confuse.

can I extract from that the concept of “pragmatism/pragmatic” never easily lends to ideological uses.

Extract what you like.

>Extract what you like.

People pragmatically idealize all the time, it’s necessary, practical, and functional.

Is that what you were meaning….

transition said:

>Extract what you like.

People pragmatically idealize all the time, it’s necessary, practical, and functional.

Is that what you were meaning….

My sentence that you quoted is not a hard one to understand. Doesn’t require unpacking and garnishing with “z’s”.

>My sentence that you quoted is not a hard one to understand. Doesn’t require unpacking and garnishing with “z’s”.

No, it wasn’t hard to understand. It employed a simplistic contrast between idealism and pragmatism

transition said:

>My sentence that you quoted is not a hard one to understand. Doesn’t require unpacking and garnishing with “z’s”.

No, it wasn’t hard to understand. It employed a simplistic contrast between idealism and pragmatism

Which was easy to understand and concise

>Which was easy to understand and concise

not much gets done without some idealizations (including idealism), not much at all, pragmatism itself stands tall on the work (failures and successes) of the many idealizations that have been and exist today.

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to New Scientist, psychologists are just coming to realise that five personality dimensions are not enough.

The accepted five are:
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Openness to new experiences.

The overlooked trait is known (says New Scientist) as honesty-humility.

This reminds me somewhat of the ancient four states of matter: earth/solid, water/liquid, air/gas and fire/plasma. To which others started to add black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm, sulphur (burnable stone), mercury (liquid metal), etc.

The categorizations involve dubious normative attributes.

The accepted five are:
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Openness to new experiences.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to New Scientist, psychologists are just coming to realise that five personality dimensions are not enough.

The accepted five are:
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Openness to new experiences.

The overlooked trait is known (says New Scientist) as honesty-humility.

This reminds me somewhat of the ancient four states of matter: earth/solid, water/liquid, air/gas and fire/plasma. To which others started to add black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm, sulphur (burnable stone), mercury (liquid metal), etc.

Except that the four elements/states of matter are fundamentally different, whereas the division of personalities into specific traits is pretty arbitrary.

transition said:

The categorizations involve dubious normative attributes.

The accepted five are:
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Openness to new experiences.

I agree.

I think.

people are stupid

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to New Scientist, psychologists are just coming to realise that five personality dimensions are not enough.

The accepted five are:
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Openness to new experiences.

The overlooked trait is known (says New Scientist) as honesty-humility, but (as with the others) it covers the range from people who are high in this trait, to those dishonest-arrogant people who are lacking in it.

My question is, how could psychologists possibly have overlooked this trait, where it is so obviously a key driver to behaviour in all activities requiring group co-operation?

Could it be that for this trait to improve the genetic fitness of any given gene pool there are two further requirements?:
- The dishonest-arrogant end of the range should only be present in a small proportion of individuals.
- The remainder of the group should be high in yet another unrecognised trait “gullibility”, “acceptance of authority”, or “believing what you are told”.

If we accept the reality of these traits (and I don’t see how we can deny them), then what implications does this have for selection and control of political leaders, and for selection and management of leaders in the workplace?

If you have chemicals in the body controlling 74 emotions then no, 5 traits are obviously not enough

gets on 100 meter high horse with extra long ladder and trumpet

When psychologists realize that the emotions are chemically driven, psychology can enter the 21st century

is there an emoji for that ?

wookiemeister said:

people are stupid

Some lack intelligence, yes.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to New Scientist, psychologists are just coming to realise that five personality dimensions are not enough.

The accepted five are:
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Openness to new experiences.

The overlooked trait is known (says New Scientist) as honesty-humility.

This reminds me somewhat of the ancient four states of matter: earth/solid, water/liquid, air/gas and fire/plasma. To which others started to add black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm, sulphur (burnable stone), mercury (liquid metal), etc.

Insisting on purchasing, and consuming alcohol with you.