It’s important to understand to what degree there are any connections between the different personality dimensions, and the toll they unique carry from characteristics on stress, routine, emotional exposures, caregiving, responsibility, and risk tolerance. Why do some always seem to age peacefully, while other tend to burn bright but brief? Or is this our own biased perspective based on our own familiar examples? We explore all this, in survived era-adjusted and culturally recurring outcomes, and we are finding people excelling from both genders as well in most of these personality type.
rational strategists
This is one of 8 personality types we explore, and was the original spark of this project here. We know as well that one of the greatest archetypes of all here is the contemporary, 95-year old Warren Buffett. We all know he’s one of the wealthiest people on earth, but his upbringing and life has been the embodiment of being risk-averse, and steady. He sleeps better knowing his portfolio is nearly impossible to blow-up overnight. His long-timer business partner Charlie Munger, who well complemented his style, also lived well into old-age. Both were well-reasoned champions of the worldview, with near full mental acuity up until those ages.
People in this personality type with resilient characteristics, and low impulsivity certainly draw our admiration and the curiosity of how closely it pairs with longevity in general. They are also examples for all of us that in our ever data-changed and rapid political churn, it is still possible and welcome to enjoy examples of lifestyles anchored to calm routines. And slowed-down methodological decisioning.
People in this personality type with resilient characteristics, and low impulsivity certainly draw our admiration and the curiosity of how closely it pairs with longevity in general. They are also examples for all of us that in our ever data-changed and rapid political churn, it is still possible and welcome to enjoy examples of lifestyles anchored to calm routines. And slowed-down methodological decisioning.
caregivers and empaths
Let’s now look at the edge of another archetype: Jane Goodall who recently passed at 91, and a celebrated conservationist and a modern day famed world caregiver. The field research locations certainly demanded physical hardships, and yet like many in her sphere [eg Albert Schwitzer, or the most famous of all: Mother Theresa] she lived well above her cohort average by decades.
We should look at this and ask the question of how it’s possible to combine caregiving and service, known for slower pace, emotional grounding, and peaceful connection to nature. And yet not succumb earlier to offsets of the physically demanding locational challenges where such resilience is most needed?
Some ask similar questions of current and recent presidents, however none in our modern time would ever be considered caregivers [or really empaths either]; more on this further below.
Now empaths are a different breed with their own distinct story to tell. And unlike caregivers, they have among the shortest and most unstable longevities as we’ll explore in the data below. The higher end of this group has high internal longevity, yet they still have to contend with the violent or politically conflicting disorders, which gains them the public exposure to begin with. Mahatma Gandhi. Or Abraham Lincoln, one of the storied yet distant of U.S. presidents. This group of human’s finest also have high variance as a result of that same difficult worldly system: and a longevity risk that can cut short an otherwise promising life. Nelson Mandella is an example of someone who went on to live a naturally long 95 years; that’s the intrinsic longevity despite the duration of solitary prison.
risked visionaries
The general lifespan of people are also known to be more short on this other extreme. The more volatile of archetypes. Nikola Tesla is a great example and he lived long. But of course we all know what happened with Steve Jobs, on the other end of longevity. And there are most cases of the latter than the former. What causes cancer to strike? How much of this can we actually control? We do know that we aim to try to minimize factors that make conditions more likely, at least in subtle ways that hopefully manifest to small differences in outcomes. Do visionaries have the ability to reduce chronic stress, irregular routines, and the global and rigid intensity that defines their very passion?
There are psychological and physical demands to this resilience for people at the extreme of this personality dimension. The actuarial cushion can only reward immense creativity to a point. And while some have endured, it’s important to note the many more who as well burned out early, leaving little pattern relative to some of the other types in this article.
data
In this large and novel dataset we look at some famous examples of people in these 4 categories [each split into a high and low level variant], and note that some people fall into multiple dimensions though tend to have one more dominant category. Examples of difference types are Jane Goodall who is closer to 2/3 associated with caregiving dimension. There is also Greta Thunberg, who is close to 1/2 associated with empaths and the remaining associated with caregiving.
Visionary (builder-high): short ~66-67 years with innovative high-burnout, consistent across history
Examples: Tesla 86, Jobs [56, current era], Musk [54, current era]
Builder (builder-grounded): high long-living ~85-90 years and structured\stable lifestyle alignment, but also small sample size
Examples: Rockefeller 98, Carnegie 83, Trump [again not in the same league as very top historical examples but 79, current era]
Power-Ruler (warrior-high): highly risky ~75 years, in wars way, but very volatile and unpredictably multi-modal
Examples: Churchill 90, Eisenhower 78, Caeser 56, Trump [again not in the same league as very top historical examples but 79, current era]
Creators (cultural): short-living ~63-70 years creatives, but also not gender-adjusted
Examples: Shakespeare 52, Beethoven 56, Tolstoy 82
Rational-Strategist (sage-high): quite long ~85 years with high mental stability
Examples: Buffett [94, current era], Franklin 84, Newton 84
Scholar (sage-grounded): steady down the middle, despite the most intellectual stars among us
Examples: Darwin 73, Confucius 71, Einstein 76
Empath (healer-high): short and very volatile ~67 years, live in danger but also not gender-adjusted
Examples: Gandhi 78, Lincoln 56, King Jr. 39, Thunberg [22, current era]
Caregiver (healer-grounded): longest-living ~89 years, despite adverse environment
Examples: Teresa [87, current era], Schweitzer 90, Nightingale 90
Also note the averages above consume more than the highlighted archetype examples, but hundreds of slightly lesser famed examples at these extremes. Also we adjust for the era of their life, noting longevity during say the 17th and 19th centuries.
conclusion
As noted at the start, we know these are broad themes and not the strongest signals of longevity. They serve to guide curiosity as one looks inward to measure and shape who they want to be. Something all of these archetypes were given the same privilege of their time on this planet: affording the exploration to self-determine.
We note that the rationals, caregivers, builders, and scholars, tend to live longer than their cohorts. Even adjusting for the era in which they lived, since we know there were longer life expectancies naturally in the 18th and 20th centuries. On the other hand the longevity risks and statistical variance tended to gravitate into people who were strong in empaths, power-rulers, creators, and visionaries.
So these clusters are also matching instincts, validating in this case from our small select memories and reasons. The lesson for you at a personal level is to always embrace all of who you are, and know no reward, such as being extremely successful as a luminary in one dimension, comes without the risks of acquiring said reward. And in fact the nature of the reward can sometimes- not always- carry the seeds of your own destruction. Those again are the opportunities nature affords you, just as it affords you the knowledge of this article.
We don’t judge choices people make nor should we overly be guided with this work: longevity is not morality’s rubric. Simply understanding the interplay of longevity and how the variance of this, itself changing with time. But it’s usually time that dominating, and not the personalities who attempt to dominate it.
addendum
Also wanted to make a quick closing note that this weekend my pension and fiduciary actuarial work is written up in Pensions & Investments, possible too in their December print issue as well. The disciplined topic is pension liabilities, governance, foresight, and care. Innovation in service of one of our greatest cities!
See it here [or a gift article for my followers- share for some time with a friend].
Also note the underlying math proofs are also reviewed and slated for a smart math print-publication in +2 months.
lux manet, + iniustitiam
This is a new research theme for an upcoming book project that explores the connection of statistics with life; and joy beyond injustice [link below].
We envision a shifting future as politics and society cross-cross into the untouched currents. And we’ve all felt the entrenched pain of separation’s resolve, but in different ways. Statistics remind us, generation and again, that we are all now self-interested based on the patterns most proximate to us. It is in all of these moments that new leaders emerge, they bringing rooted antidotes to our parents’ persistent vulnerabilities. Lux manet: your light remains, even if iniustitiam lurks at times. Always listen to your inner values; the guide will always survive.
But first I want to complete my still ongoing math w mira👶 workbook project [also link below].
products w.i. year: audios, math w mira👶, and coding&logic
nova consilium: lux manet, + iniustitiam
follow via RSS or e-mail or Amazon
No comments:
Post a Comment