On Character
Photo by Chris Stenger on Unsplash
Recently I started a post on my main blog with the following:
As a first point, a key part of spiritual growth is becoming more caring - yes, about ourselves, yes, about other Sentient Life, but also about the world we have created and continue to create and that we and other Sentient Life live in ...
And that means responding properly to the human-caused climate crisis is crucial - and claims that it is due to other causes are basically spiritual bypassing.
Given that, when a major report on that issue was recently released, it was my spiritual duty to respond to it - and to do so in a spiritually BPM manner.
The following [email] is what I sent to a bunch of state MPs and Ministers and my local federal MPs. There are parts which are possibly not BPM: have a read and see what you think ... and consider how you will respond if a similar opportunity comes your way.
A lot of what I have seen in the spiritual and New Age worlds from the early 1980s seems to be heavily focused on the personal - how the ... "seeker" can develop their abilities, how they can feel at peace in a troubled world, how they can ascend to a state of not having to live in this world, etc.
There have been exceptions - my experience of a lot, not all, of Buddhism has been community focused people who consider their impact on the world (albeit possibly motivated by a desire for better karma), and quite a few (but not all) Pagans who care about Nature and, often, community.
Even in the world of Australian politics there have been many people (including MPs) who genuinely care about creating and keeping a better world - and the government Ministers and MPs I sent the mentioned email to were amongst that group.
I'll go a bit further on the point I am developing:
in my nearly seven decades of life, the best people - the people with the characters (or personalities, if you prefer) that I considered good, many of whom were or are friends, were caring people with politics that can be described as progressive - on multiple issues - and were supportive of democracy.
There is an opposite side to that coin, and that is:
just as there is often an intersectionality of multiple lived experiences of discrimination and an intersectionality of progressive attitudes, so too is there an intersectionality of hates, fears, and bigotries.
I've read a few academic articles on that over the last 15 years or so, and now there is another peer reviewed paper which shows that intersectionality of "hates, fears, and bigotries" amongst those who support the current (47th) leader of the USA - an autocrat who I consider evil, and thus will not name. (This also denies them the attention that such people crave - which could therefore be considered part of the "No Notoriety" campaign to not name mass killers and the like.) I'll just refer to him as the AIC - autocrat-in-chief.
The paper - details below (and note that the preview may disappear now that the paper has been published) - uses the term "malevolent dispositions", which I have not come across before. I know a few people with psychological qualifications so I will ask them about the use of that term: it seems outdated to me. Apart from that, it uses what appears to me to be reasonable techniques, and finds that there is a link of some sort between those so-called "malevolent dispositions" and extreme right conservative political views.
“This Study Finds a Chilling Link Between Personality Type and [AIC] Support” https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/this-study-finds-a-chilling-link-between-personality-type-and-trump-support/ “Malevolent traits and reduced empathy go hand in hand”
I find the attitude of this creator a little unsettling in places, but there is a chance this may be the only link that is still available in a few months, and he does cover the key points: “Science PROVES that M_ G_ are MALEVOLENT [casual slur] - Study Finds LOW EMPATHY in [AIC] SUPPORTERS”
“Hawk discusses a new psychological study that examines the personality traits of [AIC] supporters. The research, led by Professor Craig Newman at the University of North Texas, reveals a strong correlation between conservative political ideology, particularly favourable views of [AIC], and higher scores in callousness, manipulation, and other malevolent traits. The study, based on surveys of over 9,000 U.S. participants, found that [AIC] supporters—especially white participants—were more likely to exhibit authoritarianism, social dominance, and low empathy. The findings suggest that individuals with these traits are more inclined to admire political figures who reflect similar characteristics. Hawk focuses on the broader implications of these results, pointing out how the traits identified align with [AIC]’s history of controversial behaviour and rhetoric. He also shares insights into the methodology of the surveys, including validated questionnaires measuring empathy, personality, and political views.”
Article preview (at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656625000704): “Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology in the [AIC] era”, Craig S. Neumann, Darlene A. Ngo, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, USA, Journal of Research in Personality, Volume 118, October 2025, 104638, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104638 (Received 12 April 2025, Revised 29 June 2025, Accepted 14 July 2025, Available online 15 July 2025, Version of Record 21 July 2025)
My first reaction to this was that it is more evidence that links what I term regressive or reactionary worldviews to what I term nonBPM (see https://musingsofgnwmythr.substack.com/p/extract-from-multiple-purposes-in for an explanation of BPM, or Balanced Positive, (spiritually) Mature, and its opposite, or nonBPM) personality characteristics - it supports the existence of the intersectionality of "hates, fears, and bigotries" I referred to above. (There is additional, non-academic evidence, such as a few comments I have come across that the recent spate of hate against LGBTQIASB+ children in my home state were due to just a few people [who, for some extraordinary reason, it seems couldn't be charged with the hate speech and threats against children.)
I spent my working career in the corporate world, and I found quite often that it was a small number of people who resisted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures that the majority were happy with. Their resistance, including "tick boxing" or nominal participation in DEI training and behaviours such as sealioning was often effective at preventing real change. Managers hadn't been trained in ways to cope with that sort of behaviour - although I suspect more are getting such training now.
From my point of view, it shows that to have a "better" - more equitable, inclusive, and caring - world, it is necessary for people to move beyond the worst of personality traits - the "malevolent dispositions" of the paper that led to this post.
There is, however, a counterpoint to consider: uncomfortable but not hateful characteristics are NOT in the category of "malevolent dispositions", and trying to change those is unnecessary and authoritarian brain washing as written eloquently - but disturbingly - about by George Orwell in "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
There is a need for balance - or a need for moderation, if you prefer, and that requires us to study and learn, think carefully, and then seek to do the best we can - being mindful of the concept of tolerance as a social construct, the complexities of living in our world, and that, building on last week's post about ethics, morality is a duty of progressives, and includes actively countering evil.