1(a). Discuss Allport and religion- be creative. 1(b). Discuss Catell and factor analysis- be creative - Essay Example

November Allport and Cattell in Application: Gadhafi and the Gingerbread Man Allport and Gadhafi A current event that has captured public interest recently is the knife sodomy done to Gadhafi. Bill Maher (HBO host) commented on the video that is recently circulating, by noting that the particular culture interprets Shariah law very strictly in the treatment of women, yet the men who caught Gadhafi instinctively were drawn to sodomize him violently. Maher asks: “But don’t these people have issues?

I mean, when the first thing you do is stick something up the guy’s ass, I feel like it says something about you as a culture, the men in that culture. When you segregate the women and you cover them up and homosexuality becomes sexuality (Poor).” I want to use this event, and this response to the event, to consider, by application, Allport’s perspective on religion. Allport was concerned with religion and prejudice. He looked for purity of religious commitment (Ralph W. Hood 413) and distinguished intrinsic from extrinsic, mature from immature.

He found that intrinsic religious orientation is associated with more tolerance and less prejudice, while extrinsic religious orientation is associated with intolerance and more prejudice, and he found that those “who are indiscriminately proreligious are the most prejudiced of all (Allport and Ross 432).“ Intrinsic means that the person’s religious orientation is based on “genuine, heartfelt, devout faith”, while extrinsic religion means using religion as “a means to an end, such as church attendance to gain social status” (New World Encyclopedia)In Middle Eastern countries where external evidence of religious orientation is required and enforced by authorities, and failure to visibly abide by Shariah law is punishable by death, religious energy is directed away from intrinsic and toward extrinsic, for survival.

This causes distortion in religious experience. The results of this distortion are seen in the event referred to in the beginning of this paper. This is what Bill Maher noted in his response. Allport distinguished immature religion from mature religion. Immature religion involves magical thinking and self-justification, is wish-fulfilling and unreflective, can be fanatic and is literal-minded, is second-hand (uncritically believing whatever one is taught), while mature religion is well-differentiated (critically analyzed and sorted out), dynamic (driven by religious mysteries and realities, not driven by selfish and fearful hungers and impulses), involves consistent morality (value-derived, not punishment avoidant), is comprehensive, integral, and open to new ideas and spiritual growth (Exploring Spiritual Development.com). People whose unreflective fanaticism, magical self-justification, and undifferentiated literalness results in selfish and fearful hunger and impulse enactment, as demonstrated in the violent knife-sodomizing of an overthrown leader, and whose actions are founded on extrinsic religious experience, certainly meet the criteria for Allport’s immature category.

It is no surprise they are intolerant. 2. Cattell and the Gingerbread ManThe second theorist I will consider is Cattell, specifically with attention to his use of factor analysis and 16 Factor Personality Model. Cattell was interested in creating a common, natural language personality taxonomy. He reduced thousands of traits, identified by Allport, to factors (psychometric-success.com). He devised a statistical method for feeding them into a factor analysis formula to yield a replicable description with clear boundaries between categories (Fehringer).

Unfortunately, although his typology was a significant contribution, being replicable and unambiguously bounded have not been strong points of factor analysis (Fehringer). I will use the beloved tale of the Gingerbread Man to illustrate. The Gingerbread man, as you might recall, was not socially compliant with his fate as amusing food, at the whim of the Old Woman. He jumped off the cookie sheet and ran away, chased by the Old Woman (his creator), the Old Man (her partner), animals (domesticated into destiny compliance by the system his creator represents) and villagers (those who have been socialized into supporting social system norms and roles).

Gingerbread men are not human, have no individual rights. It is their socially-accepted role to be eaten, after all, like all gingerbread ancestors before him. Running away positions him as being low range on the primary factors of warmth (detached, cool, non-participatory); rule-consciousness (non-conforming, self-indulgent); sensitivity (utilitarian, self-reliant); privatenss (open, naive, unpretentious); and apprehensiveness (self-assured, unworried, confident, self-satisfied) (Fehringer).

Running away and taunting those who pursue him positions him as high range on the reasoning factor (bright, a fast learner); emotional stability (adaptive, faces reality calmly, higher ego strength); dominance (assertive and stubborn); liveliness (animated, spontaneous, expressive, impulsive); social boldness (bold, venturesome, uninhibited); and openness to change (experimental, liberal, free thinking) (Fehringer). It is difficult to identify his position with respect to vigilance and abstractedness.

He unquestioningly trusts that he can escape the community and his destiny, and seems unsuspecting that harm will come to him in doing so. This is low range positioning on the primary factor of vigilance (Fehringer). On the other hand, he demonstrates vigilance, suspiciousness, skepticism, and distrustful opposition in confronting and negotiating with the fox. Later, however, he is too trusting and is eaten. So is he low range or high range on vigilance? It becomes circumstantially subjective.

Similarly, with respect to the primary factor of abstractedness, the Gingerbread Man is low range (practical and solution-oriented) and also high range (imaginative, impractical) (Fehringer). Again, his positioning becomes circumstantially subjective, and open to interpretation. Furthermore, there is inconsistency in matching the traits allegedly demonstrating a given primary factor. Apparently gingerbread men, like people, are not consistently category-compliant on personality factors. Personality is perhaps not as fixed in the person, as Cattell apparently assumes, but is also, at least in part, a result of social situation, circumstances and interpretation.

People are not mathematically quantifiable. Our response patterns and attitudes are more flexible than a math formula. Furthermore, culture plays a large role in interpreting traits and their meanings. Whether calculating an analysis by hand or by computer, we are a long way from reliable mathematical designation of personality, and behavior prediction based on it. Works CitedAllport, Gordan W. and J. Michael Ross. "Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5 (4) (1967): 432-443.

Exploring Spiritual Development.com. "Gordon Allport and Mature Religion." 2009. Exploring Spiritual Development. 30 October 2011 .Fehringer, Heather M. "Contributions and Limitations of Cattells Sixteen Personality Factor Model." May 2004. Personality Research. 30 October 2011 .New World Encyclopedia. "Allport, Gordon." New World Encyclopedia. 29 October 2011 .Poor, Jeff. "Maher: Gadhafi Sodomy Video Suggests Homosexuality Has Become Sexuality in Islamic Culture." The Daily Caller 29 October 2011.

Psychometric-success.com. "Raymond Cattell (1905-1998)." 2009. Psychometric Sucess. 30 October 2011 .Ralph W. Hood, Jr. "The Conceptualization of Religious Purity in Allports Typology." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24 (4) (1985): 413-417.