ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


"50 per cent more likely to die at any given age, on average, than those of the same age who scored highly"
This cannot literally be true, because eventually all the less conscientious people will be dead and then it won't be possible for the likelihood of death to be twice as high as for the more conscientious.
__________________________________
Also, I wonder it this is just a product of differing discount rates. People with low discount rates get higher benefits from living longer lives. Benefiting from conscientious behavior requires that others reciprocate. Yet they don't have an opportunity to do so, it might take years for one to pop-up. Having a low discount rate makes he returned favors of others in the future worth more to you today compared with the expenditure of effort to be conscientious today.
I agree with OneEyedMan that the 50% figure is impossible in that context. The abstract says: "Results: Higher levels of conscientiousness were significantly and positively related to longevity (r = .11, 95% confidence interval = .05-.17). Associations were strongest for the achievement (persistent, industrious) and order (organized, disciplined) facets of conscientiousness" and this is certainly reasonable. Intuitively you would think there would be a correlation there.
People who are conscientious tend to see life's troubles as challenges and are known to cope better with stress in most cases. Also, conscientious people are more cautious, inclined to forward planning, and self disciplined. It stands to reason they they would exercise more, get at least enough medical care, avoid accidents, and so on.
I wonder what effect on health is stronger: the positive effect of conscientiousness or the negative effect of neuroticism (linked to all sorts of ills). In my experience the highly neurotic, highly conscientious person tends to be the kind of person who you always think could drop dead any second from overwork and overstress, but maybe its their conscientiousness (in part) that's keeping them alive?
Perhaps as one gets older, one becomes more conscientious. You know, like growing up.
In that case, those living to great ages will be all or largely more conscientious no matter how much so they were at younger ages.
A better work ethic makes me live longer? I'd better stop goofing off at EconLog and get back to work. Now if only these chest pains would go away...
Associations were strongest for the achievement (persistent, industrious)
I have not yet read the whole study, just the summary but I wonder if they included showing up to work every day as a measure of persistence and/or industriousness, which could also be a sign of good health.
How do they define conscientious?