Cosmic Neurotic or Priestly Caste?

How much of our character is hardwired? Back when I was in grad school in the 1980s, the assumption was that everyone is a product of their interpersonal environment, especially the first five years.

This appears to be All Wrong, or at least Way Off, because evidently the Big Five personality traits are highly heritable. There is still room for environmental influences, just far less than we had imagined. According to the wiki article, 

openness to experience is estimated to have a 57% genetic influence, extraversion 54%, conscientiousness 49%, neuroticism 48%, and agreeableness 42%

Again, this still leaves more or less room for the environment, but it is as if genetic influences represent a kind of attractor or entelechy that limits or guides it.

Moreover, just as we can posit a general factor of intelligence (G), Dutton suggests that there must be a "General Factor of Personality" (GFP) in which winners of the genetic lottery 

are high in aspects of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness, and are low in Neuroticism. As a result, they are socially effective, with the GFP predicting high socioeconomic status.

Which makes sense. Me? I know I'm high in A, C, and O, but definitely deficient in E and with a generous dollop of N. Back when I was an environmentalist I assumed the N must have been a product of the environment, despite my environment having been perfectly stable and entirely non-traumatic. Now I realize that I was just born this way. 

Sure, there was mutual incomprehension between me and my parents, but that is to be expected with a child who was born this way. It's nobody's fault.

As for neuroticism, it has its upsides. According to Dutton, it is associated with being a "religious seeker," which checks out. Elsewhere he writes that "anxiety acts as a motivator towards diligence" and 

Neuroticism means you desire greater certainty about the nature of the world and believe you can attain this through higher education.

Is this what I am -- a cosmic neurotic, wondering and worrying about things that are none of my business? Well, according to the Meyers Briggs test I am an INTP, and these folks "want to understand everything in the universe." They

can’t help but puzzle over the mysteries of the universe -- which may explain why some of the most influential philosophers and scientists of all time have been INTPs. People with this personality type tend to prefer solitude, as they can easily become immersed in their thoughts when they are left to their own devices....

[They] hardly ever stop thinking. From the moment they wake up, their mind buzzes with ideas, questions, and insights. At times, they may even find themselves conducting full-fledged debates in their own heads. And it’s not uncommon for them to drift off during conversations. Their mind simply executes a detour to uncharted territories of thought where new ideas are constantly being born.

I like that description because it reframes the neuroticism in a more positive light. Besides, 

it would be a mistake to think that these personalities are unfriendly or uptight. When they connect with someone who can match their mental energy, INTPs absolutely light up, leaping from one thought to another. Few things energize them like the opportunity to swap ideas or enjoy a lively debate with another curious, inquiring soul.

Looked at from another angle, could it be that GFP is another way of looking at caste? According to Schuon,

Psychologically speaking a natural caste is a cosmos; men live in different cosmoses according to the "reality" on which they are centered; it is impossible for the inferior really to understand the superior, for he who really understands "is" what he understands (Schuon).

So, I live in a different cosmos from the the person who doesn't ever worry about the cosmos, which is big enough to take care of itself. 

Elsewhere in the same essay (The Meaning of Caste), Schuon writes that "the fundamental tendency in a man is connected with his 'feeling' or 'consciousness' of what is 'real.'" 

It seems that the idea of caste is a kind of implicit recognition of what we now understand as enduring character. 

For example, our criminal class -- or underclass, if you prefer -- tends to be low in intelligence but high in time preference and impulsivity. Intelligence itself is more heritable than any of the Big Five, and is in turn positively associated with 

pro-social behavior, planning, impulse control, empathy, health, social status, memory, and even being trusting; on the other hand intelligence is negatively associated with criminality [and many other negative traits and outcomes] (Dutton).

As to what is more real to this or that caste, for the contemplative (priestly) type it is "the transcendent as such, whereas for the knight-warrior it is the transcendent ideal as instantiated in action and struggle: his imperative is to vindicate the ideal in battle." 

For the merchant "it is riches, security, prosperity and well-being that are 'real.'" I have some very successful businessmen in my extended family (billionaires even), but talking to them about anything transcending matter would be like discussing poetry with my dog. Indeed, they even have a kind of condescending and worldly cynicism about the transcendent, as if we are trying to put one over on them.   

We can see how this plays out in our elite merchant hive of technoid insects. The vertical Dunning Krugery in these inferior superiors is strong. These folks not only lack "the mentality of the higher, but cannot even conceive of it exactly," which results in an interpretation of what we are saying in terms of what they are capable of understanding, which isn't much. Thus,

men whose souls are fragmentary and opaque pretend that they can instruct us in the "psychology" of greatness and of the sacred.

When this type of person poses as an "intellectual," the intellect remains tied to the opaque and the fragmentary, AKA matter. How could it not? 

As Schuon says, "caste can be lost but not acquired." People are who they are, and not someone else. Pretending otherwise is a great source of vulgarity -- for example, the editorial page of the NY Times, which features anti-intellectual lunatics posing as intellectuals. They are also full of pride, which is always a giveaway. 

There is an interesting inverse analogy between the philosophical man with no worldly point and the pointless man, since both wander off the grid, so to speak. The "shudra" is like "a body endowed with human consciousness" and therefore "properly qualified only for manual work of a more or less quantitative kind."  

I myself toiled in solidarity with this type for a good portion of my life, for not only did I work in a supermarket until I was 33 years of age, I fit right in. I was one of them -- a body endowed with human consciousness -- until some sort of light unexpectedly switched on when I was around 25 or so. Nevertheless, I still consider my self a thoroughly blue-collar suburban shaman.

This is an accurate description of the way I was back then: "it is bodily things that are 'real'; it is eating and drinking" or "the satisfaction of immediate physical needs" which "constitute happiness." You can usually trust this kind of person, because they are very uncomplicated and predictable.

I'm pretty sure that when that light switched on in my mid-20s, it was just the activation of my nonlocal attractor, which was going to manifest in one way or another. We are who we are. Or become who we are, rather.