personality traits effects on susceptibilty to persuasion?

[Noonespecial]

So as far as I know specific personality traits have not been shown to correlate with susceptible to persuasion. First off is this true?

Next question.
Would you consider intelligence a personality trait?

Intelligence is somewhat vauge and hard to measure accurately , aswell as the aspect of multipul types of intelligence however id like to assert that level of intellegince/specific types of intelligence (I.e. spatial intelligence) could possibly show a negative correlation to susceptibility to persuasion (higher intelligence corresponding to lower
Susceptibility to persuasion)

Due to confounding variables such as immeasurablity of the strength of a personality trait present in an individual, and the vaugeness of the meaning of intelligence I doubt this is a very testable assertion however id like some opinions on the thought and corrections if any assumptions I've stated are incorrect or improbable   

[voodoo scientist]

"Persuasion" has yet to be operationalized, and as such, no reliable studies on the matter exist. It is generally considered 'dark magic,' and any experiments would be extremely hard to justify to an ethics committee. Intelligence is not considered a personality trait or even a coherent entity or function, and is operationalized as performance tests of the various memory structures and functions, attention, linguistics, spatial manipulation, mathematics and communicative skills. At this point, intelligence is not 'somewhat vague' - the very existence of the concept as we know it is up in the air.

However, you've already pointed this out, so I am just confirming your suspicions. I think the more interesting idea is the basic notion of a susceptibility to persuasion based on personality traits, the existence of which is very plausible. However, the perceived persuasion phenomenon could also be explained by a number of existing theories, such as theories of conformity, social desirability, and could even be a number of different phenomenons that simply manifest in very similar behaviors.

We know that personality traits exist and are correlated with behavior. We also know that persuasion appears to happen, and manifests in a range of behaviors within a range of conditions. We don't currently know what conditions persuasion happens under, and we can't specify the range of behaviors that indicate persuasion has taken place. Without that information, we can't conduct meaningful study or discussion of persuasion, and under current ethical guidelines, it is nearly impossible to obtain that information scientifically.

[gone]

I agree with Voodoo that the idea of persuasion as a personality trait is indeed very interesting and one I've never considered.
Upon reading this I've recalled a few instances I've been 'persuaded'..
I consider myself more intelligent that many of my peers and where they are very easily influenced I am not. However they can very easily persuade me (especially under the influence of alcohol - so there may be something in that).. But I am a natural 'giver' where as many are takers, so I am only too happy to oblige in most cases as an inherent giver I don't even stop to think, if it's something I want to do, more of I am being asked of, therefore I give.. quite naturally.

I am not gullible, or suggestible but a natural giver so maybe there is a correlation between personality and persuasion. NB: I can't be persuaded by advertisers, marketing gimmicks etc.. I am only ever persuaded by 'people' who it seems in need of me.

[voodoo scientist]

Just to clarify, I didn't suggest that persuasion is itself a personality trait, but that certain personality traits may make a person more or less susceptible to persuasion under different conditions. Purely hypothetically and assuming N is a meaningful personality trait (which is fairly well supported, but in no sense proven by research), a person with a high N(euroticism) score may be more vulnerable to persuasion when under pressure, while someone with low N might be more vulnerable to persuasion when made to feel nervous or otherwise agitated by exceptional circumstance.

[gone]

I bet this is covered in many sales books. The art of persuasion must be a tool used by sales professionals. Sorry Voodoo I meant I agreed the topic of persuasion interesting. And the more I think of it the more I realise it's an area I've given little thought to. I am no manipulator and therefore I would never use persuasion for personal gain. But from politicians to who puts the rubbish out, persuasion is used a lot and in very direct (ooo please, please) to very indirect (buy one get one free)... Hmmm interesting.

The last time I was persuaded I was in Spain and this guy came over and chatted for a little while, I was with 10 girls and we were leaving & he said 'Don't go come for a drink with me, please, come on please, please' and I gave him my number & said we'll meet up later.. but he continued 'Please come for a drink now, don't go, please stay with me bla bla' to which I did, I wasn't even interested as I was out with friends & I'd only chatted to him for 5 minutes but because of his begging & desperation I went with him..  so I realise I am very easily persuaded by people but not at all by media, sales etc... If they make me feel needed I'm there. That's a weekness I guess.

[voodoo scientist]

Persuasion (or manipulation), at its core, is nothing more than the act of measuring a communication to the communicator's perceptions of their audience. Without isolating yourself from other humans, you can barely help developing the skill set, and people who fail entirely in correctly developing these skills are often seen as socially awkward. Rather than being something you are entirely or not at all susceptible to, or ditto for individual manipulation strategies, I believe everyone falls somewhere in a range, with people who on either extreme suffering some form of pathology.

As far as finding actual correlations go, take this example: a mathematically gifted person might be less susceptible to number manipulation because he is more competent with numbers. However, I think we could easily conceive of a mathematically gifted person that might be quite susceptible to number manipulation - if he has no way or inclination to verify them, he could be your standard issue mad scientist. He might find no error with the factual correctness or relationships of the numbers he has found (or been provided with!), but may lack other, seemingly unrelated numbers to gain the full or correct perspective. It's impossible for us to determine the potential relationships with the incomplete data and concepts we have to work with.

The taboo on declarative understanding of manipulation is harmful to the public at best and very suspicious at worst, because it allows for neither defenses or self-monitoring. It's somewhat comparable to the possibilities for abuse if Microsoft had programmed an unsealable backdoor for hackers to use into every Windows copy ever sold, except for that in real life, you can't change OS or stop using your 'computer'. The real tragedy, though, is that people gain a procedural understanding of manipulation despite the taboo, and thus become not only able but likely to use manipulation without even knowing they are doing it, because they aren't allowed to investigate what to look for - and when people get manipulated they, having learned it's an effective strategy, manipulate in turn. Somewhat comparable to giving everyone a gun at birth and banning all gun education and control.

The problem is that you can't easily operationalize "Measuring a communication to the communicator's perceptions of their audience" without closely operationalizing perception or finding a clever workaround. I feel like defining perception might be a bit high an aim for this thread, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a clever workaround. Stranger things have happened, after all.