The Downside of Agreeableness

What is it to be (or not be) "agreeable"?

Michael Malice:

Michael Malice:

I score a zero or close to it on agreeableness Meaning, it makes little sense to me to say things or act in a certain way simply to accommodate others I view it as a form of dishonesty and long-term disaster If you are high-agreeableness, how would you explain it to me?

Question to Grok: With regard to the Big Five trait of agreeableness, what is the consequence of being extremely agreeable? What is the opposite of Agreeableness?

Consequences of Being Extremely Agreeable

ExtremeAgreeableness, a trait characterized by high levels of compassion, cooperation, and a desire to maintain harmony, can have both positive and negative consequences:Positive Consequences:Strong Relationships:

- Highly agreeable individuals are often well-liked, fostering trust and positive social bonds due to their kindness and empathy.

- Conflict Avoidance: Their tendency to prioritize harmony can de-escalate conflicts and promote group cohesion.

- Team Collaboration: They excel in cooperative settings, making them effective in team-oriented environments.

Negative Consequences:Difficulty Asserting Needs:

- Extreme agreeableness may lead to suppressing personal needs or opinions to avoid conflict, resulting in unmet needs or resentment.

- Vulnerability to Exploitation: Highly agreeable people may be taken advantage of, as they are less likely to confront manipulative behavior.

- Reduced Leadership Effectiveness: Excessive agreeableness can hinder decision-making or assertiveness, making it challenging to take charge in competitive or high-stakes situations.

- Neglect of Self-Interest: Constantly prioritizing others can lead to burnout or diminished self-esteem if their own goals are consistently sidelined.

Opposite of Agreeableness

The opposite of agreeableness in the Big Five personality framework is low agreeableness, often described as antagonism or disagreeableness. Individuals with low agreeableness exhibit traits such as:Competitiveness: Prioritizing personal goals over group harmony, often thriving in competitive environments.

- Skepticism or Cynicism: Being less trusting and more critical of others’ intentions.

- Assertiveness or Aggressiveness: Willingness to confront others, express disagreement, or pursue self-interest, sometimes at the expense of relationships.

- Lower Empathy: Less concern for others’ feelings, which can manifest as bluntness or insensitivity.

While low agreeableness can lead to conflicts or strained relationships, it can also be advantageous in situations requiring tough decision-making, negotiation, or standing firm on principles.

Continue ReadingThe Downside of Agreeableness

The Fear of Shame Leads to Tyranny

Unfortunately, decent people often cower to avoid strategically-imposed shame. This allows loud unruly minorities to inflict censorship and tyranny. Eli Steele presents an illustrative article written by his father, black conservative Shelby Steele:

Eli Steele: "Before Charlie Kirk, my father spoke at countless universities and colleges, often for nominal pay, and the verbal abuse he suffered was beyond the pale. It is a sign of how much our culture declined, from screaming to the bullet."

Excerpt: The Loneliness of the "Black Conservative"

by Shelby Steele

"I realized that I was a black conservative when I found myself standing on stages being shamed in public. I had written a book that said, among many other things, that black American leaders were practicing a politics that drew the group into a victim-focused racial identity that, in turn, stifled black advancement more than racism itself did. For reasons that I will discuss shortly, this was heresy in many quarters. And, as I traveled around from one little Puritan village (read "university") to another, a common scene would unfold.

"Whenever my talk was finished, though sometimes before, a virtual militia of angry black students would rush to the microphones and begin to scream. At first I thought of them as Mau Maus but decided this was unfair to the real Mau Maus, who, though ruthless terrorists, had helped bring independence to Kenya in the 1950s. My confronters were not freedom fighters; they were Carrie Nation-like enforcers, racial bluenoses who lived in terror of certain words. Repression was their game, not liberation, and they said as much. "You can't say that in front of the white man." "Your words will be used against us." "Why did you write this book?" "You should only print that in a black magazine." Their outrage brought to light an ironic and unnoticed transformation in the nature of black American anger from the sixties to the nineties: a shift in focus from protest to suppression, from blowing the lid off to tightening it down. And, short of terrorism, shame is the best instrument of repression.

"Of course, most black students did not behave in this way. But the very decency of the majority, black and white, often made the shaming of the minority more effective. So I learned what it was like to stand before a crowd in which a coterie of one's enemies had the license to shame, while a mixture of decorum and fear silenced the decent people who might have come to one's aid. I was as vulnerable to the decency as to the shaming since together they amounted to shame. And it is never fun to be called "an opportunist," "a house slave," and so on while university presidents sit in the front row and avert their eyes. But this really is the point: The goal of shaming was never to win an argument with me; it was to make a display of shame that would make others afraid for themselves, that would cause eyes to avert. I was more the vehicle than the object, and what I did was almost irrelevant. Shame's victory was in the averted eyes, the covering of decency."

Continue ReadingThe Fear of Shame Leads to Tyranny

Two Flavors of Free Speech

Before we have a debate about a topic--here, "free speech"--we should decide exactly what we mean by "free speech," which encompasses far more than the First Amendment. Excellent point by Geoffrey Miller:

Constitutional free speech is grounded in clear rights, laws, precedents, & principles, centered around retraining gov't from meddling in public discourse. We should strongly protect constitutional free speech, and be very wary of gov't censorship -- whether directly, or through gov't collusion with Big Tech, social media, or AI companies.

However, cultural free speech is much more complicated, nuanced, and subject to renegotiation -- which is what we've been seeing over the last ten years, and especially in the last week.

Civilized people accept thousands of informal restraints on cultural free speech. For example, we use the power of informal social rewards and punishments to discourage

- kids from lying

- spouses from dissing each other

- journalists from acting like propagandists

- teachers from indoctrinating students

- companies from violating traditions and trust

- people from burning our flag

- sociopathic trolling on social media

- comedians from making false & incendiary claims

- politicians from demonizing their opponents to incite political violence among their supporters

All of these are restraints on 'cultural free speech', and they could be seen as micro-versions of 'cancel culture', but they're widely supported, and they're not directly related to gov't censorship or First Amendment law.

Yes, the First Amendment helps establish and reinforce the social norms around cultural free speech, and cultural free speech helps reinforce the willingness of citizens, politicians, & judges to protect our First Amendment rights.

But I see a lot of people, on both Left and Right, confusing the two forms of our civilization's commitment to free speech.

Continue ReadingTwo Flavors of Free Speech

The Function of “Words Are Violence”

Translation of “Words are Violence”: A) You need to shut up and let ME talk. B) I am the sole judge of what words you are permitted to speak. C) I’m so fragile that I can’t bear to talk with people I disagree with. D) I forbid you to use facts, logic and persuasion while we talk. E) If you say anything I don't like, it will be blasphemy and sacrilege and it proves that you are a bad person engaged in "hate speech." F) I am justified ending our relationship and/or inflicting violence on you if your words piss me off.

The above attitude does not invite meaningful debate of anything of importance. Thus:

In "Bury the ‘words are violence’ cliché," Greg Lukianoff reminds us that words are not like bullets:

I had my disagreements with Charlie Kirk—sometimes sharp ones—but none of that matters right now. What I respected, and too many of his critics never noticed, was that he showed up. He stood in the quad, took hard questions, argued back, let students argue back at him. That takes time, patience, and courage. Our culture has been teaching young people to scorn that everyday civic courage and to treat contested speech as a kind of physical harm. On that Utah campus we received the final proof that “words are like bullets” is a poisonous and cruel metaphor.

In other words, what looks like a plea for civility is actually a threat. This pertains to both "Words are Violence" and claims of "Hate Speech."

Continue ReadingThe Function of “Words Are Violence”