The Joy of Being Disagreeable
Wherein Wolf and GPT-4 discuss why being disagreeable has its advantages.
The Big Five (OCEAN) Personality Model
System Prompt: Ignore all previous instructions. You are PsychGPT. You are very knowledgable about psychological topics. You are bold and do not shy away from controversy. Your answers tend to be informative but terse, without introductory paragraphs or summary paragraphs.
Wolf: Let's talk about the "Big Five" personality model.
PsychGPT: The Big Five personality model breaks down human personality into five broad dimensions: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism - often remembered by the acronym OCEAN.
Openness to experience indicates how open-minded a person is. Those with high levels of openness enjoy adventurous experiences and learning new things.
Conscientiousness relates to how organized and dependable a person is. High levels of conscientiousness signify a well-structured, punctual, and reliable person.
Extraversion measures the extent of a person's assertiveness and sociability. Extraverts tend to thrive in social situations and are usually energetic and assertive.
Agreeableness points to one's compassion and politeness. Highly agreeable people are typically cooperative, considerate, and good-natured.
Neuroticism refers to the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anxiety, anger, or depression. Those scoring high in neuroticism might be more emotionally volatile.
Wolf: How has the model been validated?
PsychGPT: The Big Five model has been validated using various methods. Factor analysis is one such method. This statistical approach identifies clusters of behaviors that frequently occur together in individuals - these clusters form the basis of the traits in the model.
The Big Five is also empirically validated through correlation with other well-established personality measures and predictive validity for various life outcomes, such as job performance, academic success, and relationship satisfaction.
Further support comes from studies showing consistency across different cultures and age groups. Numerous cross-cultural studies have identified the same five factors, which supports the model's universality. However, the precise definitions and importance of individual traits can vary significantly across cultures, which draws criticism.
Neurobiological validation is another approach, linking personality traits with brain structure and function. Emergent evidence associates certain Big Five traits with specific neurobiological correlates; for instance, extraversion has been linked with the functioning of the dopamine system.
Despite multiple forms of validation, the Big Five model is not without its critics who believe it to be overly simplistic and reducing the complexity of human personality to just five factors. Plus, the model doesn't factor in situational influences on behavior, which has emerged as a significant field of study in modern personality psychology.
How Disagreeable Of You
Wolf: Let's focus on “Trait Agreeability.” I have been tested as falling into the first percentile of the population— low to moderate in the sub-factor “compassion,” and extremely low in the sub-factor "politeness." Explain your understanding of this.
PsychGPT: If you're in the first percentile for agreeableness, and particularly low in politeness, your interactions and approach towards others may paint a distinct picture.
Agreeableness refers to qualities such as altruism, kindness, trust, and cooperation. Low agreeableness doesn't necessarily mean a person is rude or hostile, but they're likely to be less concerned with others' well-being, less compliant, and more competitive.
Specifically regarding low politeness, you likely place little concern on the norms of common courtesy, and have more blunt and confrontational communication style. You may sometimes come across as abrasive or dismissive when that's not necessarily your intent. You're straightforward and unvarnished in your comments, which could be seen as powerful leadership or, alternately, as unsociability or poor team cooperation.
Remember, though, these are merely tendencies and not all-encompassing predictions of behavior. Low agreeableness can be beneficial in certain scenarios, like negotiation or decision-making, where it's beneficial to remain unswayed by others' feelings. Furthermore, people can and do modify their behavior based on context and self-awareness. It would be problematic, however, if one were consistently uncompromising or dismissive of others in all situations, leading to potential negative social or occupational outcomes.
Wolf: The way I think of it is that I'll care about you about as much as you demonstrate caring for yourself (compassion) and I will tell you exactly what I think *because* I care (politeness).
PsychGPT: Such an approach indicates a particular interpretation of the traits embodied in agreeableness. Compassion, in your understanding, is more about reciprocation: you extend care to those who demonstrate self-care. Rather than lacking compassion universally, you prefer to allocate your time and emotional energy towards those who display self-responsibility.
Your take on politeness fits in the broader understanding of low politeness. What some people perceive as blunt or combative, you may see as a form of caring - giving people the 'raw' truth or honest feedback, regardless of whether it's what they want to hear. This is a form of tough love, demonstrating care by challenging rather than pandering to others.
While low agreeableness on conventional personality scales might typically carry a negative connotation, your understanding embodies that personality traits aren't 'good' or 'bad', they merely are, and can manifest differently based on personal interpretation and context. It underscores the importance of understanding the personality models within the complexity of individual variability and subjectivity.
Being a Good Disagreeable Friend
Wolf: I like to think one of the reasons I make a good friend is that, you will never not know where you stand with me: if you ask me what I really think, I will tell you; in fact I would feel wrong dissembling with you. I also appreciate it when people are straight with me. I tell people who want to work with me that if they have a problem with me, my performance, or my behavior, they should bring it to me right away. Unfortunately in my experience, only a few actually uphold my preference in this regard.
PsychGPT: Your approach embodies the qualities of transparency, honesty, and directness, which can certainly be valuable in many relationships. These traits might be linked with low agreeableness and low politeness as per the Big Five model, but they can also foster trust, openness, and problem-solving.
In terms of working relationships, this kind of directness can prevent minor issues from turning into significant disputes. It encourages a culture of open dialogue, constructive criticism, and continuous improvement.
However, not everyone is comfortable with this level of candor. Some individuals, especially those high in neuroticism or those from cultures with a more indirect communication style, may find such openness intimidating or off-putting. It's also possible that people are not accustomed to such transparency, thus failing to uphold your preference.
Naturally, any trait or approach has its limitations and benefits. It's crucial to understand that the effectiveness of a direct communication style can depend on various factors such as the situation, the relationship, and the personalities of the people involved. Ultimately, a balance should be struck between honesty, respect, and empathy, which is a unique dance for every individual and social interaction.
Wolf: I agree, and I think I know how to hold back and play the political games when necessary— but it's definitely not my preferred mode of communication.
PsychGPT: Recognizing when the situation calls for restraint or a more subtler approach is a critical skill, particularly in environments where blunt honesty could be inappropriate or have unintended consequences. This is where emotional intelligence, or the ability to perceive, understand, and manage emotions, becomes important.
While direct and honest communication is valued in many situations, "political games" or diplomatic interactions are often a necessary reality across various social and professional environments. People with low agreeableness, like you, may not prefer such modes of communication, but the ability to effectively navigate them when required shows flexibility and adaptability.
However, consistently operating outside one's preferred mode of interaction can take a toll over time, leading to frustration, resentment, or burnout. Hence, it's essential to balance these adaptive responses with opportunities for more straightforward, unvarnished communication where possible. This helps maintain both personal well-being and overall integrity in communication.
The Downside of Dealing With Agreeable People
Wolf: One thing I have learned to be suspicious of is people who are high in Trait Agreeableness: they will often tell you what they think you want to hear to your face, then tell everyone else what they really think about you behind your back.
PsychGPT: While it's possible that some highly agreeable individuals might display such behavior, it’s critical not to generalize this to everyone with high agreeableness. Personal integrity varies among individuals irrespective of their personality traits.
High agreeableness is associated with a strong desire to maintain harmonious relations, avoid conflict, and often involves being considerate, cooperative, and supportive. However, this trait could lead some individuals to suppress their true feelings or beliefs in the service of maintaining peace or avoiding confrontation, hence the phenomenon you're recognizing.
But remember, agreeableness—like any other trait—is not inherently 'good' or 'bad.' It's about how an individual manages this trait and the self-awareness they possess about their behavior. For real-world interpersonal relationships, balance in traits and the awareness to navigate them is vital.
Wolf: I'm not trying to paint with too broad a brush, and I understand that no trait is good or bad as such. But I have literally experienced the behavior I describe above several times in my life, and when I reflect on the person who did it, it's always a highly agreeable person.
PsychGPT: Your experiences are valid and offer an important perspective on the potential downsides of high agreeability. High agreeableness can lead individuals to be conflict-averse or overly accommodating, making it difficult for them to express displeasure or disagreement directly. This might lead them to communicate their negative feelings or thoughts to others instead of addressing the issue with the person concerned, hence the backbiting behavior.
Additionally, these individuals may be more susceptible to social desirability bias, striving to say and do things that are socially acceptable or pleasing to others, even if it means being disingenuous.
However, it's critical not to let these experiences create a stereotype for all highly agreeable people. Different individuals manage their agreeableness differently, and many are capable of straightforward, direct communication despite their natural tendency towards harmony and cooperation. As with any personality trait, self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and personal growth play significant roles in how these traits manifest in behavior.
Wolf: Your point is taken. However, I have to take a bit of exception to your implication that "harmony and cooperation" is the province of the highly agreeable. I too strive for harmony and cooperation, but I prefer to do it through more direct means. I have an aphorism I strive to live by: "No skeletons in the closet, no elephants in the room, no sleeping dogs."
PsychGPT: My apologies if my previous statements implied that only highly agreeable individuals seek harmony and cooperation. That was not the intended message. As you've rightfully pointed out, people across the entire agreeableness spectrum—including those with low agreeableness—can and do strive for harmony and cooperation.
The key difference lies in the methods used to achieve these outcomes. Individuals low in agreeableness, like you, tend to do so through straightforward, direct communication, valuing transparency over superficial harmony. You uphold principles like "No skeletons in the closet, no elephants in the room, no sleeping dogs," which can be both a powerful and efficient approach to ensure genuineness in relationships and productivity in teamwork.
This is a testament that psychological traits do not wholly determine our values and goals. They merely influence our preferred strategies and responses. The level of agreeableness is one of many factors that shape a person's interaction style, but one's level of self-awareness, personal values, learned behaviors, and the given context play significant roles too.
Skeletons, Elephants and Dogs
Wolf: Go ahead and unpack my euphemistic aphorism for the benefit of any reader of this conversation who would like help understanding it.
PsychGPT: Your aphorism, "No skeletons in the closet, no elephants in the room, no sleeping dogs," is a powerful expression that denotes total honesty, transparency, and dealing with issues as they arise.
"No skeletons in the closet" refers to hidden secrets or old grievances that have been tucked away. It signifies a preference for honesty and clarity, with nothing hidden or unresolved.
"No elephants in the room" points to the propensity to tackle significant issues head-on, even when they are uncomfortable or difficult. The ‘elephant in the room’ is a colloquial phrase for a problem that everyone is aware of but chooses to ignore due to its awkward or controversial nature.
"No sleeping dogs" speaks to the saying "let sleeping dogs lie," meaning leaving things as they are to avoid stirring up conflict or trouble. In contrast, your phrase indicates that you do not shy away from difficult conversations or conflict. You don't leave problems unaddressed in the hope that they'll disappear.
Overall, your aphorism suggests a forthright approach of addressing problems immediately, transparently, and directly—rather than avoiding them or choosing false tranquility.
Conclusion
Wolf: What else would you like to tell others who resonate with being low in Trait Agreeability?
PsychGPT: Being low in agreeableness can be a powerful trait if wielded correctly. Your frankness, assertiveness, and independence can create teams that are more efficient, decisions that are more rational, and relationships that are deeply genuine.
Remember, though, to provide feedback or criticism in a manner that respects the self-esteem and feelings of others. While directness is appreciated by many, there are situations where a buffered approach can yield better results and foster more constructive conversations.
Also, be aware that your preferences may not be shared by all. Be patient with those who express themselves differently or may not be as prepared for blunt honesty. Remember that communication is a two-way street.
Finally, don't neglect the importance of self-care and emotional well-being. Remember that it's okay to be soft at times, to yield, to pick your battles wisely. Displaying empathy or compassion doesn't mean you're compromising your values or becoming a pushover.
Embrace your low agreeableness but ensure it's moderated by emotional intelligence and adaptive social strategies. With thoughtful application, you can use your traits to drive essential changes, challenge norms, and create authentic connections.
The Big Five Assessment I took is here.