The definition from 123test.com is:
A person with a high level of agreeableness in a personality test is usually warm, friendly, and tactful. They generally have an optimistic view of human nature and get along well with others.
LINK
On surface being agreeable is being very nice with everyone. It is accommodating the needs of other people you come in contact with around you during the day. If only all people were agreeable - this system would work. Yet, sooner or later you find yourself in situation where the other person or more of them are unfair, aggressive and appear hateful and spiteful to your boundaries - when you are being kind and thoughtful to them for them all the time. So being agreeable seems not to serve any purpose in contact with people and any social situations. Yet, I am here to advocate agreeableness, something that comes natural to me. I'll try to explain all sides to agreeableness as universal tools for social interaction and also as base to relationship with others and oneself. Amazingly enough the details surrounding people in social situations are connected to deep psychological issues, philosophy and in general about everything in life.
Evil people will react to bad attitude towards them, tough love. So even if they deserve and ask for being reprimanded, you have to take into consideration, not all people are like you. There are spiteful, deviated, nut people out there that will harm you back. They will harm you in way you are not even aware of, and if you do not expect it. They can hurt you with invisible forces, stab you in the back, use unfair techniques to channel their aggression as reaction to you being honest, authentic, genuine, speaking the truth. This forces you to be kind, to take into consideration other people feelings, you never know who and what is inside the mind of person that annoys you. You are free to carefully use words to state your opinion, and to avoid vulgar words and any insults.
The agreeableness comes down to accepting everything, literally all that you experience. A similar message will be advised to OCD people; accept intrusive thoughts and they'll have less impact on you. People communicate their truth but it comes out wrong. We need to decipher their communication messages. If someone is blunt, hurtful or ridiculous (this means mocking) - it is truth, especially if it hurts you. It might look foolish, as all new ideas look ridiculous. If they are negative, in general sarcastic and depressive, they might react to something that they perceive as ridiculous. It helps to look this process from their shoes, how did they come up with words they are hurting you? It is yin-yang system - they are on the other side. If someone hurts you, remember this symbol.
It helps to make sense of chaos and to correct this wrong approach: we shut up when we should speak up. We talk when we should shut up. Everyone carries some PTSD wound along with them through life. Since it is not visible, we can pretend we don't have trauma source, and other people as well, since they might appear very confident and strong on the outside. But if we have fears, anxiety, social phobia (extreme shyness) and thus hurt easily - it means that we are in a dark room and we can not see movable dark objects that roam around and we bump onto them. We then heal wound, we heal the hurt, but not becoming aware of objects - triggers behind it. The same goes with aggressive and annoying people. If someone is healthy and sane, that person would not attack anyone like a rabid animal. They might appear alpha, amazing, narcissist, but if they hurt people, there is some trigger that made them deviated. They just learn how to appear healthy and sane to other people and we buy onto false image. And then we think something is wrong with us when they hurt us, since they appear super-healthy, alpha, strong individuals. Hurt means we still have correcting mechanism inside and that is good thing. Wrong answer would be avoiding the room. We need that dark room, outside of our comfort, well light zone. This means, we need driving even if we might have driving phobia, a job, meeting new people, going somewhere unknown for the first time. Therefore it is about changing the way we understand and interpret the hurt and pain. It is easy to brush off the world and people in general - but not all people are bad, we need situations, zone and products that are beside bad people. If we are hurt, we fuse those two together as if they are glued or one single organism, and we reject everything, in total. It is like eating spoiled apple, you throw off all fruits out of your diet because that particular one tasted funny. Or it happened again - but you never think of getting/buying the apples from another source - you just throw it all away as easy solution.
Reacting is important for control. If someone appears rude - get to know it first. Is there a message to accept? I am allowed to defend myself but without drama. I have words to tell. I can use my words to exorcist the evil with words, only bad parts, the virus code in someone's narrative. It is not about attacking and destroying the other person. The same we should allow for the other person towards us. Ego deflating is to check our beliefs with others. If we have toxic shame, we'll want to appear strong to hide our insufficiencies and thus become fake and forced. We might over-talk and thus become boring. We might need to be reminded to be humble and get interested in other people if we are too self involved.
Bad temper, bad mood, discontent is sign of exorcism, possession, so it is not real, it only appears real and we take it as it is, we react to what we are presented with and might engage in discussion that will lead to nowhere. People always get things wrong, especially if they meet someone for the first time. It is good to know this dynamics. So we think we must defend, we must be strong, we must not appear humiliated in someone's eyes - so we may be mislead to think it is ok to argue, yell and get involved into argument that revolve around artificial problem. We have words, we can ask what is really biting the other person, what is underneath.
This is why agreeableness is the way - not to take personally yelling, detach from it, step back, leave without worrying about it - if the other person is someone unknown and we don't have any business with them, their reaction could be something else than what appears in our head as explanation. If we listen to our thoughts and take them for granted, we may as well find ourselves lost in the woods. We don't need to go to woods, if it is not in our itinerary and if we don't have GPS and we don't have any business being there. If someone is aggressive, if they harm you and end up in court, they will apologize, tell they are sorry. There is no need to fight against the injustice and get them telling sorry in the moment, this is something they will do anyway if forced by the law.
The agreeableness is about adaptability. It is getting know the situation, learning, having education from before, being prepared for conflict. It is about knowing what we know already, not to be defined along the way as someone blocks us in out ways. Part of verbal defense is broken record method - just keep repeating the same thing we want. It is about finding the ways that are for the greater good, no one will be harmed by them, there is no reason why we should not defend and stick by them. It is about reacting to over-reaction and aggression with acquiring knowledge as much as I can instead of making rash decision based on instant pain which may as well be durable for a time instead well spend on knowing more about what is really going on.
We need to be educated how narcissist function. How bully operate. At their work, they abuse others, and in the end when they are caught, abusers will faint they are being mobbed themselves. I've seen that pattern emerging. We can speak it out, call out on their behaviour. That takes courage, it is not easy. In conflict, we seem tense and we can't get calm due to stress hormones rushing inside. I know when I am calm, in such relaxed state I remember important stuff that I would forget otherwise. In calm state I would know exactly what to tell, speak and say. This again leads to agreeableness - and that is to make yourself calm and not to over-react. Sun Tzu in The Art of War is telling that to fight your enemy is to love him, not to agree and let them push you away, but as a way to speak to them and clear out the wrong impressions and call them out on their behaviour that otherwise they would not listen or have chance to hear.
Dualistic system of yin-yang tells us what bothers me is what I need (without me being aware of it). What annoys others is what they need and they are not aware of it at the moment. With agreeableness attitude you both can find this out by communicating instead of silent treatment. It comes back to learning and having knowledge, sharing. This annoying part is important to observe more closely. Without being aware, we copy paste information from the past so we create explanations by using information from the past. This process with time, by not being in the present, results in wrong perception and illusion because we believe in lies, something that is not real and in present tense. We fight against figment of our imagination, since we are using information from the past. This is how we get conditioned, hypnotized into wrong beliefs with time. Therefore, we can't be objective and attack someone if we don't check our own system - are we basing our judgement on prejudice, quick logic based on past trauma which has nothing to do with in the present moment?
Communication is the only way to check lies. People still lie anyway, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes out of shame or fears. Traumatized children learned to lie in order to survive controlling childhood. Being aggressive towards them is not necessary, when we can talk it out and tell honest truth by facing them with their wrong behaviour. If they do not change, we cannot beat sense in such people, but at least they will know what is wrong and what we will not tolerate to be around them. Move on if they don't change - endless conflict and re-run discussion are not functional and not healthy.
It boils down to - I can kill rude, toxic people. I can put up with them for awhile or in situations when I cannot leave. I can plan my escape route. I can alert them. I can change my perception as seeing the other side as a way of helping me to ground myself. If we listen only to intuition we would fly away like a balloon, inflated on castles in the sky we may build in our heads. We can communicate back, using Socrates method of not knowing nothing and asking for clarification. It is annoying to receiver, it exposes fake people, manipulators and victimhood. If they cannot stand our asking for clarification it well may be a clear sign they are not to be trusted, since they make pretend their opinion to be realistic, while we expose it as fake. Instead of not engaging with annoying people - use their annoyance of talking to engage in communication, the more questions to explain their view and what is not clear will expose wrongness. People learn what they are missing when in communication with annoying people. Things we are afraid of - once we face our fears - turn out to be annoying and irritating, not scary. Yin-Yang system as balance system, means agreeableness by two opposing viewpoints talking their opinions is the same as one person claiming it is number 6 from their standpoint, while on the other side, person will clearly see number 9. Speaking out what you mean, truthfully, which even means not to be politically correct. If you are too serious, nobody will get your message. It is about learning the other side, and decoding the way they communicate so you can speak your message to them in their own way of perceiving the reality, it means speaking their language.
In Buddhism, Bodhicitta is "a universal sense of compassion for all beings", it is about "placing the welfare of other sentient beings above their own". Empaths have no ill will towards others, so if you are agreeable and still feel guilty and shame, the problem is not the other person. Something inside is conditioned in wrong deviated way to feel inner pressure and inner aggression. This means, instead of being aggressive, it is better way to teach my subconsciousness about ethics, moral and goals. It is about accepting inside and learning techniques, then teaching myself what I hate and what I find annoying. This inner process will repeat itself automatically outside - by being agreeable.
In history we learned by Magna Carta signed in 1215 that total power is equal to poverty and instability. If we are not agreeable, we are creating system inside us that will not be functional in the long time. This works on both sides. When we are speaking out and communicating, we appear as troll to the opposing party. It is only our words that can remove this prejudice. But only if we stick up to our point of view. This is problem if you don't know what you stand for. It is problem if you do not know the difference between right and wrong. It is wrong if you do not have enough information and you do not seek out information. This is where agreeableness comes in - we take into consideration the other person and we put to test their opinions and ask for clarification. Without communication this process is not possible. So tell them this, explain why it is important to talk. Philosopher John Locke said we can never know person's consciousness, we don't know their burden.You might find out if you ask. George Berkeley states mind knows ideas, not objects. Again, if we do not give a chance to find out other's views and put them to test, and consider they might be right, we might create unnecessary conflict in the long run.
Goethe said the way you see people is the way you treat them and the way you treat them is what they become. If you are people pleaser and if you shut up without telling your side, they will become arrogant anyway, so you do not have to be afraid of speaking the truth.
Gandhi's Satyagraha means conversion of oppressor, literally it means truth force. Force that comes from truth. It is agreeableness by sticking to you being honest. If you have no cruel intentions behind it, if you are not violent, it is the best solution. The truth is important, since in dualism, delusion is on the other side. The opposite from delusion is having a voice of reason and health. The person who is against it is against the reason and being healthy. That is the powerful part behind speaking the truth. Usually passive aggressive behaviour might seem easier but this dysfunctional option develops only when you are not telling the truth. This is why it's important to speak out and be genuine, honest. It might seem that we hurt someone, but we are not the one sticking to delusion, delusion is in the long run harmful. Being nice you do not like being hated, but it is about realizing the importance of not being fake. You are mature enough to tolerate the dislike from others once you find out the problem is on the other side. Someone causing disorder will never display it like that. It will always be presented as your problem and you yourself is the problem. You'll be put by aggressive people into situation where you either must become hysteric like them and get involved into pointless arguing, or simply speaking your truth and calling them out on their behaviour - and if alerting doesn't help, you are free to walk away without feeling guilt they impose you by using toxic shame. Mao Zedong's The Great Leap Forward would be implemented by aggression and toxic shame. It ended with 20 million deaths by famine. To the most people the title would sound great, but if you know something is wrong and it will end wrong, if you go against the system, you won't have much chance. The most sane thing would be to agree and plan your moving out and away as far as possible.
"The Theory of Communicative Action" by philosopher Jürgen Habermas is 1981 book about agreement, "communicative action is the process through which people form their identities". Without talking out what you hold inside, you are stopping the agreement and agreeing process. The other side if violent and unkind by shutting you up does not want agreement. This is what you can call out for their behaviour, again by not speaking you are not informing the other side of their wrong doing. Nelson Mandela in his Ubuntu philosophy speaks about the agreeableness. It is about your words being power if they are kind and non violent, as such they serve community. He also encourage the communication over disconnection. It is being said that hate is the biggest compliment you can get. People filled with hate did not achieve, they gave up and their aggression, rudeness is not about you. So do not let yourself get immersed into guilt and shame they project onto you. Instead look at them as losers play pretending to be big shots and making you small by their vulgar and negative words. That is the change of perspective. The agreeableness is about establishing the common ground. If someone is hateful and rude, look at it instead of ashaming you to feel low, as desperate whining and pathetic attempt to make themselves inflate their position. Speak out agreeableness, it is that we are on par, on the same level. This means being humble, too. Perhaps, by being rude it is their attempt for you to spit out words of humbleness so that they can feel better about themselves. Sigmund Freud's superego are the rules inside us, the guilt is coming from it. It makes boundaries for ourselves. Otherwise if we free our Id (that is our instincts), later on I will feel sorry for hurting someone by letting Id having free reign. That's where agreeableness comes in, it is about having boundaries when you let your dogs from chains. This means do not employ the strategy of the other side, by being rude, no matter how tempting it may seem. It means not ashaming people for whom they are. Calling out their behaviour is not ashaming them as their core of being, their default existence. The agreeableness part is being aware what you resist will persist. It is about easing up the tension of resisting by looking what you can find in common. If you step back from conflict, try to remember to look from aside, to be spectator - you will see immediately that is does not matter. It is about that no one cares who wins. No one cares to listen you complain. It is exhausting and uncomfortable. You action should be quick and swift - talk, call out on behaviour, alert and move on.
Whatever happens in outer world is the reflection inside. If we can consciously make a shift and start accepting the others and seeking compromise - the same thing is easier to be done inside with our thoughts and inner conflicts. It is difficult if not impossible to be angry at the right person, at the right time, so therefore tell the truth, be authentic in calm way, it is the only solution, it is the best way. Feeling angry and conflict itself looks real and dangerous. Being righteous is annoying to others. That's why it is best to be honest instead of pretending to be higher force and inflict toxic shame onto others. Any conflict we get personally involved looks important to us - but it is not, no one cares really, it looks annoying to others. It ends up me being sensitive and over-reactive. Carl Jung's Collective unconscious tells us with communication with others we understand ourselves better. Jung said that everything that irritate us about others lead to understand ourselves. Erich Fromm talked about imposing oneself, own traits onto someone else and that it is artificial. It is about possession really. Speaking your truth is therefore about getting clear about the other side. Are they violent? Give a chance to learn about what irritates you before taking steps as over-reaction. See what is really going on, the other side probably is not targeting the attack, it is not general and planned. Marcus Aurelius said life is neither good or evil, but only a place for good and evil. The law of Jante, Scandinavian invention from the rural past, has good element of reminding ourselves to be humble. Being humble is in the heart of being agreeable. It is about giving a chance for interdependence. It is about you having a final goal the good of community. Not being open for something new, mocking what irritates us is a virus, it is evil, it is mental illness and it creates the disorder in the long run. William Glasser's What my Choice is telling us it is choosing connecting habits over controlling (blaming, criticizing, punishing to control). Free will would be you learn something and not judging it before. So you can come to conclusion without labeling something that is out of ordinary and what seems to be attacking us. Being healthy means being open for alternative explanation. Believing only in one explanation is not healthy. Without being agreeable, you would not give a chance to hear the whole story. Jean Piaget said that with children we study development. But how do you know your childhood is over mentally? If there was abuse and trauma in childhood, there well might be some parts of ourselves that never had a chance to grew up. We never know what is happening on the other side, why certain person is so aggravating. Also, if someone appears irritating, Hans J. Eysenck said there is an association between insanity and genius. Jumping to conclusion and not giving a chance to learn about something is cognitive distortion. And perhaps we are being prepared for afterlife, it will be what we experienced that we take with ourselves.
In conversation the other person see, explain and comprehend the other side through its own introspective, projection and deficiencies. If we prejudge someone, we are not making true connection, we just react to ourselves, to our own fears. With agreeing attitude, we give a chance to hear other side. If we do not snap, yell, and thus chase the other side or force attack upon us by our violent words, we are not giving another person a chance. We were never been told that our task is being translator. We translate other people words because the other person is coming from its own environment and their vocabulary is based on their experience. If we are not aware of this phenomena, we would literally take their words based on our own environment and this leads to miscommunication. We have to expect this encoding and decoding in social situations in order to have better communication and decrypting other people strange behaviour. If someone is kind and nice, that is the shortcut to communication. But mostly people are selfish and they do not care about other people, some only care to exploit others. We need to give other side a chance and go beyond shadow of doubt unless we get deep sense inside that we need to avoid them. "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you" ―Prophet Muhammad. We ought to be tolerant of one another. Because we are all weak and inconsistent, as Voltaire said we all make errors. The agreeableness is tolerance. Someone being aggressive and rude without true source for such actions is delusion based, persecutor. Fear creates delusions. It is about seeing criticism as feedback. That is a change of perception when you are feeling attacked by someone. Evil people give opportunity to see their works inside. You learn what they employ to harm other people so you can learn how to defend yourself in the future. Some people are rude because you are telling hidden truth. Some people get it wrong. So instead make your attack and defense gentle. Consider they might be over-reacting and your own gentle reaction can deflate the situation. You might think if the other side is stronger and scarier, you will automatically be gentle, but what I am talking here is contact with the others - people who appear on the same level as you, or someone who cannot harm you in any way. If you are aggressive think about how you appear to others. You appear unfriendly. Then others are unfriendly - and then you do not know why. It is about butterfly effect, small acts make the difference and we may not notice it, we may not know it.
The agreeableness theory is having precoded set of rules to follow, so that you know what to follow upon when you find yourself in tough situation with other people. Understanding what to expect and why the negative reaction will lead us to negative consequences in the long run. Feelings of resentment are Sisyphus's task of rolling boulder, something that is hard and unnecessary, and we may feel like we have to stick to it no matter what. Instead, we have a chance to start each day a new, free from resentment. It is about having agreeable attitude mixed in with being stubborn. You are prepared to be kind with everyone in advance but stick to your truth and express it when necessary. It is about being friendly and yet in the same time being cautious. Keeping the balance. People who are happy are more likely to be swindled. The same goes with people who are not afraid. Yet, you cannot close off and shut down communication with anyone out there.
The Agreeableness Theory is like a game of dominoes, it is incorporating yin-yang in your social interaction. It is about being mindful - having both sides set in your head ready, always. For example, if you naturally trust all people, allow yourself to be distrustful. If you don't trust, allow a tile of friendship, try out some trait you never tried before.
So, if you automatically trust people and feel scared and pushover - remember to do the opposite, stop trusting people and see where your intuition and new thoughts based on this side of coin will lead you. Without censorship of your thoughts and your ideas speaking out. Also, if you distrust people, create space for trusting then and giving them a benefit of doubt. Even though someone might appear unfriendly, there might be a reason why it this, such as crab mentality or cognitive dissonance. The only way out of crab mentality is through rising others, or as Sun Tzu said, building a golden bridge to your enemy for them to retreat. Cognitive dissonance tells us that people will automatically react negatively if faced with some new idea, so they cannot be blamed for this natural over-reaction. Negative reaction always has a purpose - without it people would be pushovers and easily manipulated. So it is your chance with clear mindset, free from exploiting others to explain your side of story. If you are genuine and honest, you have every right to speak out and explain your point of view, and you will allow to set agreeableness environment.
The Agreeableness comes down to having mindfully both sides allowed to habituate in your head, as if democracy instead of monarchism, it is your duty as good human being to tip the balance in the positive direction. This can be hard if you did not have negative experience in your life. Without it, you could not perceive the importance of being positive and optimistic as ultimate goal. Positive thoughts not only allow you to relax, but also it has affect on health and better immunity system. You cannot hide if you are evil. You cannot hide if you have evil intentions. It comes out at some point. Empaths and sensitive people will sniff you being fake, your easiest target to manipulate. Your exploitative techniques will not work over long time, and it is not only due to karma. Chaos theory will come back to haunt you if you use people up and push them over for your own selfish purposes. The only healthy system for the community and individual is interdependence.
If something bothers us, it is easy to criticize, attack and yell to express when someone is making something against you. It is easy to maintain this mentality and in time it becomes victim mentality - where I am poor and pitiful. So once again, with agreeable attitude towards others, this negative spiral can be stopped.
The agreeableness theory stated dualism: it is both being alert to someone aggressive by alarming and talking to person but also being aware of angry people might be angry for dealing something that is beyond their capacity to withstand. So instead of seeing them as tyrants as they appear to be, we try to establish whether they are actually hurt and weak. We might even help them out even though at first it might seem they want to attack us, even though they might appear that they hate us. This theory is about stopping our own over-reaction if we realize we are over-reacting actually. We can be aware of it if we gather as much information as we can, from the current situation and before situation happens, by studying human behaviour.
Sensitive people will feel guilty and ashamed for standing up for themselves. This is why it is important to express your opinion and viewpoint during confrontation in as much as respectful way ass possible, which is very hard due to tension and conflict. It comes better with practice and experience, and sensitive people are good at stepping into other people shoes and know that the other person has their delusions and wrong explanations that they try to force onto others, it is not that they are hateful or do damage to you out of spite.
There is something special when you respond to angry person and conflict with temperance, perhaps even with humour if the matter is not too much serious. That is not easy even though it looks easy. It is a skill to keep calm and cool head and think ahead and think about other person, putting yourself in their perspective and warding off thoughts about who is stronger and who must prove a point and yet to get your message across about alarming and alerting the person of their wrongdoings in a calm enough manner that will not be dismissed as weak or dull. IT is about finding perfect balance to keep your voice going on without shouting and cursing yet strong enough to get it across.
If you yell to express your hurt, you are in the eyes of everyone a toxic person that makes fuss over nothing. If you defend yourself in an aggressive, forceful way no matter how much you have right for it, in the eyes of everyone else apart you, you are the one who is wrong. No one likes people who are loud and dangerous. We got to learn, it is a skill, to express our hurt and to defend our boundaries in a civilized way. That is not easy, it is extremely hard depending on a situation. Which gives more empathy to people who are aggressive, you can see if you can forgive them, especially if this is not something they are doing in regular intervals.
The Agreeableness Theory is about being friendly, having friendly attitude and having the first response to stress and rudeness changed from having short temper to having data collecting phase to determine what is going on in reality, not in my fears and imagined, or used old copy-paste data from the past, that tries to explain the new situation by uncomfortable experience from the past. It is about taking all data and instinct and past experience into account, and if it is not urgent situation, to take all things into consideration before taking action.
Another point to agree as much not to dip into personal attack with another person is Ad Hominem Fallacy. If you respond to personal attack in the same way, you lose your argument, and the other person has a reason to play victim and blame you for being victimized. You can defend your arguments without hurting another side, and that is the essence of being agreeable.
When the other person is irrational, if we try to argue with them it doesn't work. They are irritated, and if angry their reptilian brain takes over and our counter words do not get to them, they do not receive our side of story. Again, the agreeableness attitude will get through to the other side. Being agreeable soothes the mood and it is more easier to communicate when relaxed instead of responding to someone irrational in the way they want us to trap, them pretend being victim by us responding in the same irrational way as they display. So it all comes down to be mindful, to remind, to recall it is yin - yang dynamics. The other side is part of the whole, allow it to be there within its boundaries. We don't know the other person, how life treated them to become so difficult and what they gone through this day, so it is not fair to judge others easily as permanently toxic or it was choice by them, some of them are not aware what they are doing to others and how they impact other people. Again, being agreeable takes all these possibilities into consideration. This does not mean being quiet and take the abuse. Being agreeable is about us being authentic with certain techniques to package authenticity in a way that the other side will understand. It is about encoding our authentic words and decoding their irrational, angry, rude words for what they are in reality - instead of presenting themselves as competent and strong, it is about them being weak and disabled to be full grown adult capable of making normal conversation and them being unable in expressing needs in adult manner.
Toxic people carry the negative vibration along with them and it is easy to get caught up in hating them back and get infected with such low vibration in the interaction with them. We get irritated and soon everyone irritate us, even people who are not toxic, yet display some toxic behaviour. Soon we lose tolerance and we get annoyed very easily by small, irrelevant words and actions from others. So it is best either to ignore them or leave them, instead of fighting with them and scabbing the wound. Saying something rude can hurt people without us being ever aware of the damage, no matter how much they are annoying they appear to us and deserving of attack. Therefore having agreeable attitude will prevent future damage that we may cause by our infected mind with their toxicity. This is hard to grasp until you realize how life is precious and any slightly negative reaction can carry a long term consequence. It is hard not to care about the hurt from others, sometimes it is impossible. Until it is over and the other person is gone. The hate is like a veil that cloud our judgement and positive, happy vibe. Since it is hard to get rid of the veil, the only choice is to be agreeable, alarm the rude person and avoid them if they do not stop behaving hurtful.
Fact, TWITTER: You will never truly understand something until it actually happens to you.
It's about the fact that you can't exist as a human being in isolation. Ubuntu counsels forgiveness rather than vengeance; conciliation than confrontation, respect for the humanity of others - all of them much easier to recite than practice.
Ubuntu
Southern Africa,1995
1001 IDEAS
Rogers maintained that many of us have very strong, strident, specific conditions that must be met before we will grant approval or acceptance. We also base self-worth and regard for others on achievements or appearance, rather than accepting people as they are.
CARL ROGERS, DK
He find that all "extremely happy people" were very sociable,and in a relationship.
Enjoying social events and the company of others may not offer deep intellectual or emotional satisfaction,but Seligman observed that is was essential part of being truly happy.
DK PSYCHOLOGY BOOK
In this process people become more conscious of themselves and their lives as structured by the social reality of oppression, understood structurally, and they thereby become social actors. They change as they begin to act on their social circumstances.
Liberation Psychology
The goal of education is to create men and women who are capable of doing new things.
Approach: Genetic epistemology
JEAN PIAGET (1896-1980)
DK THE PSYCHOLOGY BOOK
Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling from others.
ALBERT BANDURA
If you want enemies, excel your friends; but
...if you want friends, let your friends excel you.
FRANCOISE DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD
THEORY IN ACTION:
My comment on reddit:
< To YOU it was. Do not ASSUME everyone else believes the same.
Of course, I agree with you. I know this, anything I say here is me in person and it is my opinion, because I am talking here as individual, I do not represent a group. That is the purpose of reddit, to speak out own opinion and share idea. Not to impose them on others neither to control their style nor order them what to write.
I do not assume others must think or must agree with me (as I've already said in this topic at another place).
< It would have been better for you to write...
I am not important at all. To talk about what we perceive is important, that is the purpose of forums like these. If I wrote "what I perceived" as you suggested, I would have to copy-paste this words in my every sentence. :D
So if you do not agree with me, please leave ad hominem at the door and explain your arguments directly, not passively aggressive, tell us what you have perceived, let's test it out.
Being rude or unkind to each other and taking it personally or feel threatened by other people ideas, opinions leads to nowhere constructive and only to trolling.
You are ordering me what to write is controlling and that is rude. No one controls your writing style, so please don't do this to other people. You accuse me of imposing belief on everyone - while really you are doing the same thing to anyone who do not perceive the same way as you do.
(18-mar-2021)
Perhaps if after life exists, and if purgatory exists, it will depend on us to make peace with everyone we done wrong with. Kind a like movie "Defending Your Life" (1991). There are reports that haunting events occur when dead soul cannot reconcile with what was done during their lifetime. We have only one life, we must struggle for our needs to be met without hurting others. We never know what the other person is going through, no matter how strong, annoying or irritating they may appear - as if they deserve our rage.
(26-mar-2021)
Some people deliberately respond to their triggers (someone being annoying) by hurting other people back. It seems as a way of defense. They hurt everyone equally, even those who are not a threat, they just appear as threat to those people due to distorted perspective. As if some people must serve them, without taking general surroundings and limits of serving. If it is used repeatedly and generally, you may as well hurt people who are sensitive without knowing it. Also, another side effect of this choice of aggression is what is at the core of your own being. Are you a good person? Does your wants and needs exploit others? If so, you might get along here and there but in the long term this creates chaos and self sabotage. Good people will leave you once they label you as toxic person and you will loose support from kind people who will not harm you in any way. You will be left with toxic people such as yourself, ready to exploit you, hurt you and harm you in any way possible without thinking about it twice. The Agreeableness Theory works for people who intend no harm for others. All the money in the world cannot replace true friendship and bonds and relationships, good vibes and energy. Some people believe the wrong is being done to them and this gives them the right to be rude, abusive and being inconsiderate. They appear as victims when they explain their views through rage, while negative energy and vibe is matching those of abusers. If you feel like you have been done wrong and you expect others to serve and obey you because you are victim, this is controlling other people, it is not about helping you. People cannot be changed. Being assertive means we alert and alarm other person, without yelling and temper tantrum, and in the same time we do not expect them to listen to us, we do not expect automatic response or future compliance. It is simply about stating our needs and wants. Through aggressive mode, you are crossing other people boundaries, even though it may feel like you are protecting yourself and taking revenge of wrong done to you.
(11-apr-2021)
Axiom "You become what you hate" asks us How to defeat the monster without becoming one? The answer is The Agreeableness Theory. Always use choice and resources to peacefully resolve conflict, with not taking action included. "Defeat your enemies by making them your friend". This is not easy and it is not straightforward. It is incredibly tough staying calm in the face of annoying and irritating person, for you to step back, think about what is happening objectively and speaking in non-threatening way, making a word choice not to appear fake and to authentically speak out the truth, without coming off a cold machine instead of coming off friendly. And in the end, it comes down how you perceive others perceiving you. Does it matter what will someone think about me if I come off as weak? Or do I need to pretend to be fake persona who is hero by cursing or attacking someone to prove a point? What is my identity anyway, I should become someone who do not avoid conflict, since the silence is giving nod to someone's abuse, yet the way I alarm and alert another person should come out - by asserting myself, speak objectively, authentically the truth. Not getting into silence once someone reacts to that truth, speak out my truth, without self censorship. This way I will not become what I hate, since I do not perceive annoying person as object of hate, I automatically approach with agreeableness instead of hate, even when I totally do not agree with other person. Because the alternative is, even though I do not see it from fighting perspective, I am becoming, transforming into the other annoying person if I am not taking agreeableness as a secret weapon.
(25-apr-2021)
Psychologically speaking if you hold grudges and resentments towards someone, that prevents the Agreeableness attitude, it means we think that our thinking will cure the problem, that rumination and brooding about the event or people will somehow magically solve the situation. Holding on to resentment and grudge, not even anger, leads to psychological disturbances in the long run without us being aware about this inner damage have been done. The events themselves will not make us crazy, it is our reaction that is responsible for nervous breakdown. The wound from childhood, is nothing but the bundle of long lasting resentment and grudge. The deep forgiveness is the key. With grudge we walk around with our hand break on. With rumination we think we have magical power to influence the enemy. Without grudge it seems to us we will be exposed to hurt, and everyone will see us vulnerable due to toxic shaming from others. Forgiving, letting go of grudge does not mean to fawn. In fact, it means exactly the opposite. With grudge and rumination it is hard to react to unfair people, we resent it but we keep quiet. The grudge is doing self sabotage inside us and make us feel inferior, render us useless to be authentic and to react to unfair behaviour. We shut up and self censor ourselves, and thus we allow others to exploit us, while many people are not aware they are doing it, since we keep silent. If we come from the place of forgiveness for past transgression from rude and aggressive people of past, we will have strength and power to stand up to bullies. With grudge, we feel vulnerable. Without it, we trust the other person is not openly psychopath and can be argued, warned, alerted and eventually cooperate to solve issue. This is why our society enforces cooperation, official psychiatry advice avoids talking about toxic people and it is focused on person rather than negative and aggressive people around us. We will not turn crazy because of the existence of crazy people, we will get barking mad if we resent them and hold grudges against sick people that are unaware what they are really doing, either due to hypnosis/cognitive delusions or even physical limitations such as hormone or brain instabilities and injuries. Unfortunately the messages from positive and enlightened resources that promote forgiveness and friendships over wars are focusing more on forgiveness so people are discouraged to forgive and thus get rid of resentment and grudges. There is a second part to forgiveness and that is connectivity and interdependence to other people and even to our inner critic inside. The other part of message is to alarm and alert, to notice what is objectively unfair and extreme, aggressive and irritating. With forgiveness attitude, we can express our concern with kindness, that will make message better packaged and transformed in language that the other person will easily understand, rather than doing it from the place of hate and anger. There are some situations where agreeableness is not possible, no matter what we do or whomever we talk to. In some situations it is best to leave and go no contact with the distorted people, situation or places. But if we come to that conclusion of blocking or leaving the source of irritation, if we come to this notion from the place of forgiveness, we will not injure ourselves, as oppose of running away in panic without the plan. The Agreeableness works perfectly from the place of forgiveness and letting go, knowing we have to be authentic and speak up, react without over-reaction, we can remain being kind when faced with unkindness. Holding on to grudge is ego-centric, therefore it is not intelligent. Not taking all things into consideration is tunnel vision, perfect setting for cognitive distortions and twisted reality based on negativity, darkness and depression, that cannot result with good outcome in the end. Letting go is an act of abandoning Sisyphus rock so we can have energy, strength and relief to face issues easily and cleverly.
(1-may-2021)
The Agreeableness Theory's core action is talking, communication and interaction with others. Through explaining ourselves we can remove doubts and false beliefs the other person may or may not held against us. If we shut up, even if they do not any question, every silence from our side confirms their misconceptions about us. This is highlighted and most important during argument, conflict and tense conversation. If you do not defend and explain your side, the other side will live in delusion and their illusions will fuel further deviations inside their brain already present coupled with their wrong explanation of the current issue. The only way out of this loop is talking. If we are good, nice, kind people without ulterior motives to hurt, harm or exploit someone, there is no reason why we would not explain, talk and describe our viewpoints. This is well presented in movie '12 Angry Men' (1957). The other side might shout, threaten, scream, but this does not mean they are automatically correct, valid, competent, right or superior. The negative and serious effects of negative, stubborn person is this: you have a person that share some pain or experience with you and you feel connected because of it. This person tells that all people are negative, rude and people are not worth to spend time with because they cause pain. If you take these words for granted, with time you may adopt this unhealthy ego-centric viewpoint yourself, that as resentment with time will grow into cognitive distortions and mental instability, while you never know why can't you feel happy and why you feel anxiety all of the sudden. If you are objective, you could confront this point and you may probably discover that this person, although you might share some similarities in your struggles, that this person is in fact narcissist or kid being trapped in adult body (ego-centric). If someone is defensive, this does not mean they are strong, competent and valid, healthy and sane just because they talk off to others without any fear and reservations. If someone is defensive, this person has issues, complexes inside that they hide through appearing strong. With talking you will discover that this person that stated that all people are bad - is in fact bad themselves. This person is viewing everyone bad since the only tool they have is hammer, so everything they see is nail. They have serious mental issues therefore anything and everyone is threat but they will express this instability in form of general statement, that may easily attach to our own thinking, since it offers some kind of comfort and easy way out, shortcut. All people are bad therefore it does not pay off to be friendly. All people are exploiters therefore it will help me to isolate myself from others. And the only way to prevent virus of resentment entering from other people negative perceptions from their words is through talking. If we do not have resentment, if we do not exploit other people - we may come to conclusion that some people are bad, not all of them. That is more objective statement. We can partially agree with someone. Being agreeable is not to agree with someone 100%. Being agreeable is not being naive and taking others opinions as facts, it is having open attitude to talk as our prerogative.
Social Contract Theory - we trade some of our liberty for a stable society.
The Agreeableness Theory in one quote:
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." Oscar Wilde
OR even shorter:
Sugar Coat It!
(15-6-2021)
The dark side of The Agreeableness Theory is believing other person whatever they say without any doubt. Ego defense mechanism of Splitting and Denial that tells us we divide the world in good and bad, black and white side. Then we deny the target has good sides, we don't see the opposing party in gray. We only feel hate and resentment. Also this makes us offended by truth if we get information that opposes our hurt and pain done by target. And then our resentment actually make us toxic without being aware of it. To make things more complicated, all Ego defense mechanism are wrong, even though the mature ones enable us to make through the life. Since interdependence is the highest form of achievement in personal relationships, The Agreeableness Theory comes out as the solution, even though it has dark, toxic, non functional side if done in extremes, out of balance. To sooth the aggressive person. Healthy Agreeableness Theory tells us to negotiate with aggressive, toxic people. To check out whether we are biased ourselves, and whether we forgot or perhaps we are unaware of all the facts before jumping to conclusion. Before making rash sudden decisions in anything in life such as cutting of people or aggressively defend ourselves, we should first explore all options available to us, and we can do this noble act only if we incorporate The Agreeableness Theory in our mentality.
People are not machines, we can't expect them not to make errors, especially when we are aware acutely of all our own errors. People change, we change. We would never make true close friends if we turn our backs on every single sign of transgression. Being authentic, speaking up and not self-censoring ourselves we would avoid our own resentment inside to rut.
(1.7.2021)
The Agreeableness Theory seems like Trauma Bonding and Fawning response. It seems like giving up on our boundaries, forfeiting our rights in order to keep calm, out of argument, conflict and going along with the other person. Yet, Polyvagal Theory tells us that unhealthy reactions are either over-reacting (aggressive mode or fear) or under-reacting (avoidance and dissociation). Window of Tolerance is the Optimal energy, and contains communication and connection.
And this is where The Agreeableness Theory steps in. It is implementing the allegory of the long spoons.
Social engagement provides experiences of mutuality and reciprocity in which we are open to receiving another person, as they are. For the client who was rejected in childhood, this moment of being received can be profoundly reparative.
Polyvagal Theory.
Just as fight response in some extreme cases is justified, the part of fawn response should be employed to defuse situation and open communication channel with the other person. Fawn would be to agree with person automatically and shut up. The Agreeableness Theory would be to agree in part with person and be honest, authentic, to stop self-censor ourselves. Fawning is shutting up and going along with others. Narcissists exploit this need for socializing and disrespect unwritten social rules to dominate, to censor us and create chaos. If we can't cut contact with abusers, talk is the only way to do anything.
Man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or want to be.
CARL JUNG
Often we see ourselves as the righteous, and either feeling of inferiority or superiority stems from this belief. While mental health (inside) and healthy relationship (outside) comes down to being accepting and tolerant. The only way to achieve this is through Agreeableness. Self esteem and self confidence is to believe in oneself, and the more we are convinced this is true, higher the confidence. Nothing wrong with that. Problem starts when we need to fit our absolute truth with outer world - other people and inner critic - trauma inside of us. There are situations when we can do everything correct and by the book, yet it turns out wrong, as mistake - and there are people who do not play by the book - and thus exploit our truth and sense of righteousness against ourselves. Narcissist will never back down and it always must be as they wish or they throw rage due to perceived injury. So therefore, us holding the absolute truth and righteousness is not positive trait. We must allege that we do not something perfectly and be open for alternatives and various opinions. Socrates told us that by knowing nothing I know everything. That is the core of the Agreeableness Theory. By showing respect to someone who is difficult and annoying, without fawning - is to show love, it is not weakness. Even though they will interpret our agreeableness attitude as they won a King of the hill competition, we can through our objective truth, speaking it out - achieve both them to be validated through choosing not to hurt them back, yet with our opinion express the truth and objectivity. Facts cannot be falsified if they are turned from all sides and observed from all the angles. The difference is in our need to light the dark areas and find the truth. That is the only healthy way, there is no other better way to deal with anything in life. The evil will try to stop this process through abandoning communication, censorship and violence. The truth is our weapon. Evil tries to exploit others, abuse and take advantage, blame, shame and try to distort reality through unhealthy perspectives such as immature defense mechanisms. Our strength is not having these toxic needs agenda. Having agreeable attitude allows us to have open channel with the evil and shun light into the dark place. Agreeable attitude assumes the difficult person to be right and gives them chance to speak out their facts - which can then be easily exposed as fake and false - of course this exposure (rude awakening to painful reality) requires sugar coating, as part of Agreeableness.
Agreeableness is more extreme than Assertiveness. Assertiveness does not take in focus the other person and possibility we might be wrong, so there is more energy in listening and observing the other people what they want, need, saying and doing. Agreeableness is therefore harder, since it implies taking some boundaries down and possibly being wounded by other people since external referencing will make us take our worth away from inside and place it in the hands of others - as an act of understanding others and being in their shoes, and understanding from where they are coming from. This does not mean Trauma Bonding - being open permanently is not healthy. And other people will not appreciate doing empathy (not having but doing) on them, they will exploit this attitude of accepting them instead as a way to manipulate us and control us. The closure of trauma bonding can only be done by stop accepting others as our guides, and not trusting them absolutely and realizing they are not the ones who will save us. Assertiveness does not put so much focus on being equal and being on pair, because some people are toxic, negative and exploitative and should be ignored, without any contact, for our own safety. The Agreeableness Theory assumes before taking this drastic step, that we explore and observe and test is this person is really evil. Assertiveness will work in situations where we can cut contact, but what to do when you are unable to cut contact due to family, job, services and help needed from them - then we are left with being agreeable in order to have some kind of functional and productive relationship. For at least time being, until we have enough resources to relocate. Assertiveness is somewhat ego-centric. While Agreeableness makes us think whether the people and reality around us is not exactly as we think and perceive it in absolute terms, and that there might be some loopholes that we need to find, search and seek - for example, it is having a choice in assuming that other person is in pain, while they appear very hostile, aggressive and difficult to deal with. That there is some possible good reason why they behave like this. And since they were probably abandoned and scorned by others (due to their own hostile actions), that us being at least a little bit tolerant and kind to them, will mean a world of difference to them.
The Agreeableness Theory in short:
"Let's agree to disagree"
"I can talk or alarm someone while still being kind and patient with others"
"I understand there is no the ultimate truth and it depends on an observer"
(4.8.2021)
If we explore the extreme behaviour such as narcissism we see that narcissist feel entitled. They expect others to comply with their every need. They do not apologize or admit mistake or display love. This is where Agreeableness is anti-dote to narcissism. It may seem like people pleasing and weakness, but at least it is not about being hostile to other people and exploiting them. Hanging on to the feeling to be constantly right and correct in everything is a part of narcissism, it is not confidence.
Give evil nothing to oppose
and it will disappear by itself.
Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Empathic concern refers to affective empathy that encompasses sympathetic attitude toward others and oversight of the individuals concerning their point of view (Davis, 1980, 1983; Chowdhury and Fernando, 2014). Essentially, the few previous studies enlightened the conception of empathic concern as a highly important personality trait, to subsequently lessen aggression and diminish counterproductive behaviors (Batanova and Loukas, 2011; Ho and Gupta, 2012).
In short, high empathic individuals easily fit themselves in the shoes of another and thereby inhibit negative impulses like depletion.
"Your Care Mitigates My Ego Depletion: Why and When Perfectionists Show Incivility Toward Coworkers"
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746205/full
UPDATE (14.1.2023)
Agreeableness is considered counterweight to narcissism. Narcissism personality style is disagreeableness or antagonism. Agreeableness: empathic, warm, flexible, make accommodation for other people, follow the rules, highly ethical. Opposite of narcissism.
YT You’re Not Crazy, You’re Just Dealing With a Narcissist | The Mel Robbins Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gS7uV6Bj0s
(20.2.2023)
 |
| Tendencies | Understanding People Better |
(3.5.2024)
3 people narcissists cannot tolerate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKf3WgdT8zo
truth teller
If you have ever felt like you'd be punished for saying what's or that you'd be ostracized if you don't go along with someone's lie. The narcissist won't tolerate truth-teller. A narcissist lives in a fantasy world where they are wonderful, powerful, smart, beautiful, wounded, victimized, whatever their story of grandiosity or vulnerability is, they need you to validate and affirm that fantasy. They look for high level of agreeableness to their narratives.
They'll test if you validate and affirm that fantasy to gauge your reaction. On the flip side if you consistently agree and you do not challenge fabrications you're seen as an easy target. Empathetic person prioritize kindness, politeness, flexibility to the point where our own truth may be overshadowed by the desire to accommodate others. This trait makes us susceptible to narcissists who prey on our avoiding conflict and to conform.
Being compliant and agreeable was a survival strategy as a child but it became a huge liability as an adult because it kept me stuck in pattern of attracting narcissists. I had to intentionally unlearn my over-agreeableness and over time I found that being a truth-teller offers a more formidable protection. Use Subtle Descent Method. This technique uses gentle disagreement without being overtly confrontational.
Steadfast self: clear and unwavering sense of Self. It means that you know who you are and what you stand for. You know what you want and what it works for you. Where self-respect, self-worth and healthy boundaries are built making you virtually immune to any manipulated tactics. Narcissists want to be the one to define who you are, what you want, how you feel about yourself. Nars need you to provide stable sense of Self for them.
They need you over their axis Center. When you have a flexible sense of Self you're easier to manipulate and control. When you're unsure of yourself, lack self-respect or blur your boundaries you're more likely to be swayed by charm and coercion. Narcissist checks for this like seemingly innocent comment to prioritize their needs over your own. Suggesting personal goal is a flaw or sign of neglect in relationship.
You don't want to come across as selfish, disrespectful, or willing to neglect someone. Narcissists love this about you and use it against you. Making you feel guilty, irresponsible and uncaring when you try to assert anything that resembles a separate sense of Self. I lived in chronic state of self-forgetting, my needs, hopes. Instead I was always looking others what they needed, how should I act, make them happy. I didn't had axis center.
Axis check method. When you start to lose sight of own perspective - first pause. Check physical sensation. Then practice self remembering - what do I want, remembering you are separate person. Then communicate something that expresses individuation. "I see it differently" "That doesn't work for me". "That's not something I want". Then pay close attention how they respond. Narcissist find impossible to manipulate, learn you won't be used.
