Society as a whole prefers an agreeable man over a disagreeable one. Folks with high agreeableness tend to be social, cooperative, sympathetic, altruistic, and much more passive than their disagreeable counterparts. The disagreeable person tends to display less pro-social behavior. This person puts the focus on their needs first, even if it conflicts with the interests of other; less agreeable people are oftentimes seen as being narcissistic and self-serving.
Adopting a more agreeable disposition would intuitively seem like the most advantageous way to conduct oneself, but empirical evidence would suggest otherwise. Although the disagreeable man may not always be the most popular figure among his peers, he is commonly the most successful. Let’s deconstruct the “disagreeable man”, debunk some of the misconceptions associated with him, and explain why your agreeableness could be hindering you professionally and romantically.
Misconceptions
When we think of someone with high levels of disagreeableness, the person that we often conjure is one who struggles to get along with others, argues for the sake of argument, and lacks empathy. Whilst a disagreeable person may generally be less concerned with the well-being of others, this does not necessarily mean he is a bona fide jerk.
He is just less inclined to waste time procuring for the approval and affections of peripheral figures who do little to benefit his purpose. Additionally, due to his skeptical and suspicious nature, he is less apt to blindly adhere to commonly shared beliefs; he is perfectly fine with going against the grain and expressing disapproval to conditions he deems ill-advised or at odds with his ethos.
Career
Cater to the whims of others and you’ll remain broke.
In 2014, psychologists Samuel Hunter & Lily Cushenbery surveyed 200 college students for five major personality traits: neuroticism, openness, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
After completing the survey, the students gathered in a room where they wrote down original ideas for a marketing campaign. Next, the students were arranged in groups of three and asked to create a plan based on their ideas.
Hunter & Cushenbery found that, while there wasn’t a relationship between agreeableness and innovative thinking, students rated as “less agreeable” were more likely to have their ideas included in the group projects.
Why?
Because “disagreeable” people are willing to argue and fight for their own ideas regardless of what others think.
Being the likable, considerate, and team player of the office isn’t always the most gainful mode of operation. In fact, research suggests that even if nice guys don’t always finish last, they are more likely to make less money than their colleagues who put their own needs ahead of others.
Disagreeable people are also perceived as being more effective and better equipped for leadership positions. Alternatively, women with high levels of disagreeableness benefit little professionally. These dominant women are seen as control freaks and therefore don’t command the same level of respect that the assertive man is afforded.
The study suggests women get caught in a double standard: If they are tough minded and demanding, they don’t win accolades or a much higher salary. Disagreeable women gained a much smaller 5.5 percent salary advantage over kind women.
“If a man behaves tough-aggressive-hard-nosed, he’s behaving leaderlike. But if a woman does that it really is a turnoff,” Judge said.
One possible explanation for this: “We think we’re very civilized and modern, but we’re still living with some pretty ancient genes that evolved over tens of thousands of years,” Judge said. That affects gender roles and how people are evaluated for pay and senior positions.
How amusing: being a strong, no-nonsense, alpha male will lend you better advancement opportunities and higher compensation. Conversely, the combative, unfriendly, power-hungry woman achieves only a negligible increase in pay and effectively makes herself the most despised person in the workplace.
Romantically
When women feel unsafe, they choose macho, disagreeable men.
“Women have developed a preference for formidable guys capable of protecting them, so under harsh conditions women select less agreeable men.”
This should come as little surprise that women prefer a decisive, assertive, valiant man over a passive, meek, and obedient one—alpha fux, beta bux. During times of adversity and chaos women desire a man who can think “outside the box” and usher her to safety. She wants a man who knows when to go left when everyone else is opting to go right—the opposite of bravery is conformity.
Coercing women and stealing resources works sometimes.
“Ancestral men who weren’t kind could sometimes have kids through deceiving and coercing women or through taking from other men and groups the resources that women needed for reproduction, like land and food. These nasty habits are heritable too.”
It matters little to a woman the manner in which a man has acquired his resources; even if the methods used were duplicitous or immoral. I am not encouraging men to pilfer or scam their way to the top, but putting the emphasis on personal gains above all else has historically been shown to increase his mating opportunities.
Lastly, a disagreeable man is stubborn and set in his ways. He is more likely to stick to his guns, express his disapproval and walk out on a woman who is behaving in a perverse manner.
Enough said.
Conclusion
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” — George Bernard Shaw
There is utility in being a well-liked individual and having the capabilities to work alongside others, but not at the expense of personal fulfillment. When you’re too agreeable of a person you subject yourself to being a communal walking doormat.
The movers and shakers of the past were mavericks; many of which were not always well received or popular figures among their respective circles. In a societal programmed world where there is an over-saturation of “sheep”, the “sheep herder” might just possibly be the most sought-after figure.
Read More: How To Optimize Your Personality
o/t – Welcome to the U.K everyone !! (ps : please ensure you haven’t eaten recently before proceeding)
“GENDER-FLUID FAMILY Mum and dad to both swap genders in double transition after revealing they are raising their son, 5, as a ‘person’ rather than a ‘boy’”
A MUM and dad are set to both swap genders in a double transition after revealing they are raising their five-year-old son as a “person” rather than a “boy”.
Louise and Nikki Draven, from Middlesbrough, say they feel “incomplete” and will undergo gender reassignment surgery to bring up Star Cloud feeling “happier”.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7211082/gender-fluid-family-swap-double-transition/
After reading that I don’t even know which direction to Lurch and go puke. I mean that is so crazy it induces straight mental impulse to severe nausea. WTF IS WRONG WITH HUMANITY THESE DAYS?
That story is pure child abuse. The kid is safer with the fucked up British social services.
So the mother is going to penetrate the son and feminists will cheer on?
Ooops! I mean’t “person”, please don’t take me to jail Theresa May you fucking cunt. Murdering the entire faggot family is less of a penalty than offending a pedophile feminist or gender fluid freak over a comment.
I live in England 30 + years ago both of these so called parents would of been arrested and sectioned under the Mental Health Act and carted off and never heard of again the child would of been taken away and put up for adoption.
The UK is going f***ing crazy. The UK Police are only interested in doing you over for 2 sets of crime, (Car, speeding, etc,) and any domestic dispute involving a woman, they don’t give a fuck about anything else, also every Police force have their own twitter account so you can see PC PLOD all in their glory going about there fucking business what they are getting payed for. I have lost total respect for the UK Police they turned a blind eye to 1000s of rapes of defendless under age girls by Muzzies.
Mental illness, child abuse and media spectacle, condoned by the far left NWO and codified by law. It’s too bad we live in such a permissive society because these people need to be sterilized and never breed. Oh, and shamed into submission (not “empowered”). “Star Cloud”, smh — “Brain Cloud” is more like it.
“During times of adversity and chaos women desire a man who can think “outside the box” and usher her to safety. ”
Complete BS, women generally want the strongest, most violent & thuggish guy who will pound the hell out of everyone else. Women’s instincts are primitive, they don’t think or consider.
Every woman’s dream guy, gangster, murderer, pimp, drug dealer.
Their child should be taken from them and put with a decent family.
It’s important to note not to be disagreeable for the sake of mug alpha, but instead to simply speak your mind at appropriate times and not fall victim to groupthink. A socially adjusted red pill man will know what to say and when to say it – it’s subconscious for the most part.
If you speak your mind you will be unemployed and possibly in jail.
I’ve learnt to keep my mouth shut.
” I am not encouraging men to pilfer or scam their way to the top,” – don’t buy a book called GAME
Though many of us here don’t require the book or its formal techniques (“doing fine w/o it, thanks”), I hazard a guess that GAME (the book or otherwise) is how we re-frame the truth behind the grand lie that IS mainstream dating and gender relations in 2018. Did you miss that part?
” In fact, research suggests that even if nice guys don’t always finish last, they are more likely to make less money than their colleagues who put their own needs ahead of others.”
And then in the next paragraph:
“This should come as little surprise that women prefer a decisive, assertive, valiant man over a passive, meek, and obedient one—alpha fux, beta bux. ”
So, which one is it? Do “nice guys” make less money or more?
I will answer my own question here.
In general, “bad boys” make MUCH less money.
They are usually vulgar, vile, low IQ, lazy trash.
And when they hit 35 or 40, they lose access to the hot 19-29 year old sluts they are used to. Sure, they get them for a short while, but then they are relegated to rubbing the feet of hideous 40+ old bags with wrinkles and stretch marks.
Meanwhile, us “boring”, hardworking, intelligent guys, if we do it right, are using the $$$ we earn to bang the hot 18-29 y/os. Will those hot young girls have a “bad boy” boyfriend? Yeah, probably. But so what? Guys like me can bang those hotties into our 70s, while 2 or 3 generations of “bad boys” have to age and settle for wrinkled old bags. So who wins??? Not sure, but I would rather be able to AFFORD hot young pussy for life, then to have then “love me” (love…bullshit!) for maybe 10 or 15 years, and never to have access to them again.
A-Slim: the point isn’t so much about who MAKES more $$$, but who is willing to SPEND more $$$ on their women. Alphas are not as doting and don’t cater to the materialistic whims of women nearly as much as betas, regardless of income.
@ AC
Good point. But as you already know I was not speaking about doting on females nor providing for them.
As always, only concerned with renting by the hour…
🙂
Most of your comments make me which side you are on.
@ JB
I assume you mean “which side”. I am on my side. I do what works best for me.
““Women have developed a preference for formidable guys capable of protecting them, so under harsh conditions women select less agreeable men.””
Which doesn’t explain why hot sluts bang 140 lb heroin addicted guitarists from crappy bar bands. Or why Hot 20 something teachers bang pimple faced 15 year old boys.
As far are “nice guy” vs “narcissist” goes, here’s my 2 cents.
If a guy looks like Brad Pitt or Tom Brady, he can be the nicest, most agreeable simp on Earth and most hot girls will still go for him. If he’s a regular looking guy or ugly, he can be the most disagreeable “bad boy” around, but he ain’t getting hot tail without $$$.
Hot sluts bang 140 lb heroin addicted guitarists because – fame aside – latter have access to pharmaceutical products.
Hot teachers banging their students is a rare example of go grrlsm gone berserk; it can be discontinued as a prospect for most shy male virgins.
The article misses to mention the direct correlation between testosterone levels and agreeableness.
High agreeableness (and conscientiousness) predicts educational success but it would suppress genius and creativity amongst this population. Usually geniuses are highly intelligent but low in conscientiousness and agreeableness. High IQ alone is not enough to produce winners — but greater levels of testosterone are also needed.
The more sex a country has the more scientific geniuses it produces. On an individual level, the more sex a person has the more likely they are to make a major breakthrough. Aggression, ambition, single-mindedness are all down to testosterone.
Put simply
No balls, no Nobels.
The Chinese admiral Zheng He, although a eunuch, was ambitious and successful. Blacks and Arabs in Africa are breeding much faster than whites, are believed to have higher testosterone levels, but their countries are disasters and they’re no geniuses. Seems to me that drive and ambition are genetically acquired traits that don’t require a lot of testosterone and sex, when you set your mind to something and go for it I don’t see testosterone as part of the equation, it may even be a distraction. In the Soviet Union sex was the only form of entertainment aside from drinking, they don’t have more geniuses per capita than other places. Most Nobel prizes go to old guys, past their sexual prime. Testosterone starts to drop like a rock after 30, the average age of a Noble prize winner is 60, they might have worked all their life towards something, but big things often come from people in their sixties and seventies.
didnt Obama the gay charismatic ass kisser receive a “noble” price?
IQ + testosterone dude = creative success.
With just high IQ, you may be successful getting advanced degrees or writing scholarly wonkish papers. But for pursuing game changing ideas or chasing grand creative visions and disruptive ideas or undertaking high-risk physical exploration (including sometimes expeditionary war mongering) etc. you need the combo of the gods IQ + testosterone
In modern times, the Nobel Prize(s) have NOTHING to do with balls, IQ or testosterone, and EVERYTHING to do with compliance of agendas within so-called “science.” In reality, science has been dead for many decades because NONE of it (with perhaps the exception of some research going on in Russia or China that get written up in their own journals), is based on objective observations and experimentation. It’s ALL bought and paid for — meant to get pre-approved results that benefit corporate and government entities, while misleading the Average Joe about the simple truths within science / technology / medicine, etc.
History does not remember Genghis Khan’s servants.
Genghis khan also died and can’t relish in his own fame either
But his children live on as 1 in 200 of the world’s population.
Genghis Khan’s wouldn’t have cared whether he was famous or not. Too rustic of a man to give a shit. He was more motivated by revenge if anything.
Basically this article is saying grow a pair of nuts because war is on the horizon
Though I try to be magnanimous around friends and family, I’ve never fully embraced “nice” or “agreeable” (it’s a highly conditional state of mind, and I’m fickle about it). The first cause is an inherent (but hidden) disgust toward blindly bowing to social pressure or appeasing the herd mentality / group-think (at work or in my social life) in order to simply get along. I don’t understand it, don’t trust any group dynamic predicated up on it, and won’t play that disingenuous game even if I lose money on it.
—
I guess I ended up narcissistic and self-serving, and it can be isolating sometimes. This web site touts empowerment of the “alpha” all the time but face it — lots of people don’t like being around alphas because alphas hold frame and don’t collapse their hierarchical thinking for inferiors. That’s a major thorn in the side of most women and other men alike. Even among my best male friends, it feels like we’re always fighting for “pole position” — you know how it is, that’s life. It wasn’t this way in the past; I was naturally nice, generous and helpful when I was a young man-child without experience. I hate to blame society for hardening my stance, but earlier in my life I noticed LOTS of people taking full advantage of my good nature/skills/generosity, and just flat-out abusing it. This slowly turned me “malevolent towards benevolence” because so few people were playing fair, playing by the rules, or being honest. Most good deeds were taken for granted, and selfless acts were rarely reciprocated. Friends came and went, women drifted in and out, and I just disconnected from giving a shit.
—
I dearly value the people in my life who are sophisticated enough to understand this situation without needing much explanation.
I went through the same thing, I never understood in my younger years how people that engaged in self-destructive or degenerate behaviour always had “opportunities” and support but as someone like myself that was good-natured and generous, I ended up disadvantaged?
For me, having to move into the workforce after surviving SJWversity and discovering my masculinity way too late, has royally screwed me. I still care in the sense that I want to work towards something and be “successful” but my motivation is at an all-time low and I starting to become very frustrated.
Heck, I have had cancer twice in my life so far and this sad excuse for ‘life” is a joke.
There’s a major downside to your life approach: losing your purity. I suggest to not lose faith in yourself. It’s our most precious gifts. Remaining pure in spite of the environment it’s a challenge for the authentic, spiritual Alpha. Give it a 2nd thought.
Exactly! That how I got red pilled.
Most people are not good people, they are neutral at best; very few people are actually good i.e. the will go out of their way to do something good. Also real friends are very rare to find. most people have acquaintances that only spend time with you when it suits them.
Patton paused, took a deep breath, and continued, “Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don’t want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men.
George Patton to his troops 5.June 1944
http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html
The article shows its bias. When it describes a disagreeable man, he is described as a strong, no-nonsense guy while a similar woman is described as unfriendly and unlikable overall. This reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
I’m not saying the author is “wrong” but he’s not being subtle about his bias.
I gav u a 👍 for not writing a book this time DG’85
When a MAN does some crime, He gets punished, but when a pussy does similar or more severe crime, she either gets “low” or NO punishment !!
Doesn’t this reek of intellectual dishonesty !?
Being true to your own character it’s likely going to make you not the most agreeable person to everybody else because in order to be honest to your own character you have to not rely on the validation by other people. Will you whore yourself out to be popular with other people or you truly be your own person and walk your own path?
This is one of my traits I had to work on a bit to make the transition into more alpha. I remember I took a college course once where we all sat in a circle and debate about certain subjects. I grew up in a violent home so I learned to avoid not confrontation, not because I was a pussy, but because I am a violent person and I understood that being disagreeable, leads to conflict, conflict leads to an argument, argument leads to confrontation and confrontation had potential to lead to violence.
So half of the class I kinda act like a bitch. Just agreeing with everyone to kinda get by and not have to contribute much. Towards the end of semester I become a bit more relaxed and nonchalant and one day, on the topic of discussing instagram, after some guy was talking about how much his likes and followers meant to him (Validation type dude) I chimed in with. “I have an instagram. I hardly use it but when I do I don’t really care about how many likes I get.”
Sure enough he about blows a casket and starts muttering to himself under his breath. Right away my first impression was to give him the death stare and be like “what, I can’t contribute to the discussion without triggering you, bitch?” I think he thought I was trying to one up him.
It’s hard to put into words but there was a very high tension in the room. He looked like he hated me and I was thinking about kicking his ass just because he had a little angry meltdown when I offered an alternate opinion. The one instance I’m disagreeable it almost leads to a fight.
I try not to always be agreeable, but I literally was about to murder that dude over what?…. a petty issue like instagram. Not worth it.
Rob it can be hard dealing with stupid people. The best thing to do if you can is to keep your cool. Just keep calmly refuting the idiot, you can even mock their behaviour if they start acting too emotionally to address reality. Know full well that this person isn’t a physical threat to you. If they lose it and attack you will have a room full of witnesses, and can dish out some righteous punishment( at the appropriate level to stop the threat, do anything more than necessary or you will lose sympathy, possibly face legal trouble).
Be prepared and relax into the situation, don’t see it as conflict but as a bit of entertainment for you.
Should be “Don’t do anything more than necessary…”
William,
Clearly both parties acted suboptimally in that situation but we only have evidence of one of them harboring violent thoughts. If you’re telling me about things that are important to you like volunteering in an animal shelter, going to church, gym or mountaineering it is not very tactful for me to say that I do not give a shit about such activities. You should not expect me to respond with a gleeful smile if you do. You should expect the person to look very surprised and not interested in having very much to do with you after giving such an impression. Since they don’t want to have anything to do with you after, the last thing they would want to do is have some physical contact with a person they would rather never see again in the absence of an apology. The thing where they attack you and you “stop the threat” is Steven Seagal straight-to-DVD child fantasy talk where having poor social skills makes you a bad ass. If anything, people who cannot control their temper are less likely to amount to anything in the martial arts or have any such experience because they would have to let go of their child fantasy of being an untouchable killer and show humbleness. If it was that easy, stupid felons with short fuses could just hop in the octagon and become champions overnight.
There’s an intelligent way to address such subjects as well and you only have to show disagreement if there’s already some sort of an argument brewing and by argument I don’t mean a verbal fight but a challenge to defend some position as in “why is religion X correct/wrong?” or “why is X a good hobby to have?” or whatever. Just blurting out that you don’t like someone’s hobby brings no value to the discussion.
DG1985 I agree with much of what you say.
Sometimes I don’t want to suffer fools gladly(its usually less trouble to suffer them gladly though). You can insert “know it all” or authority figure instead of fool sometimes. Even if what they say is factually correct it might not be helping the immediate situation, and is worthy of an intervention.
In other circumstances saying something mean is the only language some people respond to. Some people, no words will get the job done.
Thankfully for most people they don’t encounter this on a day to day basis.
Growing up in a twisted household can lead to a twisted outlook on life. One of the skills you’re supposed to learn growing up is learn to control your emotions like an adult and deal with conflicts.
It’s also about realizing that you can disagree with someone without being blunt about it. If you have nothing nice to say and there is no need to say anything, then you can also try not saying anything.
You seem to imply that you don’t care about validation but yet you tell us that you were ready to get physical with a person because he essentially did not validate you by behaving the way you wanted him to; presumably by ignoring your somewhat abrasive response, which would have been ideal.
It shows that you place an extreme amount of weight on what a random person thinks about you to the point where you have violent fantasies when things don’t go your way.
People who fly into rage over such instances are often those with very little to lose as sociologists have observed; violence for frivolous reasons is common “in the hood” where a person (a young man) does not have anything to his name but his reputation on that street. In other words, these men have little education, modest IQ, no professional or recreational status or achievements to their name etc. and they don’t have the capacity to visualize into the future and see themselves in a position where “busting caps” for petty BS would ruin their standing.
When a person with the right potential and genetics realizes the above facts, he goes to work on himself to reach his true potential. When a bottom dweller hears the same facts, he lashes out because the option he sees is to destroy the object that hurts his ego concept instead of owning up to his flaws and working on them.
Saying these facts to the face of a bottom dweller is not much use of course, because he is not going to magically change by having a mirror flashed at his face; the process will need to be guided more subtly without saying it out aloud so the person can build up true self-esteem bit by bit until he’s finally strong enough to take a hard look at his past self and refer to him in third person.
change your name “depressedguy” stop projecting useless stuff on your character or it will rule over your identity.
“It’s also about realizing that you can disagree with someone without being blunt about it.”
I live in a society where everyone agrees with you even if you’re wrong.
Disagreeing is likely to get you killed, just agree, bow and walk away.
Western people cause strife where none is needed.
They sit around in circles and talk about things like instagram in college now? And people sink themselves into student debt for this?
The US is a scam today.
Ivy League MBA graduates say debt is a sustainable economic policy.
Doctors say dangerous drugs are safe.
Professors say worthless degrees are useful.
The media says lies are the truth.
Way back, like 50+ years ago, feminists were complaining about men making decisions on where to go for dates and the like and regular girls were repeating it.
But when I tried to get them to make decisions it was like a comedy routine as they backed away from doing so and I followed. Sort of like a crab backing away from somebody following it all over the beach.
A lesson there was to give some slight lip service to such crap and then do what’s standard. Yes, I quit doing it unless I wanted a really polite way of discouraging undesirables from being interested.
As someone who scores highly in agreeableness and neuroticism there’s two things I’ve learnt
1. Boundaries – you need to set boundaries in your own mind and be prepared to vocalize them. Learn the following phrase, “Sorry, that doesn’t work for me”
2. “Healthy Anger” – I tend to avoid conflict because it takes too much emotional toll because I store up my anger and then blow a gasket so it can reverberate emotionally all day. I’m excessively considerate. You have to consciously tell yourself that conflict is part of life and some conflict is necessary and actually good. “Healthy Anger” is like a duck in a pond, when another duck comes closer than it wants it quacks and flaps its wings angrily, but then almost instantly it’s back to calmly gliding along. Tough to learn.
A new associate i made in my industry makes statements all day long that are usually very accurate, but if any one disagrees with him in anyway he gets extremely confrontational & borderline violent. I see it as immature/insecurity, & ultimately I pity the narrow minded types. Im sure chicks find his behavior as alpha😄
Great post!