Post: #1

Low agreeability. as I understand it = not easily impressed or concerned with surface level social pleasantries. Low tolerance for other's bullshit.

I've noticed a strong correlation between low agreeableness and chicks wanting to fuck. What's the non-autistic contingent of RVF's thoughts on this?

For me, I'm not really a physically imposing guy (working on that..currently 150lbs, 5'11) so if I have any surface level agreeability it has a negative impact on how women will perceive me. So to counteract that I subconsciously developed 'low agreeabiliy' in some social situations. Naturally this has come with some funny repercussions, but you gotta take the bad with the good.

So it's obviously a balance...how much is too much? Does your size have an affect on how low-agreeable you should be? Meaning if you're already well over 200 lbs of solid muscle, you probably don't need as much assholery.

Think of it as a scale...a 1 is quiet guy on a tinder date buying her drinks all night and talking about his job. A 10 is the guy challenging everyone in the bar to a fight.

I believe this topic has been addressed by Heartiste or Roosh, but it's not an idea that gets all that much air time here anymore.

Can you still be highly sociable and yet low-agreeable? I believe you can.

Post: #2

I think you have to pick and choose your battles wisely. I think for a girl who hates trump, going in and talking about how pro trump you are will probably hurt more than help. Maybe once in a while you'll find a girl who wants to bang your brains out because you disagreed, but the majority will probably be turned off by it. If you're going for randoms, it could be worth it. If its someone you're already on a tinder date with, Id much rather do don't fuck it up game

Post: #3

I would have thought that low agree ability is a sign of an independent mind and of those independent of outcome.

I’m very disagreeable but as I’ve got older I’ve tried to be smarter and more political in cartain situations and not just fly off the handle. I try to play the long game against those that have wronged me.

As regards to chicks, I would have thought they would be very interested in the small percentage of men who display the qualities in para 1 above.

My uncle said to me when I was young ‘ don’t be afraid to have opinions different to everyone else’. It’s served me well. There are many environments this doesn’t work in however, corporate office jobs are one.

When you consider that women are herd animals, I would think it would be intriguing to them to come across someone who is a bit different.

Post: #4

Being highly sociable and low-agreeable is basically being cheeky.

Literal definition of being cheeky: "showing a lack of respect or politeness in a way that is amusing or appealing."

This is one of the best things for girls to view you as. Cheeky.

You're funny and unimpressed and can dish it out as well as take it. It sets a solid frame and gets women qualifying automatically.

I am not a physically imposing guy and it doesn't matter.

- body language to display confidence
- aloofness towards things you don't care about
- being able to talk shit and not be serious about anything -> you can provide 'twists' on interactions
- literally not giving a fuck at all and being self entertaining while bringing girls in and out of the bubble and the 'team' -> push/pull (remember this?)


Even on tinder, from yesterday:

her: *guesses where I am from*
me: you win a toaster or a date with me - pick wisely
her: god don't make me choose, I do love toast
me: whatsapp?
her: you have to work harder for my number
me: 0________
her: you are cheeky
me: voted cheekiest guy in this city for 2017
her: you will have it in 2018
me: well this was fun
her: *number*
her: because I like the cheeky

Post: #5

Jordan Peterson talks a lot about agreeableness, and for him this is a strictly objective academic category that he uses to identify traits in individuals.

It comes from the Big Five personality inventory that you can take here for free. You don't have to go to Peterson's website and pay:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/~j5j/IPIP/

One of the things that psychologist assume but that most people don't usually think about is that a person's personality can be, in many ways, a mystery to that person.

That is the problem with self reporting, that people report the personality they wish they have instead of the personality they have.

I took this inventory, and there were a few surprises, one of which was that I was very high in agreeableness, which was not something that I wanted to hear, since this trait falls more on the feminine than the masculine side.

At the same time, it explained a lot, and since then, about 4 months ago, I have been making a conscious effort to be less agreeable.

I am not saying it is a bad trait, because if you are agreeable, you are basically living the Biblical command to turn the other cheek. You don't sweat the small stuff, and try to see things from the other person's side, and you want everyone to be happy, so you don't look for undue conflict.

I have found that where agreeableness trips you up is that you are living in a very disagreeable world, and many people take your self control and concern for their welfare as weakness, and as a result, they are all over you.

Agreeableness, I am sure is prized in Heaven, but on earth? Not so much.

I haven't taken it sitting down though, and have put the best positive spin on it I can, that I have figured out how to be agreeable, it is one of my strengths, so now I can work on my weakness, which is being disagreeable.

It is very hard to change your ways, especially when you have been doing things one way for years, but learning how to be disagreeable has been very valuable to me.

Basically, I have taken the time to think how I want people to treat me, and if someone tries to engage without living up to those standards of conduct, I either ignore them or call them on it. Funny thing is, it is almost as if they can tell I am an agreeable person working on being disagreeable, because very often, they get really really mad, even over small things, which doesn't bother me because it is more practice being disagreeable, as in, not caring if they are mad.

What I have found is that I get a lot more respect from men and women, and interest from women. If I look at someone, I just look at them, not smile to let them know I am a friendly person, and you know what? It has made them a lot friendlier and smiley to me.

I don't cede space on the sidewalk, not to be a dick, but if I make room for others and they cross over and walk straight at me, I don't move out of their way. If someone interrupts something I am doing to ask for something, I say, "Excuse me would have been nice." and wait for them to say it or apologize. If they don't I say, "I think you want to talk to someone else."

It took me a while to calibrate this, and I have found that saying things, firmly, but in a neutral or friendly voice to take the sting off works wonders and puts people on notice not to fuck around.

Being disagreeable is not being a dick, I have found, it is having boundaries, enforcing them, and letting people come to you.

I would advise taking that test though to figure out what's what. you may already be disagreeable enough and need work in other areas.

Think I will cross post this in the thread on Irrational confidence.

/thread-69181.html

Seems related.

Post: #6

I'll comment on this.

Research shows that women are more agreeable then men and like to date men who are a little less agreeable (but not much).

For men who are low on agreeability, this causes problems.

The biggest one is how to manage a relationship with a girl who is not fully dependent.

Bear in mind that men who are at the lowest point of agreeability are very hard to deal with for the rest of the world.

For men high on agreeableness, there's a problem too. Women will find you less attractive, many examples of this.

But I believe agreeableness is a non-factor in short-term mating as long as you know game.

To be truly successful you need to asses a girls agreeableness and be lower then her, but not a lot.

If you want to spike attraction, shoot her some short low agreeability statements.

If you want to enhance trust, show pictures of you with puppies. Not kidding. I have some pictures with little kids and my grandma on my phone for this purpose only (sorry granny).

Post: #7

(07-12-2018 05:35 PM)asdfk Wrote:  But I believe agreeableness is a non-factor in short-term mating as long as you know game.

Yes and no. Being disagreeable is a trait that can display confidence. In short term mating confidence is perhaps the single most important trait behind sheer looks.

Post: #8

I don't think there's a correlation for success with women. Different personalities can be successful.

Think Charles Manson and other criminals. Low agreeability and good with chicks.

Vs. Bill Clinton / Leo Di Caprio etc. High agreeability and success with chicks.

I think being congruent with your hard wiring is more important than pretending to be disagreeable if you're not. Furthermore, knowing what you are if you don't. Know thyself.

Post: #9

(07-13-2018 09:42 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:35 PM)asdfk Wrote:  But I believe agreeableness is a non-factor in short-term mating as long as you know game.

Yes and no. Being disagreeable is a trait that can display confidence. In short term mating confidence is perhaps the single most important trait behind sheer looks.

If you are too disagreeable for the woman in question she will lose trust. Even if she's very attracted to low agreeableness in the short term, you have to kind of let her know you are still going to treat her with respect (otherwise she'll get scared).
We're talking about short-term here, the 3-5 hours it takes to get a one night stand.

Post: #10

@Jack Gignac

The issue is that high agreeableness in men might not be congruent with who you really are as a person.

Guys who are highly agreeable probably aren't being honest with people about their true thoughts and opinions. This could be a result of social conditioning.

Do you *really* agree with almost everything that happens during your everyday life? Or are you just avoiding conflict? (Hypothetical question)

If you're being unfiltered and truly speaking your mind, you're going to be seen as more attractive in women's eyes.

So if you just work towards becoming more unfiltered and honest in your interactions with people, you basically solve the agreeableness problem.

Post: #11

Balance. If you're just being a contrarian prick, it makes you sorta annoying, but if you're willing to take a stand on some topics that are important to you then you appear more attractive than dudes who just stay quiet out of fear of judgement.

A lot of girls here work in the wine industry and I love trolling these hoes with "there were studies conducted that prove that all wines are pretty much indistinguishable from one another. How does it feel to sell people extremely overpriced fruit juice?"




Of course, I say it in a light-hearted manner but I stick to my guns and they usually tend to find that a lot more fun and engaging than just exchanging basic pleasantries after "what do you do?" I guess it could be interpreted as slightly autistic but I think the key to being disagreeable and attractive is to be clearly amused by your own shit.

Post: #12

Psychology as a science is very primitive, in part because there are so many hard/currently impossible to measure variables and signals.

The Big 5 is very primitive, but still quite useful as a starting point. As noted there is also the problem of self-reporting.

Another problem is I find the manifestation of a trait is completely different in different circumstances. This is most obvious when comparing how you operate anonymously free of any risk to your reputation (say online) and in the wide-open where your reputation is being highly scrutinised (say as a politician).

You can also compare to how you might act towards a 3, a troll who is of a mind that she's above you and a 9 who is instantly taken by you.

You personality manifests differently in there different scenarios and people would give you different ratings for agreeableness etc. as a result.

So there is a lot of plasticity.

I took the big 5 test and came out as the bottom 15% (or whatever the measure is) of agreeableness. And in taking an anonymous, faceless test I'd say that's right. But in day to day life dealing with people I am a lot more agreeable.

--------------------

Linking this to women. It's clear women want it all. They want a man who is strong, but soft with them. They want a man who will be fearless in the face of danger but emotional with them. They want a highly desirable man that does not utilise that desirability with other women. They want a guy in great shape with a good income, but also has time for them...

When you want something in your life, it usually means that there are other desirable things you might not be able to have. As an example a women is highly unlikely to force herself into a brutal corporate environment and remain delightfuly feminine.

I think the only way you are likely to be able to embody two somewhat polar traits is via some sort of philosophical overlay, conscious effort and realisiation of the parameters of the games.

A good example of this is libertarians. The way I saw a conservative is someone who has identified useful and productive structure to operate within them - nothing more. And a liberal is someone who likes to experiment - nothing more. An arch-conservative personality has benefits but may get swept away by change. While an arch-liberal is liable to get taken with any unworkable idea that takes their fancy and constantly change. If you realise what's going on you take the useful systems and keep them at your core or your foundation. Then on top of that you have room for experimentation with things to fall back on not far away. A good example is Peter Thiel. Peter Schiff is a more stubborn conservative libertarian. While Bill Maher is given to the mist of the left.

To transpose this to agreeableness, as the personality is flexible, you again have your disagreeable core which you use for controlling the direction of things; but you can shift to agreeableness to make her soft and fluffy.

-------

I think that if you look at the most desirable people in any distribution they tend to be able to play these dual-some-what polar traits. e.g. the most desirable men seem to fall into the heart-throb category of a bit dangerous but also a bit gallant. In business, of the people who actually build the company themselves (not Zuckerberg) it's the same it's Jeff Bezos who both understands systems that work and new systems that may work.

Some more ideas on changing personality.

Post: #13

@gework

Glad someone pointed out how primitive these personality indicators are. It isn't just the problem of measurement across different environments, it is also the fact that something like the Big 5 only tells you what and not why.

You could take two people who are high in neuroticism. One has a history of heinous family abuse, and the other is a spoiled baby who flips out when they don't get their way. Both are high in negative emotions but are entirely different people.

Also, I just listened to Ray Liotta on the WTF podcast soon after reading this thread, and he is an excellent example of someone who is low on agreeableness.

http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-93...-jefferies

If anyone is looking for someone's behavior to imitate for this trait, he is a good'un.

First of all, he is not a dick, he is just honest about things and does nothing to ingratiate himself to the host of the podcast. There is a refreshing truth to him, and he doesn't sound Hollywood at all.

On first listen, it seems like he is being vulnerable till you realize that he isn't sharing things that are difficult for him, he just is who he is and doesn't mind talking about his life.

To me, this is a much better way of gaining rapport than talking to someone you suspect is saying what you want to hear.

You listen to him talk about how he got into acting, about what it is like being adopted and seeking out his nightmare birth mother and he is clearly a 'just the facts' kind of dude even when he is talking about his emotions.

There are a couple of times where the host tries to press him to get a better answer, and he just repeats what he already said. Feels no pressure to provide what the other person is looking for. His answer is his answer.

Also, he is not disagreeable, he is just low on agreeableness. He isn't like one of those guys who walks around saying, you know me, I don't give a fuck! Not like those guys who you know really do care about how others feel and are being calculatedly confrontational to prove something.

He says what he says, means it, doesn't really get offended because he doesn't care what the host thinks. At one time, the host told him that he was pretty aimless in his youth and all he says is, "That's a good word for it."

A good case study in low agreeableness for anyone who is interested in some solid examples of this personality type in action.

Post: #14

So I just took the Big 5 test and I agree with Gework and Debeguiled that the test is a little flawed. It's 120 statements graded on whether I strongly disagree, disagree, am neutral, agree or strongly agree. But the test was presented in a way where I was just going to statement to statement and not putting some critical thought into my answer. Also the statements are a little broad like "I always believe people are telling the truth." Well I don't agree or disagree with that statement, because my gut reaction is it depends on the person whose telling me. And that was true for a few others.

Another statement used to assess agreeableness was "I'm always thinking about the needy." My answer was disagree because I don't sit around thinking about starving children in other countries all the time, but who really does that? But that doesn't mean I won't give some change to some amputee or homeless person from time to time.

But I did get my score and I scored very low on agreeableness. I scored in the 4th percentile and the definition that I got from the site I took it (123test.com) was low agreeableness is hard-headed, sceptical, competitive and proud. High agreeableness is compassionate, eager to please and good natured.

My strongest trait was my very low score in extraversion (2nd percentile), meaning that I'm reserved, quiet and serious. That's pretty spot on and describes my day to day personality.

In fact looking at the results I either scored very low, or low in everything. 12th percentile in openness to experience, 14th percentile in conscientiousness, and 19th in natural reactions. But like Debeguiled said I know the what, but now I'm curious as to why I scored this way and what does it mean?

(07-12-2018 04:23 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  I took this inventory, and there were a few surprises, one of which was that I was very high in agreeableness, which was not something that I wanted to hear, since this trait falls more on the feminine than the masculine side.

At the same time, it explained a lot, and since then, about 4 months ago, I have been making a conscious effort to be less agreeable.

I am not saying it is a bad trait, because if you are agreeable, you are basically living the Biblical command to turn the other cheek. You don't sweat the small stuff, and try to see things from the other person's side, and you want everyone to be happy, so you don't look for undue conflict.

I have found that where agreeableness trips you up is that you are living in a very disagreeable world, and many people take your self control and concern for their welfare as weakness, and as a result, they are all over you.

Agreeableness, I am sure is prized in Heaven, but on earth? Not so much.

I read this quote and I thought about it for a little bit. It's interesting because the traits of agreeableness is something I was conditioned to believe were qualities of a good person (I was raised Catholic). I don't have any kids, but if I had a son I think I would want him to be compassionate and good natured (agreeableness traits). But then you bring up a good point. In this day and age, if I raised my son to embody agreeableness I would set him up to be taken advantage of and fucked over. So I guess the sweet spot is where one draws the line between being agreeable and using compassion to try to do some good in the world; and being disagreeable where they don't become a pushover.

Post: #15

Agreeable.

Just think about that word and it's meaning for a little bit. How is it a good thing if you agree with everyone most/all the time?

That just makes you a spineless pussy with no real beliefs or opinions of your own.

Or you do have your own beliefs but you're willing to hide/compromise because you're so scared people might not like it if you disagree with them.

When I hear the word agreeable, I'm imagining a guy who has this huge fake cheesy grin on his face all the time, trying to fit in. He's the annoying friend who seems to agree with all of your opinions and ideas when you're alone, but when together with a group of people he suddenly agrees with the leader of the group instead of you.

And if there are girls nearby, he will then go out of his way to be agreeable with them. He always makes sure the girls see his cheesy grin so they know what a nice, nonthreatening agreeable guy he is. He always goes home alone as there's nothing that turns off women more.

Post: #16

The more I think about it, 'agreeableness' is a vague undefined term. It's practically meaningless discussing this shit.

A man should be agreeable when it is useful to do so (not just to fit in, or to 'be social', a real reason that is important to him), and disagreeable when it comes to matters of importance.

You should not be agreeable over important things, or disagreeable over trivial things.

That's it.

These psychologists need to rethink their stuff.

Post: #17

Agreeableness has a specific definition in behavioural psychology, it has a lot to do with how you handle certain interactions.

You can be high in agreeableness and not be a pussy. Psychology is a soft science that lends itself to generalizations more than it does to nuance.

As far as this thread goes. I'm low as fuck in agreeableness when it comes to women (and anyone I think is less adept in what we're discussing). It definitely blocks off a lot of initial leads because they think I'm an asshole and tbh not attractive enough to pull it off on the level I use it. However when I get a girl on my team and get past a couple bangs my frame is rock solid and dominance is established easy.

I've thought about becoming more agreeable but it doesn't feel right, instead I've been working on being either polite, funny, or cool about it. So when a girl says something that's off kiler or wrong, instead of directly confronting her about it I try to make a joke that incorporates, demonstrates, and proves my view all at the same time. I find it difficult to do in the 3 seconds I have to think about it, but so far that's been the play to re-enforce frame, dominance and naturally attraction.

When I find myself confronting a girl's views head on I find it a losing proposition unless she herself is very high in agreeableness, which girls I see typically self select for. Doesn't stop me from doing it I can see there are negative consequences sometimes though. However not getting my point across simply is not an option in my mind. The whole "pick your battles" mentality some men seem to have seems like complete bitchery to me.

Post: #18

Definitely want to be cheeky, irreverent and banter.

You do not want to be a contrarian, sulking angry dude, thats a pussy repellent

Post: #19

(07-14-2018 11:24 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  The more I think about it, 'agreeableness' is a vague undefined term. It's practically meaningless discussing this shit.

A man should be agreeable when it is useful to do so (not just to fit in, or to 'be social', a real reason that is important to him), and disagreeable when it comes to matters of importance.

You should not be agreeable over important things, or disagreeable over trivial things.

That's it.

These psychologists need to rethink their stuff.

It's a technical term, bro, and has nothing to do with the first thing you think of when you hear it.

https://www.123test.com/personality-agreeableness/

Quote:Agreeableness
Agreeableness is one of the five personality traits of the Big Five personality theory. 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. A person who scores low on agreeableness may put their own interests above those of others. They tend to be distant, unfriendly, and uncooperative.

Person high in agreeableness is friendly and helpful
Social harmony is an important goal for individuals that score high on agreeableness in a career test. Agreeable individuals find it important to get along with others. They are willing to put aside their interests for other people. These individuals are helpful, friendly, considerate, and generous. Their basic belief is that people are usually decent, honest, and trustworthy. Take a free personality test to find out more about your other Big Five characteristics and to test personality.

Sub traits of agreeableness
Each of the Big Five personality traits is made up of six facets or sub traits. To test personality, these can be assessed independently of the trait that they belong to. The sub traits of the agreeableness domain are:

Trust
Morality
Altruism
Cooperation
Modesty
Sympathy

Post: #20

Technical definition notwithstanding, I break the agreeable concept into a couple interlocking angles:
-Your tendency to "agree" with those around you, to concur/validate their opinions, smooth over discords, etc
-Active disagreeableness - iow trying to fuck with people

A low-agreeable person isn't necessarily a contrarian prick, they are just not going to do a lot of giving a shit or being possessed/manipulated by niceties. Then there's someone who's actively trying to insert negative emotion into the environs, spoiling for a fight, etc. (Sociopathic people seem to be low-agreeableness but high on empathic/agreeable behaviors, one of the many interesting discordant combinations of traits found in psychologic diseases.)

I think a lot about this because I realized recently through a process of discernment that I have long exhibited highly agreeable traits, while at the same time engaging in almost pathological subconscious disagreeable behaviors. I believe this comes from some sense I got when I was young that I had to be "sharp" and contrarian (read: smartass) to show I was distinctive and make an impact on social situations I was in. I was not helped in this by many teachers who insisted we should be "independent" and "nonconformist." I was dumb enough to believe their shit and take my surly attitude as some badge of honor that I was better than the rubes around me.

As much as we talk about being less of a "nice guy" in our game journeys, and that's a key growth point for most of us, in retrospect I would have been WAY better off with girls and everyone else by being a lot less actively disagreeable and not trying to show off how much I saw through the conventional narratives about everything. As was said above, picking your battles is a key part of expressing a refreshingly non-agreeable persona.

(I really first discovered this about myself when I was analyzing a similar behavior in my gf's cunty friend. I realized she, like many disagreeable women, had concocted a sharp attitude really as a way of keeping the world far enough away that it couldn't hurt her; I eventually noticed I was doing some of the same shit and asked myself why. In her case, she really wanted to be loved, but felt she was being a sucker by being earnest and open in seeking it so she tried to make her barriers stronger. Also functioned as a shit test; as we all know, it was one that brought hard-core sociopathic assholes into her circle and kept the genuinely good people out because good people either can't pass those tests or have enough self-respect to not try.)

Post: #21

@BadgerHut

That was an excellent analysis as well as concrete examples from your own life.

We in the manosphere can get stuck in a over simplified Alpha (disagreeable)/Beta (agreeable) dichotomy where alpha is always good and beta is always bad, when in fact it is a lot more complicated than that, as your post shows.

Post: #22

Decent topic, but I think this agreeable/disagreeable talk is really just another way of saying "asshole game"

Girls like a certain amount of asshole-ness in men. A guy that isn't the easiest to impress and also isn't going out of his way to impress others. This isn't exactly news.

OP's assumption is basically true as well: the more physically intimating you look the less asshole you should apply (generally).

All of this needs context and calibration though, of course. Some bad bitches like guys who are jacked and scary looking who are also total assholes (far extreme) while other women are meek and coy and like men who are accommodating and won't scare them off (other extreme).

If you want a "one size fits all" that will resonate with most girls then you just gotta be a "loveable asshole." This is the game I employ.

Act like you've been there before. Not easily impressed but not a stone cold killer by any means. The key to it really is being rarely serious. Tease girls a lot and joke around so they know you aren't trying to impress them but you also aren't brushing them off or being disinterested. Be sparing with your compliments and affections but do pepper them in. You want to ride that line between allowing the girl to know you are really into her and giving off the vibe you could take it or leave it.

Post: #23

I'm really not very good at being disagreeable, so instead I go with my natural inclination to agree and then either amplify or be really sarcastic. It really is so much easier to sarcastically "agree" than to totally disagree.

Post: #24

(07-16-2018 10:40 AM)chicane Wrote:  I'm really not very good at being disagreeable, so instead I go with my natural inclination to agree and then either amplify or be really sarcastic. It really is so much easier to sarcastically "agree" than to totally disagree.

I do this too. It is kind of a negliment. You start off with your natural inclination to be nice, and then take it off on a tangent.

Like:

"That was actually pretty funny. Pause. But then I laugh at anything."

Or:

"I love your dress. Pause. I know a girl it would look amazing on."

It's like you don't start out with the end in mind, you just follow your normal nature to be nice, catch yourself, and see if you can come up with something teasing as a form of redemption.

Post: #25

I'm moderate - between both on a scale of 1-10 like a 5.

you gotta pick your battles

People who are highly disagreeable and get baited into arguments too often. they're miserable and in a constant high cortisol state because of this.

at the same time though I value having a back bone.

again. pick your battles.