Is to be agreeable to be straightforward? Why or why not?
Some psychologists have found that straightforwardness is seen in people who are less Machiavellian. And a psychologist, Paul Costa (with his NEO PI model of personality), also puts forth the idea that people who self-monitor are likely to be deceitful or manipulative. Now this seems keenly off in perspective to me: people who self-monitor are more often those who collect and dissolve the garbage spewed by all too common antisocial type belonging in the dark triad (Machiavellian, psychopathy, narcissism). Wouldn't straightforwardness be related to impulse control problems and outspokenness? I'm sure manipulation is more often seen in those who talk a lot and are extroverted. It would seem straightforwardness requires use of the voice, and that less vocal self-monitoring folks lack the ability to put others in a hurry and are patently less likely to be manipulative. So is it cogent that in the majority of cases, straightforwardness could lead to social conflict rather than agreeableness?
Comments (7)
Did this idea arise from criticism by Widiger, Ben-Porath, and Waller regarding the lack of controls in NEO PI-R for dishonesty and social desirability bias?
No. I equate straightforwardness with honesty, and outspokenness with unreserved speech. As such, they are two different things, and neither one is a symptom of an impulse disorder, narcissism or psychopathy.
Narcissistic and psychopathic behaviour is generally calculated and deliberate (i.e., not impulsive). Is this a result of greater than normal self-monitoring which compensates for a lack of empathy?
It would vary from one individual to the next the extent each feels comfortable or uncomfortable being around those who say whatever crosses their minds. Silence isn't only a right, it's antecedent to sound or voice. To be straightforward in the sense of being frank and honest might be agreeable, but then we should ask what it means to be polite. People who lack cognitive filtering are straightforward, garrulous and not deceptive, however they're also often acutely impolite. Noble silence is the primordial condition of politeness. Being honest is to be mindful of the fact you don't know the disposition and sensitivities of those around you: to assume you do based on culture or any other reason would be a grave wrong assumption. Metacommunications are what give people away. There is often a gap between what people say, how they say it (tonality and prosody, etc.), body language, and so on. And though to do or say nothing is also a form of message (in a social situation), I'd hesitate to think of it as the same kind of metacommunication as what is done or said.
Another problem is that so many relationships have control dramas. And I'd go as far as saying none of these relationships are good examples for healthy socialization. What's more, everywhere people compete and compare themselves with each other (such as what U.S. culture begins indoctrinating in kindergarten) is a form of the dark triad. Narcissism and psychopathy are more prevalent, I believe, here in U.S. culture than most would admit. There are a lot of socially patterned defects, but no one willing to step outside of their internalized sanctions to see it as such. I think of Facebook mania. Facebookers love to share their every experience, taking photos of themselves and posting them on FB all in the name of sharing and being social and friendly...but what they are really trying to do is gain social capital and narcissistic power. Not that everyone uses FB like this, it is an example of something fairly unsettling that has become an unconscious aspect of the social character. Selfies are inherently narcissistic, but have made it into normative expectations of most people. Not sure what it means to be agreeable or straightforward in ironic contexts like this.
"Straightforward" is only a word, which can probably be supplanted with a better descriptive label: conscientiousness and honesty are labels we can probably agree on that are always good qualities socially. And before being honest with others, one has to be honest with his self. Making assumptions about social standards is usually a slightly dishonest start, since honesty isn't without the context of truth, which in turn, is unknowable (another's style of consciousness is unknowable). Honesty only assumes not to know how another person would like to be treated, or if they would like to be treated at all.
The calculated part of the dark triad is Machiavelli. Narcissism and psychopathy are far more common and subtle in our culture than the sadist that plots and acts on his devices (psychopathy is more related to Machiavelli than narcissism; some would give primary narcissism a pass as healthy self love...not so sure I would myself, I describe this function as animal self-respect). But to say that the dark triad isn't impulsive? I can't concur. A person that thinks about all manner of things isn't necessarily manipulating others if he never acts on any of his thinking. This uncontrollable urge to formulate machinations and manipulations against others and to somehow act on these deceptions I'd say is precisely what defines the impulsiveness of the dark triad obscenity.
Why are these things so complicated?
Fine nuances in meaning make a huge differene. I mean there's a subtle shade of difference between honesty and bluntness. The former is good but the latter is bad manners. [I]Manipulation[/i] is patently bad but guiding is good and there's only a slight difference between the two.
To be able to say anything meaningful, it becomes necessary to make these small distinctions. We can't just say being straigtforward is good/bad because, well, it's not that striaghtforward.