Is it always bad to make people uncomfortable?

[Earthcircle]

I'm not sure how to comment on this article, but it was awfully interesting. It may relate to what some of us here are experiencing in life.

Are Polite People More Violent and Destructive? | Psychology Today

 

[hippiechild]

If what you're doing is good, then their discomfort is part of the process of accepting good. If what you're doing is not right, then you shouldn't be doing it at all and their discomfort is beside the point. Personally, I wouldn't use people's discomfort as any sort of guide, so long as you are respectful.

More importantly... I wouldn't read or listen to any online psychology. It's essentially the FOX/ABC news of psychology.. mostly sensationalization of weak research. The article is filled with words to throw us off.. connecting Polite-Conscientious-Agreeable together when they don't have the same meaning (this allows the research to both appear to say more than it does, but also makes it more shocking when 'conscientious people are violent' (almost a contradiction of 'conscientious') can be justified by the mental substitution of "polite/agreeable" which is different and easier to justify) At the end of the article, what they've actually said is "people who are easier to push around tend to be easier to get to do things.. those who aren't, aren't," and yet we, the audience have been given the illusion of having learned something.. of having gained insight about politeness and the secret violent tendencies of "conscientious" people (read: not actually conscientious). That is the true psychological genius of pop psychology!

 

[PugofCrydee]

yea i have to agree with hippiechild, dont take online articles too seriously.
There seemed to be a particular viewpoint behind the article that showed perhaps it was an extract of a much wider topic.
I mean, if we all stopped eating meat do you realize how many more people world wide would starve through pressure on other resources? I dont really see how that has anything to do with the topics headline.

 

[hippiechild]

yea i have to agree with hippiechild, dont take online articles too seriously.
There seemed to be a particular viewpoint behind the article that showed perhaps it was an extract of a much wider topic.
I mean, if we all stopped eating meat do you realize how many more people world wide would starve through pressure on other resources? I dont really see how that has anything to do with the topics headline.

haha yes.. it was either hastily extrapolating and correlating beyond it's means, or very, very sloppily condensing a much larger, broader text. I like to assume the former, as it makes life easier

 

[Earthcircle]

The content of the descriptors can be found here, at the tail end of page 2 and going into page 3: [onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12104/pdf]. I would think that a low score on extraversion is what would most consistently characterize people on this site. However, I often seem to rub people the wrong way, so I suspect I would score low on agreeableness, given that "People with agreeable dispositions avoid violating norms or upsetting others, and they easily comply with social expectations." The part in quotes does not describe me at all. I am less sure about whether I satisfy the characterization of conscientiousness or not, since it is "defined as a tendency to show self-discipline, sense of duty, and aim for achievement and organization." To a degree, I think I do have those traits.

 

[hippiechild]

For some reason there seems to be a difference in being 'found agreeable' and being an 'agreeable person'.

As I see it, being found agreeable has to do with another person's response to you, like the body's response to an organ donation or some foreign antigen; if you are found agreeable, you cause those around you to be agreeable towards you, but may not necessarily be agreeable in disposition yourself. Whereas maybe being agreeable has to do with your tendency to clash with the wills of others (maybe because they are found disagreeable?)?

 

[Earthcircle]

For some reason there seems to be a difference in being 'found agreeable' and being an 'agreeable person'.

As I see it, being found agreeable has to do with another person's response to you, like the body's response to an organ donation or some foreign antigen; if you are found agreeable, you cause those around you to be agreeable towards you, but may not necessarily be agreeable in disposition yourself. Whereas maybe being agreeable has to do with your tendency to clash with the wills of others (maybe because they are found disagreeable?)?

They would have to be talking about intrinsic properties. Otherwise, an external, causally irrelevant factor would change the experimental results.

 

[hippiechild]

They would have to be talking about intrinsic properties. Otherwise, an external, causally irrelevant factor would change the experimental results.

definitely, definitely... I just mean that you can accidentally generalize results because the terms used have fuzzy boundaries. Fuzzy definitions in journals can allow results to, like a fire leaping a road, wind up explaining unrelated phenomena, contaminating our understandings. Eventually you find yourself simultaneously understanding everything and nothing.

 

[Earthcircle]

definitely, definitely... I just mean that you can accidentally generalize results because the terms used have fuzzy boundaries. Fuzzy definitions in journals can allow results to, like a fire leaping a road, wind up explaining unrelated phenomena, contaminating our understandings. Eventually you find yourself simultaneously understanding everything and nothing.

I believe that Nick Haslam once argued that personality types should be measured using discrete categories rather than continuous dimensions, and provided some experimental data to back this up. So one thing that crossed my mind was how well this would square with Haslam's approach.

 

[hippiechild]

I believe that Nick Haslam once argued that personality types should be measured using discrete categories rather than continuous dimensions, and provided some experimental data to back this up. So one thing that crossed my mind was how well this would square with Haslam's approach.

Not sure how I feel about thinking of people in discrete categories.. as everything in reality falls on a continuum.. but that's also the point of models, isn't it, making reality workable

I'd be very curious too, as I know nothing about Haslam's approach

 

[Earthcircle]

Not sure how I feel about thinking of people in discrete categories.. as everything in reality falls on a continuum.. h

There are lots of things which don't fall on a continuum.

 

[hippiechild]

way off topic at this point.. but... :bigsmile:

I'm not so sure, Earthcircle. Someone would have to give me examples. I'm convinced that most discrete classifications are the result of humans imposing artificial order on continuous phenomena (introversion/extroversion, time, space) or compiling related phenomena into a single synthetic category (schizophrenia, the concept of species and even the idea of life itself).

(I guess "person" is discrete, if you ignore the fuzzy, permeable boundary between organism and environment (we're all onee, mann, the cosmos and whoa.) and maybe if you're a hardcore Platonist, the integers are naturally occurring and discrete.)

n/a, I would have used those as perfect examples of the opposite. What do you mean?

 

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

n/a, I would have used those as perfect examples of the opposite. What do you mean?

Yeah, I figured that was a joke of some sort. O-o

Just to be contrary: discrete elements!

 

[hippiechild]

******* it Nathan!
totally valid thanks