Balance of conformity is essential to flourish

MY HUSBAND once had to undergo a psychological work profile in a management job he had. When he brought the results home, I read the booklet and laughed in agreement.

They had highlighted several things about him that he swore were wrong. It said he gave more weight to “the factual objective side of things”, which might disregard other people’s feelings. He was action orientated, a perfectionist, competitive and didn’t seek approval from others.

The idea of seeking approval from others is an interesting issue.

According to Canadian psychologist and author Dr Jordan Peterson (pictured), who is visiting Australia later this month, the trait of “agreeableness” is one of five main traits that can be measured. The others are conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism and openness to experience.

Curious about his personality test, I paid $US10 and did one myself. My “agreeableness” was scored at 74 per cent; apparently the mean percentile for women is 61.5 per cent and for men it’s just 38.5 per cent.

While it can be associated with being kind, nurturing, compliant or conciliatory, it’s also described as “naively trusting”. And as a result of their “tendency to avoid conflict”, people high on this often “dissemble and hide what they think”.

Dr Peterson says highly agreeable women can end up being exploited in modern workplaces, particularly if they are overly conscientious. They hate conflict and don’t complain.

On the other hand, being disagreeable is associated with being straightforward and stubborn and those people can come across as harsh, dominant or blunt and not care about other people’s opinions.

But you know where you stand. And if combined with a high intellect, they can be very successful and singleminded at what they do.

Author Malcolm Gladwell, who cites Apple founder Steve Jobs as “disagreeable”, notes such people aren’t necessarily obnoxious. They just don’t require the approval of others. Importantly, disagreeable people are not afraid to speak their mind. Which is a trait sorely needed in these days of woke correctness and group think.

In the increasingly woke world we find ourselves in, the tag “divisive” is attached to your name if you speak your mind honestly.

In parliament, forceful, mocking or robust debate is being rebranded as “bullying”, which is a totally different kettle of fish. Bullying means ongoing verbal or physical attacks and often with a power imbalance. It’s redefining the term to use it just to describe an insult.

In our legal system, there’s a push now to argue that if you make serious allegations against fellow citizens, such as rape, you shouldn’t be subjected to robust cross-examination. Our entire justice and parliamentary systems are based on the idea of robust argument — an adversarial system.

It is built into their DNA.

Stifling debate under the guise of being “kind” to victims, or not wanting to “offend” people, undermines the foundations of our society. I’ve just finished a book by Professor Peter Murphy, called Civic Justice, which traces the origins of justice and civic society. He explains that conflict was seen as a stimulus to excellence in Ancient Greece.

Under the Ionian, and later Greek, civilisations, public events were staged in the agora, or town square, so disputes could be contested in front of other citizens.

Conflict was also found in the sporting field, among philosophers, or even in contests between singers, dramatists and potters in the agora. Professor Murphy says it created a paradoxical union of contending forces, a surprising synthesis.

“Conflict is a stimulus to excellence,” he says.

“The best, the most skilled, the ones who excel, can receive the sanction of their respective publics.”

It’s no coincidence the Greeks invented the Olympic Games.

But we’re starting to see more people in our modern workforces — particularly the public service — being selected for “inclusivity”, not intelligence or ability, but for being agreeable and conforming.

A recent essay published on the independent Substack essay platform made the case that conscientious and agreeable “Head Girls” have taken over many institutions.

“There’s nothing wrong with Head Girls, when their worst tendencies are counterbalanced by a sufficient number of disagreeable, intelligent and less conformist colleagues,” the author, who goes by the pseudonym Eugyppius, argues.

Committees and meetings dominate, consensus opinions prevail and it becomes a closed shop. Perhaps high schools should make debating a compulsory skill for all students.

And ensure there’s an appreciation of the deep liberal tradition that enabled Western civilisation to flourish — not despite, but because of, the many disagreeable geniuses along the way.