# Agreeableness (Big 5) and Being a Thinker



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Agreeableness has been correlated with being a Feeler in the Big 5, according to a lot of psychology writers.

But looking at it, I don't know...



> People who score high on this dimension tend to believe that most people are honest, decent, and trustworthy.
> 
> People scoring low on agreeableness are generally less concerned with others' well-being and report having less empathy. Therefore, these individuals are less likely to go out of their way to help others. Low agreeableness is often characterized by skepticism about other people's motives, resulting in suspicion and unfriendliness. People very low on agreeableness have a tendency to be manipulative in their social relationships. They are also more likely to compete than to cooperate.
> 
> Agreeableness is considered to be a superordinate trait, meaning that it is a grouping of personality sub-traits that cluster together statistically. The lower-level traits, or facets, grouped under agreeableness are: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness


SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA 


More or less, to be "disagreeable" is to be a jerk.

On the other hand, they tend to associate being agreeable with being naive - which I don't think is true, I think when people are younger they just tend to assume that everyone else is like them. (Whatever that happens to mean.)

Thoughts?

I don't see as clear a correlation between this and being a Thinker as some people have suggested...


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Last month, I started a thread about MBTI/Big Five correlations. I found it interesting that both @The Exception and @StunnedFox mentioned that they are MBTI thinking types but score middle/high on agreeableness. That is, of course, far too small a sample size to be taken as indicative of a larger pattern, but with those two responses and your post here, @nevermore, I do wonder about it. I also wonder: if both T/F and agreeableness are attempting to tap in to the same dimension of human personality, which one is capturing it more accurately? Or is it better to view them as two separate dimensions that nonetheless correlate? Where should we draw the line between different takes on a single dimension and two separate but correlating dimensions anyway?

More of my thoughts, quoted from the linked thread:



Octavarium said:


> It’s really interesting that you both have the same discrepancy between T/F and agreeableness, and the magnitude of that difference is also interesting. I wonder whether that particular discrepancy is more common than others; if the correlation between T/F and agreeableness is weaker, it would presumably be more common than on other dimensions, but does it tend to go in the direction it does for both of you, I.E. more "agreeable" than "feeling"?
> 
> It’s true that, although they seem to be tapping into roughly the same thing, there are significant differences between the two, like the "logical" aspects of a T preference not being reflected in low agreeableness descriptions. The "straightforwardness" facet of agreeableness doesn’t strike me as inconsistent with a T preference; it might even be more T than F, if anything. In that respect, it’s quite similar to the issue of J types supposedly being more decisive, but the Big Five having "deliberation" as one of the conscientiousness facets. In both cases, the theories assign the same or similar traits to the opposite ends of the dimension. "Straightforward individuals are frank, sincere, and ingenuous. Low scorers are more willing to manipulate others through flattery, craftiness, or deception." Compare that to the descriptions of T types as the more invariably honest ones, with F types being more willing to bend the truth for the sake of being kind. I’d also suggest that doing things to make others feel better isn’t all that different from manipulation; perhaps it could be described, at least some of the time, as a "good kind of manipulation". The tendency/ability to alter people’s feelings for the sake of a desired outcome, perhaps at the expense of complete honesty, can be either a positive or a negative. I don’t mean to suggest that there’s necessarily anything sinister about wanting to make people feel good, or that a typical F is "manipulative" in the usual, value-laden sense of the term. I’m just pointing out that, if we stop making value judgements, "healthy" traits are often surprisingly similar to "unhealthy" ones, the only differences being in things like their consequences or social acceptability within a particular context rather than personality differences like thought processes or behaviour.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Octavarium said:


> Last month, I started a thread about MBTI/Big Five correlations. I found it interesting that both @The Exception and @StunnedFox mentioned that they are MBTI thinking types but score middle/high on agreeableness. That is, of course, far too small a sample size to be taken as indicative of a larger pattern, but with those two responses and your post here, @nevermore, I do wonder about it. I also wonder: if both T/F and agreeableness are attempting to tap in to the same dimension of human personality, which one is capturing it more accurately? Or is it better to view them as two separate dimensions that nonetheless correlate? Where should we draw the line between different takes on a single dimension and two separate but correlating dimensions anyway?
> 
> More of my thoughts, quoted from the linked thread:


Thanks for your reply; I found it interesting, though it covered really different ground than my own thoughts did (which is good). I think that a lot of what you said about straightforwardness can be applied to Te users especially.

Even when it comes to Fe though...sometimes I see it being used in a very manipulative and dishonest way (charming and deceitful), and sometimes in a cowardly way too, like with people who use it to prop up the values of their social group, with no regard for what harm it might cause. These people might do so because they don't want to cause social discord (enneagram 9?) but in many cases they are either afraid of reprobation or in they just don't care about taking advantage of others. Not really someone you'd call agreeable. 

But for other people, it makes them just the opposite! Some of the most generous and giving people I know, probably the vast majority of them, are Fe-heavy. Very sensitive...the sort of people who can't bear to let people suffer without interfering...people who really do go out of the way to better other people and their lives. 

So I guess I really do think they are measuring different things...some people are just more bothered doing things that hurt others and others less so. I think the differences could even come down to chemical sensitivities in the brain, they've linked a lower percentage of "calming hormones" in the blood stream to antisocial personality disorder.

And on the other hand, the straightforwardness can even be a thing for some Fe users too (though I agree that on the whole it's more common in Thinkers). Usually you see people with balanced Ti/Fe using a larger vocabulary, for instance, and they often like to flaunt it, whereas heavy Fe-uers (in modern English-speaking culture) tend to want to be more down to earth so they will sound less pretentious and - ideally - reach more people. (But maybe I am going out on a limb on that point, and I can think of too many counterexamples. One major reason Ti users are so precise is because we are all about expressing an idea in the most precise and accurate way, but unfortunately that trait is also linked to caring less about how something comes across, both from a moral point of view and just from the point of view of whether or not it engages.)

So perhaps there is a difference between caring about how something lands emotionally - how it will move an audience, in other words - and whether it will harm. And there is a difference between being bothered by causing others harm and feeling the urge to do altruistic things. In all these cases I really think it's sensitivity to the chemicals that give you that wholesome feeling when you think about doing something that helps the world. But you can help the world by directly engaging with it - using Fe, or a combination of Fi and another function - or by engineering it and altering it impersonally with the T functions.

I've also noticed other correlations but I don't want to go on too much about them now...I think this is more than enough, but for those who actually read through it, I hope it will be enough to maybe enlarge their perspectives. It would be a really interesting subject for people who are interested in different typology systems and how they can complement each other.


----------



## astrolamb (Dec 14, 2015)

I cannot see them having any massive correlation. Besides introversion and extroversion; thinking/feeling, sensing/intuitive, and perceiving/judging are not mutually exclusive traits, whereas in the Big Five system there are five traits measured on a scale, meaning your personality must be recorded as one point on this scale (i.e. you cannot be at both ends). In other words, feelers think, and thinkers feel, but agreeable people are not disagreeable and vice versa.

I would much sooner guess that Te correlates to low levels of agreeableness than simply xxTx types.

In fact, I have noticed quite a few correlations between cognitive functions and the big 5. Here is what I think:

Ne: High Openness
Si: Low Openness
Ni: High Conscientiousness
Se: Low Conscientiousness
Fe: High Agreeableness
Te: Low Agreeableness
Fi: High Neuroticism
Ti: Low Neuroticism

Other's have theorized...

Ne = extroversion + openness 
Ni = introversion + openness

Se = extroversion + low openness 
Si = introversion + low openness

Fe = extroversion + agreeableness
Fi = introversion + agreeableness

Te = extroversion + unagreeableness
Ti = introversion + unagreeableness


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

astrolamb said:


> In fact, I have noticed quite a few correlations between cognitive functions and the big 5. Here is what I think:
> 
> Ne: High Openness
> Si: Low Openness
> ...


I would say that I'm high on openness, middle-high on agreeableness, average on conscientiousness and middle-high on neuroticism.


----------



## Jakuri (Sep 7, 2015)

Like @The Exception , I am on the INxp side, though I still believe I am slightly T>F. My J/P score is fairly even. If anything, I would be an "early-starting (and maybe one more) P" according to the MBTI Step II traits.



astrolamb said:


> In fact, I have noticed quite a few correlations between cognitive functions and the big 5. Here is what I think:
> 
> Ne: High Openness
> Si: Low Openness
> ...


Medium-high~high (usually on the high side) on openness, mid or mid-high on agreeableness (closer to the 50-50 mark), medium on conscientiousness, and medium-high neuroticism.

Interestingly, when I do the visualDNA personality test (based on big 5), I score low on conscientiousness; when I do the text-based big 5 tests, I score average or medium-high on it. I do take my responsibilities pretty seriously after all.

Edit: @The Exception, I think it was you who replied to a thread about emotional INTP. I just lurked there, but I could relate quite a bit. I feel I lose my cool too easily especially during debates or arguments and have my brain become foggy. -_-


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

astrolamb said:


> I cannot see them having any massive correlation. Besides introversion and extroversion; thinking/feeling, sensing/intuitive, and perceiving/judging are not mutually exclusive traits, whereas in the Big Five system there are five traits measured on a scale, meaning your personality must be recorded as one point on this scale (i.e. you cannot be at both ends). In other words, feelers think, and thinkers feel, but agreeable people are not disagreeable and vice versa.
> 
> I would much sooner guess that Te correlates to low levels of agreeableness than simply xxTx types.
> 
> ...


This makes the most sense, at least from personal experience. My highest on Big Five is typically conscientiousness. I tend to score very low on both agreeableness and extroversion (in fact, I came to associate low agreeableness more with introversion). I am usually average on neuroticism, and average-to-high on openness. 

I've heard though that some of the Big Five has been demonstrated to be changeable over time. Others are fixed. (One of the changeable ones was neuroticism, but I don't remember the other ones. This is just something a graduate instructor mentioned in college once).


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

astrolamb said:


> I cannot see them having any massive correlation. Besides introversion and extroversion; thinking/feeling, sensing/intuitive, and perceiving/judging are not mutually exclusive traits, whereas in the Big Five system there are five traits measured on a scale, meaning your personality must be recorded as one point on this scale (i.e. you cannot be at both ends). In other words, feelers think, and thinkers feel, but agreeable people are not disagreeable and vice versa.
> 
> I would much sooner guess that Te correlates to low levels of agreeableness than simply xxTx types.
> 
> ...


This is completely wrong. How do you explain xxTP types who are neurotic and disagreeable? Are you saying they're all either FPs or TJs? Or xxFP types who are low neuroticism? Are they actually TPs? It's just false and dumb. And how in the holy what is high conscientiousness tied solely to Ni but not Si, as though SJs are somehow less conscientious on average than NJs? Huh? I'm so confused.

There are correlations between Big Five and MBTI, and they include that agreeableness negatively correlates to a thinking preference. (Neuroticism is the only one that does not correlate _at all_.) And that is not something that has merely been "written" about as though it is speculation. It is a statistical fact. Says nothing whatsoever about any other dimension of personality, let alone a fucking "cognitive function," and it's still possible to score higher than not on agreeableness and also score T, but the overall correlation is clear.

And this?



> in the Big Five system there are five traits measured on a scale, meaning your personality must be recorded as one point on this scale (i.e. you cannot be at both ends)


Wat. Seriously, what? MBTI is the one that portrays personality as binary/dichotomous. Big Five is the one that has traits on a spectrum. You absolutely do not have to be at one end or the other or be sorted onto either side. If you score anywhere near the middle, you are considered "average" or "mixed" on a trait. This is literally completely backwards.


----------



## astrolamb (Dec 14, 2015)

ENTPness said:


> This is completely wrong. How do you explain xxTP types who are neurotic and disagreeable? Are you saying they're all either FPs or TJs? Or xxFP types who are low neuroticism? Are they actually TPs? It's just false and dumb. And how in the holy what is high conscientiousness tied solely to Ni but not Si, as though SJs are somehow less conscientious on average than NJs? Huh? I'm so confused.
> 
> There are correlations between Big Five and MBTI, and they include that agreeableness negatively correlates to a thinking preference. (Neuroticism is the only one that does not correlate _at all_.) And that is not something that has merely been "written" about as though it is speculation. It is a statistical fact. Says nothing whatsoever about any other dimension of personality, let alone a fucking "cognitive function," and it's still possible to score higher than not on agreeableness and also score T, but the overall correlation is clear.
> 
> ...


Oh please stop being so hostile about the "correctness" of pseudoscientific nonsense and go outside or something.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

They're just correlations, they don't decide your type but many people don't seem to understand this for some strange reason. Extraversion is the only one that really translates cause it's the same thing but still, things like how assertive you are shouldn't be a determining factor when it comes to if you are or aren't an extravert. Big 5 to me is the equivalent of looking at a person and trying to determine whether or not they're a virgin.


----------



## Mephi (Jun 10, 2015)

I think big 5 has a bit more scientific backing but I dont think it directly translates into MBTI. Im also a thinker with medium to high agreeableness. Its kind of interesting that people seem to be unaware that being agreeable can be very logical and adaptive. Not sure why it should only be a feeler trait. I thought mbti was about the process behind getting to a decision not the decision itself. If thats the case then there should be agreeable thinkers and disagreeable feelers.

I guess what i dont like about the big 5 is that its suggesting there is a right way and a wrong way to be on some of these. Just saying wowza. There's obvious biase saying agreeableness is good and disaggreeableness is bad in the descriptions. Maybe disagreeableness is not all bad? Maybe theyd be less likely to manipulated or shock someone to death in Maslows experiment. Just spit balling here but my point is there are multiple ways of being that contributes to society. Not just the one 'Ideal' way.


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

Mephistophelesx said:


> I guess what i dont like about the big 5 is that its suggesting there is a right way and a wrong way to be on some of these. Just saying wowza. There's obvious biase saying agreeableness is good and disaggreeableness is bad in the descriptions. Maybe disagreeableness is not all bad? Maybe theyd be less likely to manipulated or shock someone to death in Maslows experiment. Just spit balling here but my point is there are multiple ways of being that contributes to society. Not just the one 'Ideal' way.


I guess I concur, that bias is something I see in general in society today. 
That 'agreeableness' traits are appreciated higher then the opposite.

I like the big 5 tests without any text; so I can interpret the results myself.
The context, thus, is more neutral.

Oh, I believe disagreeable people often have a higher salary; better negotiating skills on their own behalf.
They often tend to be very direct, even if the message isn't a good one. 
And yes, they're harder to manipulate against their own will. If they don't want to do it, they won't.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

The observation is that low agreeableness correlates with thinking in MBTI, not that it is the same thing. Some aspects of low agreeableness coincide with thinking (e.g. skepticism of motives) while others are less related (e.g. being socially manipulative). The overall picture of the low agreeableness individual is somewhat more like a typical thinking type than a feeling type, and the test results bear out this picture.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Mephistophelesx said:


> I think big 5 has a bit more scientific backing but I dont think it directly translates into MBTI. Im also a thinker with medium to high agreeableness. Its kind of interesting that people seem to be unaware that being agreeable can be very logical and adaptive. Not sure why it should only be a feeler trait. I thought mbti was about the process behind getting to a decision not the decision itself. If thats the case then there should be agreeable thinkers and disagreeable feelers.
> 
> I guess what i dont like about the big 5 is that its suggesting there is a right way and a wrong way to be on some of these. Just saying wowza. There's obvious biase saying agreeableness is good and disaggreeableness is bad in the descriptions. Maybe disagreeableness is not all bad? Maybe theyd be less likely to manipulated or shock someone to death in Maslows experiment. Just spit balling here but my point is there are multiple ways of being that contributes to society. Not just the one 'Ideal' way.


That's the problem with it. I'm a sensor but I score relatively high on openness. It's supposed to be intellectual curiosity and willingness to try new things. So I don't understand why it's trying to conflate that with being abstract.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

I get average agreeableness. I probably would have scored high if measured as a child/early teen (I've _learned_ not to trust people). Honesty and cooperation (sub categories of agreeableness that I score high in) seem Te to me.

I dislike how the test doesn't differentiate between people you are close with, people you know and complete strangers. My levels of altruism and sympathy are highly correlated to relationship -- my behavior can either be extremely agreeable or just average depending on the person/circumstance.

I also get:
Very high conscientiousness (I wonder if this is related to me being cooperative -- 'blocking'/chaotic behaviors drive me nuts)
High openness
Low extraversion
Low neuroticism


----------



## TB_Wisdom (Aug 15, 2017)

I think it makes sense that Agreeableness and Feeling are correlated.

I think the two entities are looking at a similar thing from two slightly different perspectives, so one shouldn't (in my opinion) put too much emphasis on trying to "score high on agreeableness as a feeler, and vice-versa". 

I can score high on agreeableness. But it's mood dependent, if I'm in the so-called 'Ni-Fi' loop, then yes. May also be due to the fact that of the MBTI dichotomies for INTJ, I score only moderately strong on Thinking (which means that I have a relatively strong Fi) whilst the other three I score almost maximum on.

But overall, I'm probably around average on agreeableness. But it depends, when I'm in Te mode (TJ) and I take a Big-5 test, I'll score low on agreeableness.


----------

