A lot of irony in this thread. Guys with low agreeableness not agreeing that the Big 5 is legit..... but they forgot to do their homework.
The Big 5 has been around since the 1960s. It's widely accepted as the best personality trait model in personality psychology. It's not only used in academia but it's used in business by many different types of people - recruiters, investigators, marketers, etc. Perhaps the most relevant is in marketing and advertising where it is used extensively. Big corporations usually don't spend big money on advertising without testing. The big 5 has been vetted. It's not perfect but it's more legit than random comments on an internet forum.
I'm very low in agreeableness so I'm going to go ahead and disagree with debeguiled about not needing to pay for the big 5 test. I don't know about the free test that he left a link for so this isn't confirmed but typically the paid tests (about $7 or $10) come with much more extensive results. It might be the best $10 you ever spend.
![[Image: attachment.jpg39541]](https://rooshvforum.network/attachments/attachment.jpg39541)
Psychology is misunderstood on this forum. It's the science that deals with mental processes and behavior. Game is psychology. The misunderstanding is likely because psychology in academia has been infiltrated by radical left lunatics so some psychology has been bastardized but real psychology is one of the most useful things we could ever learn about.
In response to the original post - relating the Big 5's agreeableness factor with a man's physical size and sexual marketplace value might require some bro-science. Theoretically a smaller man might be more agreeable but I think that would just be in situations with other men, not other women, because larger men might intimidate the small man but women probably wouldn't. I don't think there is much to this concept that would make you want to change your behavior in anyway. Be confident and don't act like you have short man syndrome but we already know this.
I'm still in bro-science mode here.... I think low agreeableness probably has somewhat of a positive correlation with male sexual marketplace value especially in the west where there are a lot of soy boys and over-confidence / Heartiste game seems to work with the women who are simultaneously complaining about the patriarchy and rape culture as they read their 50 Shades of Grey books. Women are simultaneously trying to emasculate the male population while their subconscious brains are seeking men who are even more masculine to compensate. Also, "Alpha" is an ambiguous term but I think we generally associate alpha with competitive and competitive is essentially the same thing as low in agreeableness.
A guy could probably benefit from being less agreeable but I wouldn't overdo it. These personality factors tend to work together so a guy might lose more value if his faked low agreeableness makes him appear incongruent. I think we have learned from our game experiences that you can fake it until you make it, but only a little bit for a short time. I think the same concept applies with this.
Back to real science. Fortis posted a gif of Michael Jordan. MJ is a guy with extremely low agreeableness. You could extrapolate that from knowing how insanely competitive he is but if you've also heard about some of his antics from his playing days then you would see the signs of low agreeableness, such as getting in fights during practices and whatnot.
I studied personality psychology before I knew about game and this forum. Many of you will think this is far-fetched but I'm convinced it is the missing link to game. I've always had this theory but I feel much stronger about it now. In my opinion, this forum as a whole isn't very good with LTRs or choosing the best women for an LTR or anything with LTRs. There are a few guys on here that have some good experience but most of us don't. It's just the opinion of one guy with low agreeableness but I think we fool ourselves into believing we are more skilled and knowledgeable about LTRs than we are. In my opinion this is where personality psychology can become more valuable than our concept of game.
The only downside I see is that it takes time to learn this, similar to game. It's not something you can use effectively after reading a few blog posts. You've got to understand most of the model and not just a few of the components.
The Big 5 has been around since the 1960s. It's widely accepted as the best personality trait model in personality psychology. It's not only used in academia but it's used in business by many different types of people - recruiters, investigators, marketers, etc. Perhaps the most relevant is in marketing and advertising where it is used extensively. Big corporations usually don't spend big money on advertising without testing. The big 5 has been vetted. It's not perfect but it's more legit than random comments on an internet forum.
I'm very low in agreeableness so I'm going to go ahead and disagree with debeguiled about not needing to pay for the big 5 test. I don't know about the free test that he left a link for so this isn't confirmed but typically the paid tests (about $7 or $10) come with much more extensive results. It might be the best $10 you ever spend.
Psychology is misunderstood on this forum. It's the science that deals with mental processes and behavior. Game is psychology. The misunderstanding is likely because psychology in academia has been infiltrated by radical left lunatics so some psychology has been bastardized but real psychology is one of the most useful things we could ever learn about.
In response to the original post - relating the Big 5's agreeableness factor with a man's physical size and sexual marketplace value might require some bro-science. Theoretically a smaller man might be more agreeable but I think that would just be in situations with other men, not other women, because larger men might intimidate the small man but women probably wouldn't. I don't think there is much to this concept that would make you want to change your behavior in anyway. Be confident and don't act like you have short man syndrome but we already know this.
I'm still in bro-science mode here.... I think low agreeableness probably has somewhat of a positive correlation with male sexual marketplace value especially in the west where there are a lot of soy boys and over-confidence / Heartiste game seems to work with the women who are simultaneously complaining about the patriarchy and rape culture as they read their 50 Shades of Grey books. Women are simultaneously trying to emasculate the male population while their subconscious brains are seeking men who are even more masculine to compensate. Also, "Alpha" is an ambiguous term but I think we generally associate alpha with competitive and competitive is essentially the same thing as low in agreeableness.
A guy could probably benefit from being less agreeable but I wouldn't overdo it. These personality factors tend to work together so a guy might lose more value if his faked low agreeableness makes him appear incongruent. I think we have learned from our game experiences that you can fake it until you make it, but only a little bit for a short time. I think the same concept applies with this.
Back to real science. Fortis posted a gif of Michael Jordan. MJ is a guy with extremely low agreeableness. You could extrapolate that from knowing how insanely competitive he is but if you've also heard about some of his antics from his playing days then you would see the signs of low agreeableness, such as getting in fights during practices and whatnot.
I studied personality psychology before I knew about game and this forum. Many of you will think this is far-fetched but I'm convinced it is the missing link to game. I've always had this theory but I feel much stronger about it now. In my opinion, this forum as a whole isn't very good with LTRs or choosing the best women for an LTR or anything with LTRs. There are a few guys on here that have some good experience but most of us don't. It's just the opinion of one guy with low agreeableness but I think we fool ourselves into believing we are more skilled and knowledgeable about LTRs than we are. In my opinion this is where personality psychology can become more valuable than our concept of game.
The only downside I see is that it takes time to learn this, similar to game. It's not something you can use effectively after reading a few blog posts. You've got to understand most of the model and not just a few of the components.