Altruism and the Dark Side of Agreeableness

Trying a bit too hard to be nice.

That smile looks like hard work.

After reading Elijah Armstrong’s skeptical pondering regarding the moral quality of the Big Five trait agreeableness, I began thinking and digging and here is what I’ve found.

The construct of the trait certainly suggests that it’s more than “day-to-day niceness”, as can be seen by its facets,

Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, Tender-mindedness

Looks like a pretty nice guy, right? But this opens the door for social desirability skewing the score. To illustrate this, here are some test items from IPIP,

Believe in human goodness

Cheat to get ahead (reversed score)

Make people feel welcome

Love to help others

Feel sympathy for those who are worse off than my self

It’s pretty obvious that this is the sort of feel-good things people say about themselves. Still, we know that agreeableness correlates negatively to the Dark Triad so doesn’t that give it some validity? Possibly, although these correlations are fairly modest, around -0.4 as compared with the honesty-humility trait of the HEXACO model which is around -0.6.  But more importantly, an average person will probably score higher on agreeableness than a “dark” person and this will yield a negative correlation. But that doesn’t mean that whoever scores high on agreeableness will be a more modest, altruistic or empathic person than the average.


One way of getting around these problems is to look at altruistic behavior directly. One study by psychologist Lawrence Walker and colleagues at the University of British Columbia, examined people awarded for being exceptionally brave or caring. Although they didn’t find many mean associations with personality and altruism they identified three distinct clusters that did. They named these clusters communal, deliberate and ordinary. The communal is what we’d call a Florence Nightingale type who they found was in fact characterized by a high degree of agreeableness, but also of higher conscientiousness and emotional stability (low neuroticism). The second type is a little more ambiguous, scoring high on extraversion and openness. This might be a fire fighter type but it could also be a WEIRD person; Walker exemplifies this cluster with a guy who seems very principled, suggesting the latter. Or it could be a combination: a WEIRD thrill seeker like an environmentalist who will chain himself to a nuclear power plant or something like that. The third cluster is named fairly appropriately since these people score very similar to the control group, but there was a difference in that they scored lower on openness. It’s hard to know what to make of that. Since openness correlates to IQ it could be people with lower intelligence who want to help but fail to understand or contemplate the costs involved.

To summarize, these heroes do not provide convincing support of the association between altruism and agreeableness, although a subset of them score high on this trait.

The Dictator Game

Another perspective on this issue can be found in a highly interesting study by economists Avner Ben-Ner and Amit Kramer at the University of Minnesota. They’ve used the so-called Dictator Game to examine altruism towards different categories of people as well as its association with personality. In this game one person is given money and then gets to decide how much of it he wants to share with another person. Not much of a game in the conventional sense of the word, but it creates a situation in which it’s reasonable to give something but with no real hint about how much. So the amount chosen would be a measure of altruism.

As an interesting twist, Ben-Ner & Kramer had participants (students) give to four categories: kin, collaborator, neutral person and competitor. This way they can distinguish between kin altruism and other forms, like if someone is thought of as collaborator you may give more in the anticipation that this game will lead to the possibility that the other person will reciprocate – known as reciprocal altruism. Playing against a competitor you’d might not give anything at all.

They found that on the average, people who scored high on extraversion and neuroticism while scoring low on agreeableness and conscientiousness were the most altruistic to all target groups. Openness was unrelated to altruism in this study. They also found that the relationships between altruism and the Big Five personality traits were curvilinear rather than linear, and there were differences depending on who you gave money to as well as shown below,

Altruism 2

We have something like two U curves for extraversion and conscientiousness and two inversed U curves for agreeableness and neuroticism. But none of the curves are completely symmetrical so we get max and minimum levels of altruism distributed a little differently with each trait. Extraversion shows a minimum level of altruism at around one standard deviation (SD) below the mean and max at two SDs above it and so on. We can also see that these relationships are very similar for all categories of receivers.

But these categories differ in the absolute level of altruism. Participants showed a clear tendency to favour kin (the blue line) over all others, largely independent of personality. This, as Ben-Ner & Kramer pointed out, is what we would expect given that we are products of evolution and kin altruism provides inclusive fitness. But more surprisingly, participants were almost as generous towards competitors as to neutral persons. The researchers speculate on various causes for this, the most likely in my view being that some subjects are “inequality averse or fairness prone”, or as some might put it, WEIRD and pathologically altruistic.

Behind the Veneer

But the perhaps most interesting finding is the dynamics of altruism and agreeableness. Not only is this trait – with altruism as one of its facets – inversely linked to altruism; we also find that the relationship is almost linear with very low altruism at very high levels of agreeableness. This again points to the social desirability of this trait that I mentioned earlier. It also points to a possible link to dark traits; people like narcissists and psychopaths like to convey a highly likable but unrealistic persona. Criminologists and police officers know this – lying excessively about who you are is a warning sign that the person may be a psychopath or something similar.

Another interesting finding is that although kin is favoured there is also a tendency to be relatively altruistic to collaborators, something that makes sense in view of that they would be good candidates for reciprocal altruism. But for higher than average scores of agreeableness, we can see a unique gap opening up between kin and collaborator altruism. This suggests the possibility that behind the agreeable veneer lurks not only selfishness and a potential Dark Triad personality, but also some form of clannishness. Not the in-your-face violent Middle East clannishness, but a smart and sophisticated (this sample was university students) variety; people who act nice and say the right things but who will do nothing for you in the end because you’re not family. People like the Kennedys.

It will be interesting to see if this study is replicated because altruism and clannishness are such important aspects of human behavior and there is still very little research on how they relate to personality.

And beware of really nice people. If they seem too good to be true, they usually are.

About these ads

29 Responses to Altruism and the Dark Side of Agreeableness

  1. Sisyphean says:

    Very interesting. My Dark triad score is middling for Narcissism and Psychoticism but I peg the Machiavellian-ism right at the top pretty much every time. My Agreeableness is high as well but not super high, in the 70th percentile plus and my Neuroticism is basically zero, with an openness pretty much in the 99th percentile, right at the top. So I am a person who is up for anything, knows how to say the right thing and usually does, doesn’t worry about anything really, but tends to spend most of his energy on himself and close kin. And as I noted in my earlier posts about types: I find the above mix in a lot of other artists, especially the males. It’s almost creepy.

    This is quite in contrast to most WEIRD folks I know, many of whom have spent their lives working for social justice for others while sacrificing their own happiness and/or having no children. The funny part is that these people I would tend to score (as an outsider) as less agreeable. They tend to be pushy and testy in conversation, always looking for a reason to disqualify a person for not also believing in this or that idea, they rarely back down from turning a fun dinner party into a heady discussion about racism or sexism or whatever. Honestly they are exhausting to talk to because you have to treat them with kid gloves.

  2. Staffan says:

    Well, we share openness but that’s about it, although I can sometimes be a bit machiavellian, haven’t taken a test on it.

    A lot of WEIRD people are so theoretical they lean towards autism. We had a famous pair of these here in Sweden, Gunnar and Alva Myrdal both Nobel Laureates and elite socialists. Their son said in his autobiography that the house keeper was his real mom. I guess that’s what happens when the whole world is your ingroup.

    But WEIRDness has mainstreamed over time. Today all sorts of people (even clannish) adopt these attitudes as social status attributes. It’s like when people in the third world have surgery to look white.

  3. JayMan says:

    Ah yes Staffran, you affirm my faith in the understandably rotten nature of humanity.

    Excellent work. Some of these sentences are gold.

    For the record, I believe you are likely correct. This underscore how much more we still have left to discover about human behavior and personality.

    The Kennedys for example, being Irish, would be expected to be quite clannish. Doing more studies such as this – with using peer ratings and experiments such as this – on much wider populations – may lead to progress in this space.

    Here’s an interesting tangent for you. A few days ago my wife and I went to see the new Robocop. A few days before that we had watched the original 1987 Robocop so we could compare with the new movie. Before we left for the theater, I had this musing:

    You know, the original Robocop is a devilishly subversive film for its decidedly non-idealistic, non-naive depiction of humanity. Many (most?) of the prominent characters in the film are psychopaths. Alex Murphy is a classical tragic hero whose fate is the result of his own tragic flaws (commitment to justice and law and order, wrecklessness). Despite the high hopes for the rebirth of Detroit, it is laced with corruption and human vice (“that means drugs. Gambling. Prostitution”). And it reveals that as soon as the rule of law is removed, anarchy and bedlam ensue. A unrecognized brilliant film.

    I think this is an excellent microcosm of the HBD view of humanity…

    • Heh. That would also be the orthodox Christian view of humanity. More recently in the the last two centuries the believers have drifted into Faith in their Fellowman or the Gospel of Niceness, and other heresies. Some of the poison of the Enlightenment, which purported to be about science and reason but somehow keeps getting itself tied up in mythologies of one sort or another. Perhaps that is also inevitable and hard-wired.

    • Staffan says:


      It’s funny that Ben-Ner and Kramer didn’t even comment on the apparant gap between kin and reciprocal altruism for agreeableness. They may have bumped into something big without realizing it.

      I have only vague memories of the original film, but I think I’ll revisit it with new eyes now. Haven’t seen the new one but judging by the zeitgeist, it feels like it would not be in the spirit of the original.

  4. Thank you for the comment Sisyohean. Interesting.
    Generosity to neutrals and competitors suggests two interpretations to me: first , that outside a threshold of altruism, all is the same; one might be in or way in the circle, but there is only out, and nothing worse. Second, a competitor may be perceived as similar in some way, and thus more human, offsetting the negatives

    Pure speculation, of course.

  5. Matt says:

    Rather than supposing that high Agreeableness folks tend to be liars, I wonder if observation bias might matter here? I can see extroverts, who are engaged with other people, but who are also neurotic and low confidence and low agreeableness and untrusting being wary about being judged by a third party. And so behave more “altruistically”.

    One of the criticisms of the Big 5 Agreeableness construct under the HEXACO Honesty-Humility model is that Big 5 Agreeableness, like HEXACO Agreeableness, partially captures more tendencies to tolerance and non-retaliation than altruism.

    People who don’t expect retaliation and spite, even emotional spite, might behave less altruistically in certain situations where altruism is enforced by punishment, while generally behaving in a more tolerant fashion.

    If neutral, competitor or collaborator altruism are motivated by fear of punishment and spite, then if Agreeableness dials down the fear of punishment and spite, neutral, competitor or collaborator altruism would go with it.

    In a sense, this would still be an “Agreeableness is not all good” story. There’s a different testable prediction here though.

    • Staffan says:

      Extraverts are most likely more susceptible to social pressure. They seem to be generally more focused on other people; this could translate to both wanting to look good and to genuine concern. But if highly agreeable people are more tolerant and non-retaliative (if that’s a word) we wouldn’t necessarily expect this to mean that they are also less afraid of retaliation themselves. Variation in this kind of fear, I imagine would be more related to neuroticism. The author’s have a similar speculation (hopefully there is a full-text online somewhere),

      “First, we noted that giving in DG may reflect more than just altruism. An opportunity to give may be interpreted by some subjects as an expectation to give some amount of money. We would expect this effect, if it exists, to be strongest for more agreeable subjects, but we find that greater agreeableness is associated with lower giving. Alternatively, subjects who are more neurotic may be more likely to accede to such an implicit demand; we do find that for a wide range of scores, more neurotic subjects give more money.”

      But this is all speculation. All we can tell is that this suggests that there is a problem with the agreeableness construct. It looks to me as if this problem could most easily be explained by a relation to Dark Triad and clannishness given how socially desirable this trait is and the gap between kin and non-kin altruism.

    • Matt says:

      But if highly agreeable people are more tolerant and non-retaliative (if that’s a word) we wouldn’t necessarily expect this to mean that they are also less afraid of retaliation themselves. Variation in this kind of fear, I imagine would be more related to neuroticism.

      I’m kind of working off the idea of high Agreeable folk having a tendency not to retaliate or get upsets in response to perceived slights and so model other people the same way. Whereas the average Agreeable people who are more suspicious and vengeful tend to expect spite and revenge and so engage in more proactive placation. Neither high Neuroticism or low Agreeableness would be an entirely clean signal of the tendency to expect spite and judgement.

      In Wikipedia’s words on the Dictator Game – “Some authors have suggested that giving in the dictator game does not entail that individuals wish to maximize others’ benefit (altruism). Instead they suggest that individuals have some negative utility associated with being seen as greedy, and are avoiding this judgment by the experimenter. Some experiments have been performed to test this hypothesis with mixed results.”

      The highly Agreeable might have an easy time getting into the mindset that the experimenter isn’t going to judge them as greedy, as their default view of the experimenter isn’t as suspicious and hostile. As such they don’t bother trying to placate the experimenter’s negative judgements of them. (The very low Agreeable might to a lesser extent might be so hostile to the experimenter that they’ll just not bother with any kind of placation and image management at all).

      But this is all speculation. All we can tell is that this suggests that there is a problem with the agreeableness construct.
      Agreed, speculatively it seems like either

      high Big 5 trait Agreeableness people are not actually more altruistic to non-kin as you say, due to social desirability eventually beginning to predominate over genuine agreeableness

      OR non-kin giving hasn’t really got much to do with altruism at all as opposed to impression management and revenge preemption (a la SWPL types making a performance of their altruism to non-kin) which the highly Agreeable may worry less about.

      There’s also the possibility of compliance bias by Agreeable people – “Well, the experimenter wants me to act “rationally” and give less to my non-kin, so gee, I better do so!”. The dark side of agreeableness as compliance to authority…

      • Staffan says:

        “I’m kind of working off the idea of high Agreeable folk having a tendency not to retaliate or get upsets in response to perceived slights and so model other people the same way.”

        Could be, but is there any evidence that people model others after themselves? When you look at minorities, this seems hard to pull off. The introvert hardly looks at others in general as introverted or expect them to not talk us much because they don’t.

        “Neither high Neuroticism or low Agreeableness would be an entirely clean signal of the tendency to expect spite and judgement.”

        No, but both should have something to do with it. Neurotics often fear what others will think about them and the disagreeable person should probably have some experience of his attitude causing negative reactions in others.

        It’s true as the Wikipedia entry claims that the Dictator Game is likely to entail some social desirability itself. But this should add to all categories and we would have a rank order that still reflected different levels of altruism.

        I get your point that the socially unconcerned person would be the least generous but it seems more likely that this behavior would be linked to low neuroticism. Which the study confirms.

        The fact that those scoring high on agreeableness have so little altruism (except to kin) is to me a sign that they are putting up a front. They love you but somehow you always end up picking up the tab.

  6. Matt says:

    Also, another comment is I am curious as to how people were coded as Kin, Collaborator, Neutral or Competitor.

    One trait of very highly Agreeable people might be to treat more people as within their Kin circle, in a natural situation.

    • Staffan says:

      They created hypothetical characters that they encoded based on personal data collected on the participants. They don’t offer much details beyond that but say that more on this is available on request. It would be practically impossible to confuse kin and non-kin, but the other categories may have been harder to distinguish between.

      It could be different in a natural situation, although real money experiments give similar results according to the authors. The only ones to treat kin and non-kin equally in this study are the highly extraverted. I previously suspected that extraversion would be related to clannishness, as a generally groupish tendency, but perhaps it’s the other way around – that their focus on the outer world make them more inclusive. This would fit with the data suggesting Western populations are more extraverted.

      • Matt says:

        Thanks for the information.

        Btw, the study abstract states – “(Kin) classification is based on the role others play in facilitating or impeding an individual’s access to resources needed for reproductive success.”

        that’s interesting in terms of not actually implying relatedness, but rather seems more to define kin as “mutually helpful people” rather than competitors, collaborators (fairweather friends?) or neutrals.

        Agreeable people – they’ll help you if you seem to be genuinely altruistic towards them (and they may have a bias to see you as genuinely altruistic towards them), but feel they owe you nothing if you’re not (i.e. if you’re not a “nice” person)?

      • Staffan says:

        That quote should be “The classification is based on the role others play in facilitating or impeding an individual’s access to resources needed for reproductive success.” So it refers to classification in general rather than kin. They haven’t provided details (although in one case it says “is your brother-in-law”) but it seems highly unlikely that they would provide examples of people who are supposed to be kin but where this isn’t stated explicitly. Or define kin as mutually helpful since that’s what a collaborator is. You’d have to ask them since they don’t give the details on how they classified, but I feel pretty certain I’ve interpreted this correctly. I’ve never read a study in which kin wasn’t blood.

        Update: More details in the comment below.

  7. This is absolutely fascinating. Thanks so much for doing all this work to confirm one of my offhand remarks…;) ).

    • Staffan says:

      Glad you liked it. Your post just got me thinking and one thing led to another. I’m especially thrilled by the idea of measuring clannishness as the gap beween kin and non-kin altruism. Sure, it’s just one study and not in a real life situation, but it’s a promising start.

  8. Gottlieb says:

    I talking some days before who i’m not again, to comment because i need to improve my english, but i thinking about it and decide to return if you accept my comments again, of course. I will try to use minimalistic english, i hope that you get to understand better.
    My father and mother are extraverted, but my mother is very charimastic. My mother love to socialise and love to be agreeable. My father are less agreeable but he is more financially generous. Today he be donating money to more than 10 institutions. He also is very naive. My mother is not and dislike about generosity of my father.
    How i read, liberals tend to be social-empathetic but less financially generous like conservatives. Empathy of liberals (on average, i believe) will tend to be more like ”adaptative socialisation” and less true empathy. Liberals love ”cute things” as ”racism” is a disease” or ” save the Madagascar penguin” but they rarely dedicate your lifes to make something about it. Ufa, at least one good news.
    Minority of liberals dedicate your slogan-causes but with the help of government or state, a one indirect way ‘to help’ and to be acknowledged. I’m not to generalise about it, of course there many liberals who not fit about the stereotype, but i think it is a common sociobiological landscape them.
    Liberals is like the untouchable soldier of Napoleon, energic and stupid.

    • Staffan says:

      ‘The thing that annoys me the most with liberals is how they pretend to be open and friendly but it’s always with tax money – other people’s money. They like immigration but wouldn’t have immigrants as guests in their house, they even pay good money to not have them in their neighborhood. That’s of course a dark agreeableness, but so is the conservative who cares so much about the unborn child but so little about the mother.

      Nice to have you back. I hear you loud and clear : )

      • Gottlieb says:

        Thanks, make me happy to hear it, because today i’m writing without google translate. :) :)
        Yes, is like double standard and obviously desonest. What it is mean?
        Some liberals may be high functioning sociopaths, specially the leaders, politicals and mediatics. The average liberal joey may be only stupid.
        Well, the problem about understanding the liberals is
        ”How alleged smart people like many them could be so stupid about extremely evident things like enormous differences among races??”
        The same way who aspies have stupidity about empathy, i mean, they have very natural difficult to understand what the other people feel, the ‘liberals’ seems have the similar but not equal difficulties. ”Theory of mind” also to liberals (and mostly humans). Always when i read about liberals and see your social behavior, make me remember about most naive humans ever seen, the williams syndrome people. Autism linked to atheism. Williams linked to liberalism?
        I like to talk about my brother who is a ”leftist”. He define yourself like ”anti racist”, but ”only blacks”, he do not have problem to be ‘homophobic’ (and to say depreciatory observations about that), asiaphobic (he to say ”south koreans are retard” when one a report in tv talking about the interesting relation between human south koreans and robots) or anything non-black negative descriptive. He, before to make history college, was a (idiot but…) good person. :(

      • Staffan says:

        I don’t know anything about William’s syndrome but I’ll look into it. The liberal, if we mean the WEIRD type rather than minorities or poor voting for entitlements, is a pretty complicated person. I think if you look at aspie-type people there are to varieties – the cerebral nerd and connoisseur geek. The liberal seems to come very close to the cerebral nerd in that they both share a sort of abstract worldview of ideas and principles that is disconnected from the real world. So if the data suggest racial differences they will disregard it because their egalitarian principles trump any pesky data. The geek is much more empirical and on the average more politically conservative.

        As for your brother, I can’t tell what the situation is in Brazil, but liberals tend to make derogatory remarks concerning groups of high social status, like East Asians. Here in Sweden people are extremely liberal so they will not say much about Asians but they will occasion make remarks about Jews, although only in private. I think this is the basic tribal nature we all share and they need to get an outlet for it, so if they direct their outgroup hostility toward the high-status groups they will bring their tribalism in line with their egalitarianism.

  9. Gottlieb says:

    Interesting, i also see little differences and the classical liberals tend to fit near to ”nerd groups” but more to ”schizoid type”. Well, the neurodiverses are between ”schizophrenia spectrum’ and ”autism spectrum”. Liberals, generally, are neurotypicals with some strong components of the two spectrum, but maladaptative.
    But, i think, if you are disconnected to real world so, you is stupid because the most primitive or primordial concept of intelligence is ”capacity to survive” and to survive (in a human world) you need understand the real world and not only the cultural human artefacts.
    Ideological tribalism is biocultural subjectivism and ilogical by nature.
    Well, jews are also one of the sacred cows of ”politically correct”. The own politically correct is a verbal jewish invention, see ”Frankfurt School”.
    Liberalism is equal religions and cultures, is not the logical reason to follow it, all abstract collectivist human inventions are excuses to conform, cooperate and mate.
    When i talk about the jews to my leftoid brother he talk about holocaust or ”jews are successful because only your talent” (us know that is not only because your talent, well, manipulation also is a kind of mental talent). The politically correct is specially anti-white and anti-western. It is your heart. he was created specially to this function. But, jews are also caucasoids. In africa all of non-blacks are yellow man. This kind of observational ethnoparticularism is more common in whites or asians, to blacks all of us are the same.

    • Gottlieb says:

      ‘HE’, mister Politically Correct, lol, sorry!!!

      Other thing who i have noted about liberal thinking. They simply do not know thinking about more than 2 correlations. Well, it also should be very common in bubblical people (religious people). First, your natures find the most fittest culture to follow (to conform, to cooperate and specially, to mate and procreate). Second and the last, we pass to defend our chosen life style.
      The incapacity to correlate more than two ideas or thoughts to me relate directly with stupidity. My brother again, he accept all of facts and factoids of history liberal or leftist version, without distrut about anything, like sacred bubble (byble) to very religious people. I can interpret it like ” different way to see the world” or simply ” stupidity ”. We are many times try to understand why liberals are so naive because part of assumption that they are smarter, but do not see the reality is not smarter anywhere, is primarily dumb. They are good like average conservative (moderate specially) in technical things, like my brother, a good technician of knowledge, but the knowledge work like a way to socialise and be identified by your tribe.
      Today the majority of academics, specially in humanities, are liberals or leftists. Yes, to you get a college or plus degree diploma is partially necessary intelligence but specially, fit integrally with the system. If you have smartness to understand it, you will your diploma and social prestige.

    • Staffan says:

      They’re not stupid in IQ and that has a lot of good outcomes attached to it. But they are stupid in a more long-term darwinian sense. What we have seen since the start of Enlightenment may well be over soon. It’s hard to say what happens after that, but liberal immigration is liberal suicide. I can see this here in the town of Malmö which has 10 percent Muslims who are harassing Jews to leave; then other smart people leave. But the same politics apply in all of Northwestern Europe, so soon there will be no where to run. Then what? This is also a similarity with autism – they are intellectually productive but they often need someone to take care of them.

      Jews, at the risk of sounding PC, are not only clannish and manipulative but also, as your brother says, smart, and smart people deserve success. And some are just proud to be Jews in a fully respectable way. Others are very similar to regular White liberals – with irrational guilt and all. And some are as good as you could ever wish for, So it’s a very mixed picture.

      • Gottlieb says:

        What you say now is very interesting and i alredy was noted about the ”white liberal” phenotypes and its similarities than ”ashkenazi behaviour phenotype”. Well, i’m not say ”smart people does not deserve success” and yes, like Luke Lea say in Hbd Chick, i note

        ”Intelligence is not the half . I was thinking about the variations among the Jews the next day , as they tend to extremes of personality, as if each trait has a normal distribution (there may be very few ) seems to have a wider spread (larger standard deviation ) with them . Thus , they produce both saints and sinners in abundance , worship and vulgar gentleman, super- hyper – modist and selfish , modest and embarassingly Narcissitic universalist , ethnocentric and cosmopolitan , highly intelligent and ( believe it or not , I met some ) incredibly stupid, and when you add it all up you see Mark Twain ( he was ) was right : ? Ashkenazi ( because it’s really them that we are talking about – I subscribe to Ashkenazi hypothesis *) are no better or worse than any other group, only more . I was also thinking that , of course , Jesus was Jewish . No one but a Jew could be that crazy .

        Ashkenazi hypothesis : that it’s really just the Ashkenazi and non-Jews in general, who bear the burden of the Jewish religion . The history of the Hebrew people is one of division and , yes , betrayal : gypted his brother Jacob , Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery , the ten tribes of Israel had a quarrel with the other two tribes ( from which ” the Jews ” down ) and, more recently , the Ashkenazi are now leaving the other branches behind. Anyway , are those incredibly wide spread in their normal Ashkenazi – including a lot of Jews mediocraties ” how really smart sometimes disparagingly refer to the average Jew, which is still quite talented in relation to mean any group.

        Oh , well, I hope nobody accuses me of anti – Semitism because I ‘m not . I love Vermont senator ( what’s his name ? ) , But hate the MIT linguist (what’s his name? ) ; How Irving senior Krystal but hate Dershowitz , etc , etc , etc. It’s all about extremes.”

        … but i got to be honest and sincere, nobody is perfect..
        Well, machiavelian people do not deserve success, if we want the better brave world.
        When i see the jews i see many neurodiverses types, sociopaths, narcisistics, borderline, schizotypes, autistic types, extremely normal type and extremely empathetic types, like the comment of Luke Lea. Nothing wrong about that, contrary, very interesting and explain many things.
        But liberal people and many jews turn yourselves dangerous people who want destroy insanely our way of life and exposed their family, friends and us, neutral people, to very danger. They will not rest while not achieve their desilusional dreams and it can’t to continue…
        I believe that many jews on fact are liberals, but many others aren’t liberals by heart but by ethnic opportunities, it is obvious to perceive. Your example does not prove that many jews aren’t energically work to dispose white people in everywhere. It is not moral, sorry.
        But i see many jews here in hbd, slightly good to see, i see many jews who are totally friendly with real and total truth about the last century events and today, they are also energically to defend your cause, very good. Ashkenazi jews does should not hate whites, they are brothers, they work better together. Differents kinds of genius between them. I like the ashkenazi personality intensity, i feel like that, but arabs are rights about Israel-Palestina stuff. Israel should be continue to exist and respect the rights of palestinian people.
        I really not in love with ”liberals”, i tired to try explain hbdthings to my brother, really tired. For me, the incapacity to see the reality is the worst stupidity.

      • Staffan says:

        It’s possible that they are more extreme; I don’t think there is any research on that. People seem more interested in their intelligence than their personalities or special abilities. And yes, liberals are unrealistic and that’s a form of stupdidity. But their autism-like intellectualism also created the Enlightenment. Which enables us to talk about these matters from opposite sides of the Atlantic – and speak relatively openly about controversial issues. For all their smarts, the Ashkenazi had no part in that, not that I know of anyway. Of course today liberalism is mainstreaming and has become a social status marker. They will say and do what they think will impress others – eat organic food, read obscure poetry etc. In the old days you would just buy a Mercedes and be done with it : )

        While I’m at it, do you have a link to that comment by Luke Lea?

  10. […] Altruism and the Dark Side of Agreeableness – “[B]eware of really nice people. If they seem too good to be true, they usually are.” – from staffan. […]

  11. Gottlieb says:

    How you say, the liberalism or iluminism turn mainstream and suffer by dysgenic processes today. This historical development may happens in all abstract cultural human constructions. First, you have a cultural elite. Second, you take ”body” of collaborators and the last, you popularise the movement. More quantity, less quality.

    Jews always participated of the aristocratic and intelectual european developments but without the enormous preponderance today.
    Sorry but i not remember where in Hbd Chick blog i read and annonate this comment of Luke Lea.

    Of course, jews is not was the most important brains responsible to iluminism movement of XVIII and XIX but ‘they’ are the creators of neo-iluminism (frankfurt school) and used the terminal period of the same to impose your ethnicultural agenda.. I don’t see the modern iluminism like a degeneracy of old iluminism (like culture), but i could see it in modern iluminists (population) ,quality to quantity . On fact, the individual liberties was the ”next” step to development of culture of iluminism and was it that was made by jews. So they anticipate cultural changes in West to impose your ethnic agenda AND your way of life, a one world without religion (majority of ashkenazi are or atheist or agnostics and the jewishness work like group identification like religion), without rigid moral principles (secular jews are overepresentated in ”weird” movements, both the creation and the individual participation) or fluid and contextual moral principles, immigration like nomadism, the historical jewish way of life and metaphoric thinking like abstract art, mixed race, like result of nomadism. All is about the jewish nature and not only about ”jewish ethnic agenda”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers

%d bloggers like this: