It's a matter of culture isn't it? New Englanders have a reputation for straight forwardness. In some areas of the Southeast , a larger portion of communication is nonverbal as straight forwardness can be perceived as rudeness.

Paul Costa (with his NEO PI model of personality), also puts forth the idea that people who self-monitor are likely to be deceitful or manipulative. — Anthony

Did this idea arise from criticism by Widiger, Ben-Porath, and Waller regarding the lack of controls in NEO PI-R for dishonesty and social desirability bias?

Wouldn't straightforwardness be related to impulse control problems and outspokenness? — Anthony

No. I equate straightforwardness with honesty, and outspokenness with unreserved speech. As such, they are two different things, and neither one is a symptom of an impulse disorder, narcissism or psychopathy.

Narcissistic and psychopathic behaviour is generally calculated and deliberate (i.e., not impulsive). Is this a result of greater than normal self-monitoring which compensates for a lack of empathy?

Unless we're talking about artworks, I consider straightfowardedness to not only be more honest, but also more polite. To me it's polite to be forthright and plainspoken--at least as plainspoken as possible.

Culture can be a kind of unconsciousness. If two people from a certain area are exactly alike (socially) compared to two people from another area, I shouldn't like to meet any of them as they'll be automatons, devoid of individual self-organization. There will be those who have individuated , I'd hope, anywhere you look on the globe. E.g. - there are customs of U.S. culture I feel offended by even though I was born here, thus I never internalized sanctions communicating with these norms, even if most people I know have internalized these norms and their social sanctions. There are pathologies of normalcy in the social character that can only be dealt with if one has individual self -information-organization (self recollection). There are subtleties only more sensitive people pick up on in metacommunications and sensitives aren't in the wrong for this, they're more observant, actually (both self-monitoring and other-monitoring). To make another feel inferior is a subtle form of violence: to make a sensitive person feel inferior will be easier than making a thick-skinned person feel inferior.

It would vary from one individual to the next the extent each feels comfortable or uncomfortable being around those who say whatever crosses their minds. Silence isn't only a right, it's antecedent to sound or voice. To be straightforward in the sense of being frank and honest might be agreeable, but then we should ask what it means to be polite. People who lack cognitive filtering are straightforward, garrulous and not deceptive, however they're also often acutely impolite. Noble silence is the primordial condition of politeness. Being honest is to be mindful of the fact you don't know the disposition and sensitivities of those around you: to assume you do based on culture or any other reason would be a grave wrong assumption. Metacommunications are what give people away. There is often a gap between what people say, how they say it (tonality and prosody, etc.), body language, and so on. And though to do or say nothing is also a form of message (in a social situation), I'd hesitate to think of it as the same kind of metacommunication as what is done or said.

Another problem is that so many relationships have control dramas. And I'd go as far as saying none of these relationships are good examples for healthy socialization. What's more, everywhere people compete and compare themselves with each other (such as what U.S. culture begins indoctrinating in kindergarten) is a form of the dark triad. Narcissism and psychopathy are more prevalent, I believe, here in U.S. culture than most would admit. There are a lot of socially patterned defects, but no one willing to step outside of their internalized sanctions to see it as such. I think of Facebook mania. Facebookers love to share their every experience, taking photos of themselves and posting them on FB all in the name of sharing and being social and friendly...but what they are really trying to do is gain social capital and narcissistic power. Not that everyone uses FB like this, it is an example of something fairly unsettling that has become an unconscious aspect of the social character. Selfies are inherently narcissistic, but have made it into normative expectations of most people. Not sure what it means to be agreeable or straightforward in ironic contexts like this.

No. I equate straightforwardness with honesty, and outspokenness with unreserved speech. As such, they are two different things, and neither one is a symptom of an impulse disorder, narcissism or psychopathy.

Narcissistic and psychopathic behaviour is generally calculated and deliberate (i.e., not impulsive). Is this a result of greater than normal self-monitoring which compensates for a lack of empathy? — Galuchat

"Straightforward" is only a word, which can probably be supplanted with a better descriptive label: conscientiousness and honesty are labels we can probably agree on that are always good qualities socially. And before being honest with others, one has to be honest with his self. Making assumptions about social standards is usually a slightly dishonest start, since honesty isn't without the context of truth, which in turn, is unknowable (another's style of consciousness is unknowable). Honesty only assumes not to know how another person would like to be treated, or if they would like to be treated at all.

The calculated part of the dark triad is Machiavelli. Narcissism and psychopathy are far more common and subtle in our culture than the sadist that plots and acts on his devices (psychopathy is more related to Machiavelli than narcissism; some would give primary narcissism a pass as healthy self love...not so sure I would myself, I describe this function as animal self-respect). But to say that the dark triad isn't impulsive? I can't concur. A person that thinks about all manner of things isn't necessarily manipulating others if he never acts on any of his thinking. This uncontrollable urge to formulate machinations and manipulations against others and to somehow act on these deceptions I'd say is precisely what defines the impulsiveness of the dark triad obscenity.

I find it more agreeable to be gayly forward rather than straight forward.

So is it cogent that in the majority of cases, straightforwardness could lead to social conflict rather than agreeableness? — Anthony

Why are these things so complicated?

Fine nuances in meaning make a huge differene. I mean there's a subtle shade of difference between honesty and bluntness. The former is good but the latter is bad manners. Manipulation is patently bad but guiding is good and there's only a slight difference between the two.

To be able to say anything meaningful, it becomes necessary to make these small distinctions. We can't just say being straigtforward is good/bad because, well, it's not that striaghtforward.