3 ms·
>Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. To whistleblow against a very powerful organisation, like the NSA, yo
by southernplaces7 4y ago
>Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. To whistleblow against a very powerful organisation, like the NSA, you have to be a pain in the ass. I don't mean that in a bad way. Normal sociable people just don't do that.
You're making way too simplistic a generalization here. Some sociable people can be sociable and friendly with a group until that group changes and they decide that it no longer fits their morality. They can still be contrarians, and then make waves anyhow. You absolutely don't have to be an introverted, hard nosed loner to end up being a whistleblower or contrarian troublemaker. This sounds a bit more like wishful fantasy for people who are socially inept trying to paint it as more noble.
If anything, a sociable, open person is more likely to have the kind of self assured personality that makes them decide it's not a problem to disagree among their peer group whenever it becomes necessary. Read more history, it's full of troublemakers who were also sociable.
- andirk 4y agoA very social person is probably less likely to speak out against their peers because they have become friends with them and their power somewhat lies in those people liking them.
- jiggywiggy 4y agoI also think it's part of their character to be agreeable, not just that they are friends.
- andirk 4y agoGood mention. Recently I was saying a gal I know's friends are "all yes men" when they discuss personal issues w/ each other. I was suggested a better term is that they are "supportive". Same thing, but yeah, they just agree with the person. Critical thinking takes a back seat to making the other person feel validated.