> If everyone in a community were high in agreeableness, say, this will feel nice to the people in it, but could have downsides if no-one feels able to engage i

> If everyone in a community were high in agreeableness, say, this will feel nice to the people in it, but could have downsides if no-one feels able to engage in conflict, disagreement or argue for controversial ideas. Can confirm, because libraries/Library Science is like this. What is best for the patrons or society comes second to how everybody in the room feels about a plan and everybody's 'lived experiences'. By far my least favorite part of the field, as a woman who's pretty low in 'agreeableness'. For an extreme example, I remember a group project in my MLIS where we talked for three hours unable to choose a topic because everybody had to be in agreement. It was the stupidest waste of my time I'd ever encountered and they were not receptive to my declaration that it didn't actually matter and we'd not remember this in three years anyway. External validation and 'community' were a big deal to them, so my saying that anything wasn't actually that important was a huge social faux pas. I eventually just left and told the rest of the group to let me know when they figured out what we were doing.