Search Results: being more aggressive

Just doing some thinking after I read some stats about how disagreeable, aggressive men earn up to 18% MORE annually then agreeable "nice" men.

While this doesn't surprise me, it does depress me. I'm a recovering "beta". Although I'm very athletic, driven and moderately successful (6 digit income) I've always been known as the "nice guy".

I always detested this label and did things to toughen my image. This included becoming a pro fighter and also being sexually promiscuous (at least 35 women... more if I didn't have guilt spiritually). However as I got older I tried to realized some of "macho" actions were just immature/stupid. I needed to grow up. But I still struggle with work conflicts and negotiating. I can be disagreeable but I try to see someone's side before blurting out whatever hits my mind. I always look for the "3rd alternative" middle ground with people. I won't just give in to what they want (if their my boss I'll eventually quit) but I'll take a moment to see their side.

However I sometimes wonder if my "peacemaker" mentality is really a euphemism for passiveness. I do have some family members (deceased grandfather, uncle) who have also been given this horrible label. I can remember in early childhood having desire to "get along with everybody" and avoid fights/conflict. My parents didn't raise me to be like this (both are very confrontational) and I don't want to be like this either... so I wonder. Did I inherit the "nice guy" gene. Sounds like a cop out but I've never seen any research article about this.

I believe that Occam's Razor and Hanlon's Razor very much apply to the Starling case in Baton Rouge.

From the video I saw, the officers were reaching for a taser, but grabbed a real gun instead. The officer was in such a mad dash to shoot, that he shot the wrong weapon before realizing what he was firing off.

But after realizing he'd fired off the wrong weapon, he then shot Starling a second time. And the other officer, without hesitation, fired off two more bullets.

Starling was not a drug-addled monster, like Trayvon or Brown. He was clearly confused and in shock, not aggressive like those two media darling thugs. He wasn't stealing, stalking, assaulting, or anything. He was being pinned down... over a broken tail light!

When I had a tail light that didn't work in 2006, all I got was a fix-it ticket. Pulling Starling out and terrorizing him like that implies bad police training from the get-go.

And while I could forgive the first shot, they knew they had him after that shot, and that they didn't need any further bullets to subdue him. Instead, they fired off three more - including one into his head.

That's not self-defense. That's not subduing of an unruly suspect. That's murder. They screwed up, as was evident from their swearing in a tone of frustration and embarrassment. They shot him dead, so he couldn't sue / testify.

It's a cowardly cover-up after they know they'd dun-goofed. Many want to project racism onto it. I say, it's not even necessary. Those two officers were just plain cowards, period.