This quote suggests that agreeableness, or the quality of being pleasant and likable, is a form of symmetry, or balance. However, unlike beauty, whose rules are often dictated by societal standards and can be quantified to some extent, the rules that govern agreeableness are not clearly defined or universally agreed upon. This is because agreeableness is largely subjective and can vary greatly from one person or culture to another.
The word ‘symmetry’ is particularly interesting in this context as it implies a balance or harmony in one’s character traits. It suggests that being agreeable involves a certain equilibrium between different aspects of personality, such as kindness, patience, understanding, and humility. Yet, the ‘rules’ or the right mix of these traits that makes someone agreeable are unknown and can be elusive.
Applying this to today’s world, we can see that what is considered agreeable can vary widely depending on the context. For example, in a professional setting, assertiveness and decisiveness might be valued, while in a personal relationship, empathy and patience might be more appreciated. Therefore, it becomes important to strike a balance that aligns with the specific situation or cultural context.
In terms of personal development, this quote can be interpreted as a call to understand and cultivate our own unique form of agreeableness. Since the ‘rules’ are unknown, it is up to each individual to discover their own balance and symmetry, rather than conforming to societal standards. This could involve introspection and self-awareness to recognize and develop the traits that make us likable and pleasant to be around, while also respecting our authentic selves.
Furthermore, the quote could also be seen as a reminder that agreeableness, like beauty, should not be the sole determinant of a person’s worth. Just as beauty standards can be superficial and limiting, so too can an overemphasis on agreeableness lead to a suppression of individuality and authenticity.
