Is being passive good? Is being aggressive bad?

Question

Is there a way of being/thinking/acting, which is neither passive or aggressive?

Answer 1

Yes, it's called considerate.

Be kind. Be fair. Be strong. In that order and you'll be fine.

Answer 2

Being passive is neither good nor bad. As being aggressive isn't good or bad either. Be passive and you don't get into trouble -that's good. Be passive and you won't achieve your goals -that's bad. Be aggressive and you get what you want most of the time -that's good but by being aggressive you can hurt a lot of people and make lots of enemies -not good. Therefore, the way to be is to have a balance in being passive and aggressive. Always use discretion and do what your conscience will allow you to live with.

Answer 3

It depends: there is a very interesting article on salon.com at the moment talking about an unemployed couple whose passivity and lack of will to investigate and find out about the world leads them to neglect opportunities. Passivity can lead to a kind of unreflecting disinterest which is not good. Aggression can lead to curiosity, the need to investigate, to test oneself against new ideas, new literature and new thinking. You'd much rather know a dynamic person than someone who just let everything wash over them. On the other hand as the earlier commenter said too much aggression can lead to violence, to elbowing people out of conversations. So in a way what you are left with is a golden mean being the best thing- aggressive enough to want to go out there and learn and say things which are interesting- passive enough to tolerate others. There is in reality no ideal balance as there is no ideal human but don't privilege one quality over the other: passivity can be just as bad as aggression.
http://gracchii.blogspot.com

Answer 4

You don't want to be either all the time. The best is to have a balance, being assertive. You are not overly aggressive, but you are not a push-over either.

If you are overly aggressive, you will alienate others and make a fool of yourself. If you are overly passive, you will become like a doormat for everyone to step on, and will be taken advantage of by others. Both ways, it is not in your best interest to be either extreme.

Many people don't exactly know what being assertive means... some equate it with being obnoxious, which is not true. I take it to mean acting in one's best interests, and acting in such a manner as the situation calls for. Strike when the iron is hot, but back off and wait when it is not, I say.

Answer 5

The act of being either agressive or passive is niether good or bad,as each state must rely on the other because for one to exist so must the other. ying yang, up down, left right, white and black, day and night. There are many cases in which a passive additude can cause destruction, pain, heartbreak, etc just as there are also many cases of a more positive outcome. There are benefits and penalties on either side of the coin The trick is in the balance

Answer 6

You have to have a good balance of both and look at the situation. There are times when being passive is the right thing to do and there are other times when you need to be aggressive.

Answer 7

Yes, and No, it depends on the situation, but being entirely either is never good, and, yes, there is a way to be neither, or both, depending on the way u think of it.

take this example:

You know of a local X dealer who secretely laces his **** with PCP to sell it for more, as much as you know it isn't your problem and don't want to get involved, if you're entirely passive, that dealer will probably kill a couple people in the process of trying to get himself rich, so u have a repsonsibility not to be passive and say something about it, but at the same time outright agression is stupid as well, so u find a mean, probably best to warn people away from him, and if he's reasonable, and doesn't carry weapons, to ask him to quit lacing **** cause It'll hurt people, most conflicts arise out of ignorance, and missunderstandings, if you acknowledge they exist, and point them out, conflicts normally resolve themselves without the use of force, but otherwise, reactive agression is actually the better of the two.

Answer 8

Well its never good to just ignore your feelings, and swallow the thing that is irritating you. But there are some times when direct anger or criticism is not likely to be productive, or may even be dangerous to you. I those rare cases, a silient retreat may be the best path. You can always think it over in bed that night and try and think of some better way to handle the situation. Passive Aggressive is never the best way to go.

Answer 9

Yes, one who has an opened mind and is able to look at different perspectives are able to climb higher than those who are just passive or aggressive.
Those who are passive never get things done and those who are aggressive get things done, but hurt others in the process.
But someone who is able to go in between the two will rise quicker and stay there.

Answer 10

being passive to the point that you are walked on is not good but being passive because you know the difference between what is important and what is not is good.....being aggressive to the point that you are stepping on people is not good but being aggressive to acheive a goal that requires this type of assertion is good...
i guess the in between would be passive/aggressive

Answer 11

Yes. Assertive is the happy median.

"A person communicates assertively by not being afraid to speak his or her mind or trying to influence others, but doing so in a way that respects the personal boundaries of others. They are also willing to defend themselves against aggressive incursions."