I guess by literal you mean conforming to the simplest, most non-figurative most obvious meaning of words?
If so, it depends on the words that are presented to me. I think my innate tendency is to prefer literal, concrete language that doesn't expect me to infer anything from the context, understand any metaphors, or make it harder than necessary for me to understand the communication as it was intended to be understood. But I've had decades of experience in dealing with non-literal stuff, and so it's not surprising that I can take a lot of it in my stride these days, and can even enjoy abstract poetry.
But I can get annoyed if words mislead me or delay me in understanding something, especially if it's important to me that I do understand it, and as I'm quite well-educated in scientific thinking and "good" English, I'm often dismayed at the glibness and imprecision of a lot of communication I receive. Conversely, I can feel a bit like (I guess) a neurotypical might feel if I'm presented with something that labours the point and overexplains it in an attempt at unnecessary clarity - i.e. I can feel impatient and I can feel that my intelligence is being insulted.
So I suppose I'm a bit like the guy who scowls at you for mumbling and then when you raise your voice he scowls again and tells you there's no need to shout, though I rarely express my hostile sentiments, as I know they're not entirely reasonable, and that when communication goes wrong, both the speaker and the listener have failed.
I don't know how to precisely say how literal I am. I'm closer to literal than non-literal. I'd hate to live among people who couldn't or wouldn't say anything literal, but my life would be less rich if they couldn't say anything other than literal. When I'm doing the talking, I'm usually literal but I kind of dislike myself for being too extreme in that way, and it can be very refreshing to me when I come out with something artistic, glib, or otherwise non-literal, even if it doesn't seem quite correct.