Live data from Hacker News

Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

wired.co.uk

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#21
Without having any sort of scientific measuring stick, it seems that when taking averages 'nice guys' (and gals) finish overwhelmingly ahead. I'm not sure what is a good way to measure this race and I find the concept of finishing ahead somewhat silly in the first place but here is my example anyways...

If you've ever been to a high school reunion, you'll typically be somewhat shocked at what happened to the jocks/jerks/(insert high school term here) that were seemingly head of the pack back then.

I find this phenomenon to also be true in the other phases of life as well. For example, Ive had to re-evaluate my career path after getting to know some executives that would surely satisfy the bad guy checkbox. Many of them have had qualities that may have been useful in getting them to where they are but in terms of general 'lifestyle' management I do not envy them one bit (family problems, addictions, etc etc.) As a note I am not saying all executives have huge problems - but the ones who were, for lack of a more friendly term, assholes have not had enviable lives when looked at from a holistic perspective in my experience.

I dabble from time to time into listening to Buddhist instructors and a message Ive been able to take away from those is that cruelty to others is also directing cruelty toward yourself. I wish I had a great logical analysis to prove this but I do find it to be true through my experiences.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#22
post #17

> I'm convinced the professors have come to the wrong conclusion. That's usually the part where you begin citing evidence that has convinced you. Unfortunately, it's where this article ends. I'm convinced this article is wrong. See how that works? If you don't put any effort into backing up your statements, they can just as easily be rejected.

While I can't cite any studies, Richard Dawkins presents some of the theory in The Selfish Gene.

While total "nice guys" tend to finish last in a population of "bad guys", a localised population of "fool me once guys" can, given time, push out the "bad guys", and become a dominant population.

This works when the benefits of working together outweigh the benefits of screwing over the other guy. While a population of bad guys is busy screwing each other over, the fool me once guys are busy working well together, unless they get screwed over, in which case they can refuse to do business again. An outcome that makes it harder for bad guys to keep screwing people over.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#24
Many people think that they're the proverbial nice guy. In many cases, they're wrong. You're not a nice guy because you don't kill people or verbally abuse old people on the bus. You're not a nice guy because you managed to avoid being abusive on most occasions.

Don't let them get away with not defining their terms because we all have a fuzzy feeling of who the nice guy is (me, not him).

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#25
It's a shame that people still think it's impossible to be aggressive without being a jerk, both in business and social life. Sure, a lot of jerks are aggressive, but that's only a correlation, not a causation.

"Nice" is not a positive thing. If someone calls you "nice" it's a sign you should change your personality. "Nice" is what you say about people you have nothing to say about: http://www.joelrunyon.com/two3/nice-people-dont-change-the-w...

To truly succeed you have to be aggressive. You must know what you truly want and have the courage to go get it. You must be confident in your vision and abilities. You can't worry what everyone thinks of you. You can't seek the approval of others. You must be able to express your thoughts and feelings without fearing to offend someone. If someone you hire sucks, you must be willing to fire them.

Kindness is a real, positive, desirable trait. Niceness is just the ability to be inoffensive and anonymous.

It's perfectly possible to be kind and aggressive at the same time. That's the perfect combination, the one you'll see in most successful entrepreneurs. Just look at PG for example.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#26

It's a shame that people still think it's impossible to be aggressive without being a jerk, both in business and social life. Sure, a lot of jerks are aggressive, but that's only a correlation, not a causation. "Nice" is not a positive thing. If someone calls you "nice" it's a sign you should change your personality. "Nice" is what you say about people you have nothing to say about: http://www.joelrunyon.com/two3/nic…

Absolutely agree with this 100%.

There's a lot of conflation between dominance and selfishness. These two traits can look very similar at a shallow level, but are completely othorgonal.

Pure selfishness is when you act without concern for others to your own benefit. Dominance is the desire to win in competitions, demonstrate power and/or independence over others.

I've definitely met many kind, bold, dominant people in the start-up world. These people can both simultaneously piss people off, and go wayyy out of their way to help you.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#27
post #22
post #17

> I'm convinced the professors have come to the wrong conclusion. That's usually the part where you begin citing evidence that has convinced you. Unfortunately, it's where this article ends. I'm convinced this article is wrong. See how that works? If you don't put any effort into backing up your statements, they can just as easily be rejected.

While I can't cite any studies, Richard Dawkins presents some of the theory in The Selfish Gene. While total "nice guys" tend to finish last in a population of "bad guys", a localised population of "fool me once guys" can, given time, push out the "bad guys", and become a dominant population. This works when the benefits of working together outweigh the benefits of screwing over the other guy. While a population of b…

So much faith.

Which evolutionary strategy succeeds is entirely dependent on the environment. Capitalism and the modern metropolis is the perfect environment for sociopaths to thrive, and research on sociopathy shows it is increasing in the West.

The simple fact of the matter is that when a sociopath is discovered, the discoverer will avoid the sociopath but WILL NOT WARN OTHERS due to fear of retaliation.

Fear keeps the sheep in check, and allows sociopaths to move from one sucker to the next. Each sociopath may only get to exploit a given mark (Mark1) two, three, or five times, but then that sociopath moves on to the next mark, and a new sociopath takes advantage of Mark1.

In this way sociopaths in our anonymous, private society run amok and their evolutionary strategy is highly successful. Sociopaths are found in large proportions among those who worked their way to wealth - ruthlessness and a willingness to exploit is highly lucrative in our private culture that has no accountability.

Dr. Martha Stout in The Sociopath Next Door gives the example of a sociopath who lied and blackmailed her way into a position as a clinical psychologist in a mental hospital despite having no qualifications.

Colleagues and patients became aware of the sociopath on multiple occasions, but when they would complain to the administration they hit a stonewall because the forward-looking sociopath had sexually blackmailed key individuals.

The sociopath worked as a psychologist for 14 years before a wealthy and connected patient was exploited and harmed by her, upon which time the wealthy patient's father threatened the hospital with a public lawsuit if they did not pay him.

The hospital administration paid a settlement to the wealthy client and fired the sociopath, but did not report the sociopath to ANYONE, including its own staff. The sociopath then simply went and worked at another hospital.

Over and over again in our society the pattern of the sociopath is that when they are discovered they simply move on to the next sucker.

This did not happen in traditional cultures. Dr. Martha Stout explains how in Inuit culture sociopaths would be ritualistically murdered by a group of men in the tribe. In 19th century America, if a sociopath scammed some people in a town, those people would capture and lynch the sociopath even if they did not engage in strictly illegal behaviour.

This selection pressure prevented the proliferation of sociopaths, but now our society rewards sociopaths and has no protective mechanisms. More often than not, sociopaths use their lack of conscience as a business advantage and rise quickly in organizations through charm, blackmail, politics, and ruthlessness.

We live in the age of the sociopath. Bad people are not punished but rather rewarded at every turn. A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths, and they got to where they are because the good people they fucked over along the way either did not speak up or were ignored and ridiculed when they did.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#28

Maybe it's just me, but the title made me think that the linked article is about sex. (I'm not a native English speaker though.)

The title is a play on a phrase that is frequently used referring to sex, yes, and this article does it to attract your attention.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#29

It's a shame that people still think it's impossible to be aggressive without being a jerk, both in business and social life. Sure, a lot of jerks are aggressive, but that's only a correlation, not a causation. "Nice" is not a positive thing. If someone calls you "nice" it's a sign you should change your personality. "Nice" is what you say about people you have nothing to say about: http://www.joelrunyon.com/two3/nic…

I guess this is just semantics, but in my book 'aggressive' is by definition a bad thing. For the traits you cite I'd go with 'assertive' and/or 'self-assured'.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#30

So I'd like to agree with this, and it might even be true, but it's not a very convincing counterargument. Am I missing something, or is its counterargument to the study basically, "I disagree, because team-building and collaboration is important"?

A "recent study by professors from several leading business schools" is wrong because the author thinks "in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys."

This is the echo chamber they speak of.

Post reply on HN