Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

wired.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#31

Post by ryanwaggoner »

forensic wrote: post #27
scott_w wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Speaking of faith, I didn't see a single source or statistic to back up any of the claims you've made here.

I'd settle for a source for this, actually:

A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths

Particularly the "diagnosed" part.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#32

Post by oz »

"Despite the early appeal of the jerks, however, in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys."

There is a meme within the 'manosphere' that women spend their best years (youth) enjoying themselves with alpha males, and then settle with a beta provider when they realize that alpha males won't commit to them, while their looks are fading and their biological clocks are ticking.

If given the opportunity, they will cheat on their beta husbands with an alpha lover. So yes, the nice guys end up with the girls, but only because the girls settle.

With regards to leadership - Leadership will at times require tough decisions. People may have to be fired / laid off for example. Some people are not cut out for that - their delicate sensibilities couldn't bear the thought of firing someone. An 'asshole' would find it easier to make the necessary decision.

"Nice guys don't finish last. It just takes a while for the true value of positive, collaborative leadership to shine through."

It has become politically correct to emphasize collaboration and teamwork above individualism. I'm not arguing for either. I think that among us techies, who perhaps tend to be more intelligent and self-directed / motivated than average, 'strong' leadership may not be as necessary as among, for example, soldiers. War can't wait while every private gives their opinion to the Lieutenant.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#33

Post by loceng »

"the strongest leaders were best characterised by dominance"

I think this too can be viewed as the strongest leaders are best characterized by being able to maintain control / manage a situation toward a required direction; It's of course easier to do this if you want to be domineering, so that would create a statistic that shows more 'strongest leaders' as those who are domineering, merely because it's the easier way to do something - but takes much less and skill and nuanced behaviour and understanding.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#34

Post by jasonjackson »

Shenglong wrote: post #13

Despite the early appeal of the jerks, however, in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys. I really hate this analogy: Once the girls have had their fun, and are old, they settle with those who can provide for them And, although it has no direct relation, it always reminds me of Buffet and "saving sex for old age"[1]. But even then, it's not even always true. I'd wager the majorit…

And/or the jerks eventually settle down in their 40s.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#35

Post by zerostar07 »

gmac wrote: post #29
kristofferR wrote: post #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/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'.

I think it's a good term, given that the opposite is passive. Why is it a bad thing by definition?

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#36

Post by dev_jim »

zerostar07 wrote: post #35
gmac wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

I think it's a good term, given that the opposite is passive. Why is it a bad thing by definition?

From Wikipedia:

Aggression, in its broadest sense, is behavior, or a disposition towards behavior, that is forceful, hostile or attacking. It may occur either in retaliation or without provocation. In narrower definitions that are commonly used in psychology and other social and behavioral sciences, aggression involves an intention to cause harm, even if only as a means to an end. It has alternatively been defined as acts intended to increase relative social dominance.

Not exactly an endearing definition. Dictionary.com has even less flattering definitions.

Passive (or passiveness) isn't the the antonym of aggression. Here's a few that I found: agreeableness, friendliness, friendship, gentleness, kindness, niceness. I would much rather be attributed those qualities.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#37

Post by dev_jim »

Shenglong wrote: post #13

Despite the early appeal of the jerks, however, in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys. I really hate this analogy: Once the girls have had their fun, and are old, they settle with those who can provide for them And, although it has no direct relation, it always reminds me of Buffet and "saving sex for old age"[1]. But even then, it's not even always true. I'd wager the majorit…

But even then, it's not even always true. I'd wager the majority of these women end up in a cycle of jerks. You just selectively hear about the ones who give up, and settle. This isn't a matter of fate - it's a matter of perception.

Women and men change their expectations as they get older. It's part of growing up. Both sexes start to look past what is exciting RIGHT NOW to what is important to building a lasting relationship.

Anecdotally this has been the case for me. The women I personally am interested in dating now (@28) bear little resemblance to the women I wanted to date when I was fresh out of college (@23).

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#38

Post by rue »

zerostar07 wrote: post #35
gmac wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

I think it's a good term, given that the opposite is passive. Why is it a bad thing by definition?

The antonym of passive is active.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#39

Post by ryanmolden »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #31
forensic wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Speaking of faith, I didn't see a single source or statistic to back up any of the claims you've made here. I'd settle for a source for this, actually: A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths Particularly the "diagnosed" part.

There is talk of this in Hare's book called Snakes in suits[1]. He alludes to actual research iirc, the basic gist says the percentage of diagnosable psycopathy in populations like prisons and upper echelons of corporations are significantly higher than in the general population and specifically higher than one would expect when controlling for other possible explanations.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060837721

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#40

Post by olavk »

It is easier to be perceived as nice if you are not in a position of power. When you are in a position of power where you have to make hard decision which have negative effects for somebody, some will think you're a bastard. For this reason powerful and successful people will be perceived as generally less nice.
Post reply on HN