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

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#41

Post by klochner »

I encourage everyone to actually read the paper. The conclusion is that people want leaders and group members who put the interests of the group first (not a shocking conclusion):

https://student-3k.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiadoc/WP/2011-E34.pdf

It was pretty badly misinterpreted by the "nice guys finish first" post, and we're heaping more layers of misinterpretation on top of that.

For example, the study found that people who contributed to the group at the expense of outsiders (perceived as medium-dominance) fared better in leader elections than the more "dominant" individuals who kept all resources for themselves.

The group-minded individuals also were less likely to be voted out of the group than the "pure-dominant" individuals.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#42

Post by rhizome »

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…

Sure, a lot of jerks are aggressive, but that's only a correlation, not a causation.

That's nice in theory, but there are a lot of people with dysfunctional upbringings for whom "jerks" provide the only role models for success.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#43

Post by kstenerud »

jasonjackson wrote: post #34
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.

I've not seen this in the jerks I know.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#44

Post by kstenerud »

klochner wrote: post #41

I encourage everyone to actually read the paper. The conclusion is that people want leaders and group members who put the interests of the group first (not a shocking conclusion): https://student-3k.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiadoc/WP/2011-E34.pdf It was pretty badly misinterpreted by the "nice guys finish first" post, and we're heaping more layers of misinterpretation on top of that. For example, the study found that people w…

Which would make sense, since the led people want stability, and cannot count on stability with a leader who takes at their expense. Taking at the expense of outsiders, however, is not going to directly destabilize their lives.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#45

Post by forensic »

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.

Not a single source? Can you read? I cited an extensively researched book by an academic. I mentioned Dr. Martha Stout on multiple occasions. RTFA you tool.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#46

Post by vidarh »

thewisedude wrote: post #19

Really? He is saying that Venture Capitalism will eventually reward the nice guys becuase of a somewhat similar analogy in school (the dating analogy)? He should have started the article with "I hope.." or "I feel ".

It's important to keep in mind that success in venture capitalism is to a large extent driven by deal flow.

You can be the perfect guy in every other respect and still never make it if you never get to see the good opportunities.

If you either remain a total unknown, or get a reputation for being horribly unfair to founders, it will likely eventually come back to bite you. That doesn't mean you should be a pushover, though.

In a way that means this article is really self-serving. Whether or not he's a nice guy, writing about how he wants to be nice is likely good for his deal flow.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#47

Post by kstenerud »

JesseAldridge wrote: post #18

The linked study is a lot more interesting than this article: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.h... Some choice excerpts: "Our findings show that people want respectable and admired group members to lead them at times of peace, but when 'the going gets tough' they want a dominant, power-seeking individual to lead the group," "...sharing one's resources with both in-group members and outsider…

"Our findings show that people want respectable and admired group members to lead them at times of peace, but when 'the going gets tough' they want a dominant, power-seeking individual to lead the group,"

They want a stable leader during peacetime and a victorious leader (who will bring back stability by defeating the enemy) during wartime.

"...sharing one's resources with both in-group members and outsiders had the most dire net outcomes on a person's status. The researchers discovered that universal generosity decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance compared with those who shared resources only with members of their group."

Sharing with outsiders increases the power of outsiders at the cost of the power of the group. Historically, that leads to destabilization as the now-more-powerful outsiders could supplant the group, or the now weakened group could be attacked by an existing enemy.

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#49

Post by ricefield »

dev_jim wrote: post #36
zerostar07 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It really depends. You can be forceful in getting your work done. You can be hostile towards procrastination. You can be attacking big problems. Ultimately, its just a characterization of behavior. I think context and where that attitude are directed have more bearing on whether its 'positive' or 'negative.'

Re: Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

#50

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN