Thank you for the MHO.
by the way Ik some decent guys who think they're not good enough as well.
Bull shit. I spent my entire time at school putting others before myself, helping them out, being kind, not getting into fights. As did several of my friends. The girls treated us like we didn't even exist. Who got all their attention? The same guys that bullied us.Djengis Khan bedded so many women that a significant proportion of the world's population are his direct descendants. He wasn't a nice guy. He was possibly one of the biggest mass murderers the world has ever seen.I know and have known plenty of good guys who women wouldn't give the time of day. But I've never seen a gang leader who lacked female attention.So yeah, you're full of shit.
Yeah, so basically don't be too nice, which invalidates your entire point.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Correction: "Also, here is an issue with the world 'nice' having different meanings. A suitor can be genuinely nice… or 'nice' (narcissisticly self-identifying as 'nice' while indebting the other with 'nice' acts for sex, as thought basic consideration gives entitlement to sex). But, 'nice' here can also mean essentially becoming a butler-like 'yes'-man. Hence, 'nice' guys (once recognized as such) are chosen only after the actually good people are taken."
Being nice does not mean you let yourself get walked over or that you set your priorities aside though.
I'm being very rude but take a morbidly obese girl with a resting bitch face. If she thinks anyone wants to date her she's clinging to how well-intentioned she is... She's dreaming of how she's gonna make a better girlfriend than all those "skinny bitches". Same thing for the guys who finish last. It's not that nice guys finish last. It's that losers will tend to cling to their niceness as their only redeeming quality and delude themselves into thinking they have it in spades when others do not... because they're fantasizers. Losers, you know. They don't actually accomplish anything. They live in their dreams.
Nice guys can even finish first. But the ones who finish last will still think that one who finishes first is an asshole while thinking they're kinder, will do better, etc.
... because while compassion can exist in the strong, it's certainly the last bastion of the weak. People hide their fears and jealousies and hatred and ulterior motives through the disguise of compassion... especially the losers.
I'm not sure if I understand your point, it's a bit all over the place, no offense.
I might have been trying too hard at tact. Losers will always believe they are so nice. Fatsos, smelly people, social delinquents, just earlier I was reading about an autistic guy who blamed legal actions against stalking and losing his job as "bad luck". One of the easiest to cling onto for a loser stinky smelly fatso social dickhead type is to think he's so nice while he jerks off... "I'm so nice! I am romatnic! I will care for her more than those assholes!" Wishful thinking is easier than actual accomplishments. I'm so pretty -- I'm 700lbs -- I have amazing personality! Fuck those bitch whores! They're not so nice as me! You know, like that. The easiest thing for a loser to think is that they're nice, because being nice doesn't require much at all. Even a sheep can be nice.
Oh, you're probably talking about "nice guys" then, not actual nice guys.
The actual ones don't finish last. I'm talking about the "nice guys" and "nice girls" who do -- ones with ulterior motives, ass-kissing types, submissive, shy, something incredibly problematic of this sort.
Yes so basically, be honest and don't be an entitled two-faced backstabber who thinks being "nice" is enough.
Even ones who are "genuinely?" kind -- if they're sheep-like, they have no choice. They use kindness and politeness to win favors, avoid conflicts out of fear. The problem with the doormat and ass-kisser isn't just a lack of dignity -- a servant at least should occasionally be noticed, it's cowardice in my opinion. They're cowards. And of course, a coward will be nice. They're not brave enough to provoke, to disagree strongly. If they like someone they will agree with everything they say. However nice they think they are, at the very least it's conflicting with their genuine ability to express their real thoughts -- which won't always be so agreeable, always be so kind, unless they're sheep or disingenuous -- one or the other, but both are not very good traits. but they will try to find a positive there -- and so they will perceive themselves as nice. The ones who finish last will always think they could do better if given a chance. They overestimate their ability and underestimate their wishful thinking.Apologies if my thoughts are a bit all over the place. I have to work on connecting them a bit more. But you know, I really think the problem is not that nice guys finish last. Some of them really do finish first -- great ones, leader types, responsible, loyal husbands, devoted fathers, take care of everyone in their community (I am not including myself among such great ones). But the losers will always be jealous, always think they're better as far as kindness goes -- envy and jealousy can go a long way, especially when it comes to qualities as easy to achieve as wishful thinking.
I don't understand all of your points so I can't say I agree with everything here. "Nice guys" eventually get unmasked and then they get bitter once the mask falls off.
Cheers. Well, in my opinion, kindness is one of the easiest traits to achieve through wishful thinking. Because if I ask someone objective criteria like how many lives they've truly enriched as unbiased as they can, how many lives they rescued at great risk or expense to themselves -- if we use objective criteria based on an action like this many might find themselves questioning if they have any. Because we have a tendency to judge ourselves based on intentions over actions, wishful thinking over accomplishments. And one of the easiest traits to adopt in the "wishful thinking" and "intentions" realm is kindness -- someone can think they're doing a world a favor by just saying "thank you", as though that's hard to do. So the types who have little in the way of social status will tend to tie their idea of their kindness based on the simplest of things that anyone can do... in a similar sense a special ed student might think they're so amazing because they can read a Dr. Seuss book and understand it.
Yes but I think their are different levels of kindness. Sure, basic levels are easy, just like with anything but I think there are higher levels, but other factors influence that too. You know, everyone can be "basically kind", but that does not mean people will think their kindness will be outstanding or that they are sweet for example. However, some people get to these "higher levels of kindness" and are noticed for it. I think it's mainly a matter of nuances, of levels of kindness. Sure it's easy to have basic kindness, but higher levels require consistency, patience, mental strength to a degree. It all depends how much you invest in it.
From my standpoint, I think courage and assertiveness are more important traits than compassion. Compassion is a bonus after one has those traits. It tends to mean very little absent them. Because I encountered a question on here from a girl who perceived herself as so kind albeit shy, almost like she put herself up their with the likes of a Mother Teresa, or Gandhi, or MLK Jr, or or Marcus Aurelius, or any other great figure we want to conjure up in history... and they're looking too much at their sympathy and compassion in my opinion. These people were brave -- heroic bravery -- and assertive first and foremost. They were willing and able to voice opinions that cut against the mainstream -- at risks to their own lives. So bravery and assertiveness trump kindness in my opinion. There are plenty of sheep who can say thank you here and offer to help you there. That's not special. The ones who speak out -- they're the special ones -- and they're special more because of the fact that they were so courageous, so assertive, the polar opposite of shy and timid and agreeable -- and those are the most valuable and rarer qualities people should be focusing on here
We should not idolize kindness on its own, in my opinion. That's a huge cultural and educational mistake as I see it. Because it is too prone to bias -- it's too intrinsically tied to our ideas of whether we're good or bad absent real accomplishments, absent real changes in the world.
I don't know, I feel like all of what you are saying is just your opinion, your personal taste so there is nothing to argue about here. That's just what you prefer but I don't think everyone share your opinion.
Maybe you're just introverted or not so sociable, haven't experienced a wide enough range to see how people tend to be when they're more fearful, shy, agreeable, bold, assertive, etc. I'm being extremely rude and presumptuous and sort of jesting. I have no idea. You might be a social butterfly. I have no idea why we have this disconnect. Maybe it's a cultural thing?
Could put it this way. Let's have a competition of who is the fastest sprinter at 100m dash. At the strongest arm wrestler. At the best chess player. At the best mathematician, physicist, swimmer, historian, you name it. Then let's have a competition of who is the nicest. And immediately I think you can find some faults with the last competition as to questioning the genuineness of whether people are being kind to win medals or kind for its own sake. And let's even say a dispute is had when the judges award a winner. Kindness is not a similar trait to the rest. It's one of the most divorced from actual accomplishments in my experience as to how people perceive themselves.But I mean no guy who thinks kindness is his ultimate quality is likely to get dates. That should be quite obvious. Because it's an unreliable quality, and even if it was reliable, it's not a hard quality to achieve by the standards of those who think they're the best.
Well, kindness is not supposed to be forced. A competition is forcing something to the extreme so of course is does not work. It's like saying gunpowder make metal things go fast, let's make a chicken cannon. It does not make sense, it just does not go together.Besides, your opinion on kindness is, well, your opinion. I'm sure a lot of people see kindness differently. I think you kind of missed the point of my argument about different levels of kindness too. There are levels that require dedication, even if you are naturally kind and people will notice you for it.
Where I might possibly disagree with your ideas is that it seems to tie in more to effort over outcome. I do agree with patience. I mean I realize everything is extremely nuanced and contextual. But that kind of ties into what I was trying to say. It's very easy here to give ourselves bonus points for effort absent results. And please keep in mind I am not speaking about you whatsoever! You might be a saint -- the best of the best -- I have no idea. I am just trying to criticize this basic idea of holding kindness as our highest value -- and the flaws that may have in society (if only due to the way it will be received, and distrusted), and the general tendencies for those who finish last to place it as their best quality -- when I really think they should be focusing on improving others if they want better outcomes in their lives and stop finding themselves last to finish.
* improving other qualities
If we go back to the basic question you raised I would go back to the notion that nice guys *don't* necessarily finish last, as obvious fro, m history -- the greatest, most compassionate, brave, patient, most willing to sacrifice resources or even their lives on behalf of others -- did not finish last. They made it to legendary status. But the ones who finish last will generally believe they're nicer than everyone else... because it's very easy to do that -- wishful thinking, effort absent results, intentions over outcomes, etc.
Oh, I think I had misunderstood one of your point. I agree that people should not solely focus on kindness but I personally believe that it's a valuable quality. For example, let's talk about bullying : bullying is kind of the opposite of kindness. When someone bullies a victim, the victim is likely to become a bully themselves, therefore spreading this bad attitude. Kindness can limit or even prevent that which means you'll have to deal with less pricks in society overall.All of us are nodes connected to many other nodes, to many other people. Who knows, spreading kindness and love around you might make someone choose to be kind instead of being a prick and that can spread to others nodes too. I think kindness can be powerful, but you must not let yourself get taken advantage of.
If I go in a bizarre angle Adolf Hitler was a compassionate man. From Mein Kampf, if that accurately reflected some of his personal views and not just his propaganda, he was *most compassionate*, so eager to protect "his people" from dangers and threats. He is a Saint if you consider his view. He fought and died for his cause, tried his best to protect his people from the threats. I'm using an extreme example but I hope that starts to click among many chaotic notions. I think compassion is very cheap quality, and it can be zealous, and exploited, and even turned into something extremely ugly. That's just another angle of attack. But I do not value compassion on its own -- it complements other qualities like assertiveness, lack of shyness, empathy, etc, but I do not think we should value it that much on its own. It's really a horrid, horrid, quality to put on a pedestal from my view, since it's subject to proper standards -- again the analogy 100m race -- it leads to delusional people thinking they are doing good -- and from their perspective they are -- even if they aren't.
Apologies if my communication is chaotic. I take overwhelming amounts of data into account. Summarizing is difficult for me. I'm pulling from history, philosophy, anecdote as a butterfly, psychology, sociology, biology, etc -- all to try to form an opinion which is, as you said, just an opinion -- and I'd happily add one poorly communicated! :-D But I've never been good at condensing mountains of data into a few pages.
* since it's [not] subject to proper standards [...]>> When someone bullies a victim, the victim is likely to become a bully themselves, therefore spreading this bad attitude. Kindness can limit or even prevent that which means you'll have to deal with less pricks in society overall.I tend to go by the idea that someone just needs to stand up to them and give them a good ass-whooping. :-D Well, this might be a bit tangential but I'm not sure we can eradicate the victimization of the sensitive and prone to be picked on in society. I do see merit exploring some of that, but I would rather the parents focused just teaching the victims to stand up for themselves, defend their space if needed, fight if unavoidable -- if they lose, never lose to fear. I like these values -- because I don't expect a world any time soon where these youths grow into adults and society magically protects them in a way that guarantees them from encountering bullies and assholes here and there -- in the social life, work, etc. So I think it's a more effective strategy overall to fortify them with the strength to deal with them.I really think that will be the most overall effective solution. It's the least utopian.
I disagree, compassion is clearly not a thing that comes to my mind when it comes to Hitler's ideology. He constructed his ideology out of bitterness for the Jews, for the outcome of WWI and for other things. It was not constructed on compassion or kindness.However, Hitler was surely assertive, not shy. Besides, I think empathy is correlated to kindness to a degree. Also, empathy and compassion are very close concepts too.The exploitation of kindness and compassion is another topic but the fact that these are exploitable does not mean that they are inherently bad qualities. Furthermore, other things like bitterness can be exploited (just look at modern feminism) and there are plenty of way to manipulate people.
Sure, I agree. Standing up for yourself is good, we're going back to the fact that you must not be a slave to a woman. However, I believe that you can also teach that in parallel with kindness. Sure kindness can't win everything because there is no magic solution in life, it's always a combination of things that make you win.
Compassion can take on protective or overly protective forms in excessive, along with spoiling at the intermediary stages. I mean, however, we define it's an impulse to take care of others. If that includes taking protecting them from threats than there's a wide definition of what "threats" means -- wild animal, environment, even people. With a sufficiently superstitious view, people can be turned into "hostile pests", or even "environment". That's more abstract as I see it. The underlying emotion can still be compassion that guides. It's an emotion/impulse. I don't consider it that different the likes of anger, sadness, hunger, jealousy, etc. All were programmed into us for survival -- hunger for obvious reasons, yet it can be taken to excess to extremely detrimental levels, anger to the probably the most obvious detriment when it manifests in violence, jealousy perhaps to strive to outdo one other competitively, etc. I suspect we didn't get these instincts arbitrarily. And even compassion -- which I think can be taken in excess because empathy tends to be selective for most -- people don't empathize with the person typically trying to steal from their family's possessions. They're in "protect my family" mode, which I think is the most closely affiliated compassion. It's more emotional than rational usually.
Sorry, lots of typos in that one. I'll try to clarify -- *taking protecting* -- just *protecting*. I find this site infuriating for lack of edit function. :-D
True, but fear is much more primal and it's much easier to manipulate people with fear. Just look at the news, everything is made to make you afraid of someone or something. Compassion is not as primal as fear so it's a tougher to manipulate people with that. When you touch to something primal like fear, you wake up the animal inside of people, they start to not think straight. You can make the analogy with hunger : a hungry person will do things they would not have done before to satisfy that primal need.Furthermore, some people have almost no compassion while every person has fear because every animal has fear.
I agree. But I think these traits all interact with each other, like fear (including in-group out-group bias) combined with compassion, assertiveness combined compassion, agreeableness combined, submissiveness, dominance, etc. I tend to hold courage or even fearlessness as one of the most valued traits -- partially because I'm just personally biased being an adrenaline junkie sponsored to do extreme sports. :-D... but for the other part, if I can put bias aside (I'm not sure if I can fully), because I think one of the greatest inhibitors preventing us from saying what we really think we should say, or doing what we really think is right, might be fear. It's a useful feeling to eradicate in my opinion to reinforce all other, more positive traits.
It's something I tend to suspect might be a trait prevalent in those who finish last... fear. Some might say self-loathing when they complain, but in my opinion self-loathing is often a symptom of fear... "I can't do this, I'm not good enough, I'm ugly, worthless, no one will ever like me, etc, etc, etc" -- all fear talk in my opinion -- excuses to avoid confronting fears, to avoid picking ourselves back up and try again.
I came back to this after getting some sleep and mulling on it. Apologies for the previous thoughts being a bit scattered. Lemme try this angle:A sheep only capable of being kind cannot get far compared to a lion that can be kind but also not with claws and fangs. That is still metaphorical and vague but the ability to be selectively kind instead of always kind is vital to be a protector and leader. One who cannot help but always be kind will never be able to do much in the way of protecting and leading.This manifests in all sorts of scenarios, but take a boss who is dealing with some workers who are always showing up late and being unreliable. If he doesn't have those metaphorical claws here to fire those unreliable workers, he cannot protect the reliable ones. By keeping the unreliable ones around, he is hurting the entire group of followers who also have to deal with those unreliable ones, and suffer for it. So if he cannot summon those claws and do something which is not kind by firing here, he is not a competent leader and protector. To protect and lead often requires the ability to *resist* being too kind, too understanding, in cases where that is not appropriate and will hurt more people than it helps.So that's one example but someone who is always kind, like a sheep, is going to find himself working towards the bottom -- he is only suitable as a follower, not a leader.
So, to sum up our point, basically you need to be able to set boundaries and be able to overcome fear? So, in the end, kindness itself is not the problem from what I understand, it's people not being able to set boundaries and say no (both literally and metaphorically, "resist" as you said) at some point? Did I get your point right?
That's a good part of my belief, yes, and how I see things manifest. I do think a "good man" can go very far as popularity with the opposite sex, career success, etc, but I would not call a "good man" to necessarily be one who is always kind. He might even need to be capable of being a bit ruthless at times when it is required to protect the ones who follow his lead.Compassion isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it can be incredibly submissive and weak and overly agreeable such as in the example of that incompetent boss, or you can think of an incompetent parent. A "good" parent is not necessarily always nice since one who is always nice could raise a very spoiled child that runs over that parent by giving into the child's every tantrum, and fail to discipline properly -- and ultimately that sort of kindness is not even really achieving "kind results", because that child is likely to grow up into an adult that cannot survive in the adult world.I can keep going but it's not "always compassionate to be so compassionate" if that makes any sense.
That includes the genuinely kind -- at least as far as their good intentions. They could have genuinely good intentions for others but sometimes good intentions can still bring about horrible results. And I tend to think of kindness as kind of a cheap and unimpressive trait on its own in large part for this reason since I think good results should be prioritized over good intentions (ex: raising a disciplined child well-suited to handle the adult world over a spoiled one -- spoiled one might still be raised with nothing but good intentions from the parents).It is not particularly difficult to be kind. It can be costly if the person sacrifices a lot for it -- but not difficult in the sense of acquiring a great skill, or wisdom, or strength of character. And that's where I arrive at the thought that I think people should focus less on kindness as an ultimate trait to acquire. Even the great men who went down in history with the gentlest and most pacifistic approach were not necessarily always kind -- they were usually wise enough to separate good intentions from good results -- and almost all of them were incredibly brave, assertive and capable of voicing unpopular opinions that made many upset, capable of taking an analogical beating and still get back up as strong as ever, etc. They had far more qualities than kindness, and I doubt they were *always* so sweet. And those other qualities are usually rarer and require much more work to achieve than a gentle heart.
I'm not so sure about that.
Well I am
How does that relate to the saying?
im means dont be a pussy... dont put their needs first... dont adjust your behaviour for them... be who YOU are...
Isn't it more along th lines of "don't be a doormat?". Because adjusting my needs and compromising does not sound so bad as long as it's not too extreme or abused.
you know what i mean... compromise is different thing... but to keep everything in line couse ladies are very good at taking the whole arm when you offer a finger...
I see what you mean. Basically, don't forget to voice your needs and don't be a slave, is that it?
give a finger... never give a whole arm...
And then pick you up at the airport when you get back, drive you home and carry your luggage in for you.