Nice guys who have been treated badly

Post Reply New Topic

i'll suggest a formula:

being nice doesn't necessarily make you interesting
being a jerk doesn't necessarily mean you are not interesting
being interesting will get you friends and possibly more
this is considerably easier to achieve if you're not a jerk

to take one glance at a person or group of people and decide that they are jerks says a lot about the accuser in question

i'm kinda expanding on Hyperlexian's point but that's cos it's kind of erm spot on...

I haven't been treated horribly but I have been rejected many times in the last year while doing my hands on research in human interaction. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm a real nice guy but I can be very affectionate and caring... with just one person

erm, these things don't always happen to nice people. sometimes, yes. sometimes these things happen to jerks too.
... nice is not equal to sucker/loser/chump...

and it is quite possible to be nice to complete strangers. personal relationships are not required.


they can still be nice. a person doesn't have to be a jerk to run a company well.

In this case "getting turned down" is the actual topic. I mean the most common complaint is LJBF. This won't be classified as "being treated badly" since the woman in question is willing to be friends (and in case of the LJBF I keep in mind that was genuine friendship). But it will be classified as being turned down.

So the question is: how come nice guys get turned down a lot more than others? If we go along what you said about not showing initiative, then how about the nice guys who DO show it but "too late" (like for example not show it for a month or two and then finally get a courage to show it). Why would woman turn them down because of mere timing? Isn't late better than never?




Again this is the question of numbers. Having 70% negative responses and 30% postitive would still classify as "more negative responses"; but in this case the subject will learn that the issue is the taste of a woman in question rather than his self worth as a person. On the other hand, if one gets 99% negative responses and 1% positive, then 99% convince him of low self worth, and every new negative response will confirm this.

Apart from this, if only 1% is positive, then any given woman who was POTENTIALLY part of 1% becomes "very important", hence when she is gone he dwells on it. After all it was his only chance in a year. On the other hand, if one has 30% success then it might be one chance in a week; so if the chance is lost, so what, a new girl will come a week later.

So you can't just blame a nice guy for dwelling. It could well be that he was put into circumstances that force him to dwell.



Look at the word "rules" put in bold. So if there can be one rule (regarding gender roles) how much more rules might potentially be out there, such as

a) If you didn't do well on the first date, you can't get a second date (what if you simply "had a bad day" for any number of reasons?)

b) If you are not confident you are "not allowed" to be with a woman (even if a woman doesn't dislike lack of confidence -- as evidenced by her willing to be friends -- she is "not allowed" to date you because, due to "gender roles" she is "supposed" to be with someone confident)

c) If you have low social status, you are not allowed to date either (and "low social status" is due to the fact that most people are shallow; the woman in quetion is not shallow at all, but due to the "rules" she is forced to subscribe to them, as shallow as these rules might be)
I think the existance of "the rules" is the real issue. I am sure a woman would naturally like the nice guy; but "the rules" tells her that she should go for someone manly, hence she is "forced" to date a jerk.



The phrase "go out of the way" (put in bold) are your words, not mine. The picture I had in mind was that a jerk has a bunch of buddies who would gossip among each other how "ret*d" someone was who attacked the jerk. This won't necesserely be "going out of their way" to do it. But at least it would be acknowledged that there are two sides to every coin. Thats why the jerk probably won't need anyone to try to console him to begin with since his overall social status would still be high regardless.

Don't get me wrong. In my case I would love to get ppl to go out of their way to make me feel better -- especially since my self esteem has already been damaged. I am just clarifying that I never said that this is one of the things "jerk" has.



And bad social skills have nothing to do with "not" being nice either.

The connection with niceness is that nice guys tend to be quiet and so are the guys who have poor social skills. The jerks tend to be macho, and so are the guys with good social skills.

they don't.


these rules are not real. a nice man would not necessarily have problems with any of these actions.


except the rules don't exist. you've just made them up.


no, nice people can be quite loud and gregarious.

In bold

Hyperlexian is right.

Nice guy does not mean quiet guy.

A lot of the quiet guys I know are closet bitchy backstabbers. Many of the loud people I know are kind and friendly.

Defination of nice
•Pleasing and agreeable in nature:
•Having a pleasant or attractive appearance:
•Exhibiting courtesy and politeness: a nice gesture.
•Of good character and reputation; respectable.
•Overdelicate or fastidious;
•Showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment; subtle:
•Done with delicacy and skill:

Wiki'd V
Nice guy is a term in the general public discourse and in popular culture describing an adult or teenage male with friendly yet unassertive personality traits in the context of a relationship with a woman. A typical nice guy is perceived to put the needs of others before his own, avoids confrontations, does favors, gives emotional support, and generally acts nicely towards women. There is an active debate about whether the nice guy personality profile may actually make a man less desirable to women romantically or sexually. Part of this debate includes speculation about possible hypocrisy among women in the dating world: that women may say they want a nice guy but won't date him or have sex with him, and rather subconsciously prefer men who are more confident and assertive but less considerate.

Although women often portray themselves as wanting to date kind, sensitive, and emotionally expressive men, the nice guy stereotype contends that, when actually presented with a choice between such a 'nice guy' and an unkind, insensitive, emotionally-closed, 'macho man' or 'jerk,' they invariably reject the nice guy in favor of his 'so-called' macho competitor."[3]

One difficulty in studying the "nice guy" phenomenon is due to the ambiguity of the "nice guy" construct. Participants in studies interpret "nice guy" to mean different things. In their qualitative analysis, Herold and Milhausen[10] found that women associate different qualities with the "nice guy" label: "Some women offered flattering interpretations of the 'nice guy', characterizing him as committed, caring, and respectful of women. Some women, however, emphasized more negative aspects, considering the 'nice guy' to be boring, lacking confidence, and unattractive."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_guy






Nice does imply being courtesy and polite
Being loud is not being polite or courteous, its making ones opinion heard over others, thus being selfish and rude

hyperlexian wrote


Where did "sucker/loser/chump" come from ?
All I said is "worthless, taken advantage of, let others ahead in line, make others life better.


We are in the love and dating forum aren't we ?

Of course these are "unwritten rules". But there is at least "some" evidence that they are real. Let me go case by case regarding the above rules:

a) Second date rule:

(i) There is a term "second date". And "getting a second date" is a synonym of "doing well" on the first one. Why is this the case? It would have been more logical if everyone got a second date regardless -- after all you can't judge a person just based on one day. So it seems like "a rule" that you are somehow "not allowed" to do it, logical or not. Just like in a tournament you are "not allowed" to go to the next tour if you didn't do well on the first one.

(ii) If you look at this post (http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt9507.html) you will see that the girl in question said she was SHALLOW for having "judged" me from the start. Yet, despite admitting that she was "shallow", she didn't consider the possibility of changing her mind. That is because she took it for granted that "the rules of the dating game" don't allow her to. Thus, she admitted she WAS shallow (past tense) and now because of her PAST "shallow" decision she put herself in an irreversible situation when she "can't" date me no matter what. The existence of this "irreversible situation" in her mind is evidence that she holds to these "rules".

b) The rule about confedence. Anne (see http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt5922.html) turned me down because I was "not condident". At the same time, she was very close towards me (the only reason she distanced away is that I became "too intense"; but if we leave that part out and just focus on the first week of a relationship, we were EXTREMELY close: studying together, sharing deepsets secrets, and so forth). She also said "how would our relationship be any different if we were in a relationship?" The way I interpret this statement is that she acknowledges that we were just as close as any couple is. If so, then my question TO HER is: why not call it a relationship? If we are just as close as in a relationship, why not call it as such? Well the reason she doesn't want to call it a "relationship" is beause of the rule that, as long as I am "not confident", she shouldn't "date" me. But as long as she doesn't "call" it a date, she presumably doesn't break any "rules" hence she can be very close to me.

c) Social status rule Well in my case people never spend 5 minutes to get to know me. Why? Because of my low social status. They immediately see that since I am "not popular" I "dont deserve" their attention.



The issue though is the fact that the "rules", in their nature, are concerned with "what is on the outside" rather than "what is in the inside". A nice guy, on the other hand, is so idealistic that he assumes that as long as "on the inside" he has good intentions what is on the outside is irrelevent. Thats why a nice guy simply doesn't pay attention to these rules. Lets take the first date rule. A guy who is into sports, for example, have watched enough tournaments to remind himself that first date is like a "first tour" and he should put all his energy in order to "win" and gain access on a second tour. On the other hand, a nice guy doesn't care for sports. So he goes to see a woman because he actually LOVES her rather than because its the "first date". He so over-idealizes the love he has towards her, that he thinks it goes beyond any "mundane" things such as "first impression", and so forth. In fact, "first impression", which is limitted to just first 5 minutes of knowing her, looks rather shallow compared to a very long life he envisions with her. So he can't even conceptualize that something as short as first date would have any say on the "wonderful life" he would have with her. As a result he comes to the first date unprepared; he dresses in his usual stuff, perhaps even doesn't take a shower; he might be "too clumsy" to carry out a small talk about mundane things, and so forth. As a result he makes bad impression and doesn't make it to the second date.



Please see the list of the expamples I gave to support these rules at the first part of this reply.



But still the notion of being "nice" and "loud" seem to be opposite to each other. A nice guy knows how to appreciate deeper things in life, how to share intimate moment, and so forth. When you are loud, on the other hand, you just don't appreciate these things.

Tommy Shaw of Styx, to be exact.

http://www.google.com/search?q=tommy+sh ... d=0CDoQsAQ


It's the first thing I thought when I saw your avatar.

Please don't take this as an insult or attack, but you seem to have a habit of assuming that you know exactly what others are thinking or feeling. The fact is, you just don't know what other people do or don't appreciate.

And as for the "rules," I must be insanely good-looking and just not realize it, or put out exactly the right pheromones or something, because women are perfectly willing to break those rules for me. I mean, where do I start? I have low social status, no money, a very quiet demeanor, I dress in very simple basic clothing with little regard to fashion, and my confidence in any social interaction is nil. And still, meeting women is not much of a problem for me. It does require a certain amount of effort, and a willingness to fail (and to sometimes look like a complete fool), but what worthwhile endeavor doesn't?

No such tendency. There is no relationship between how a man treats other people and what volume he speaks at. Some nice guys are quiet, some are loud and some have mid-level voices.




again, no such tendency. Men with poor social skills come in all voice volumes.





Some jerks are macho. Some jerks are quietly passive aggressive. The only thing jerks have in common is that they treat other people badly.




Some men with good social skills are macho. Some are laid back.


You have a lot of false equivalencies.

This can be due to poor social skills. In my case I view myself as a "student" who askes "will the teacher give me an F". So this is not a "backstabbing" since "the teacher" by definition is always right. On the other hand, other people don't see it like that since they view me as an adult rather than "a student"; thus, they interpret my behavior as "accusation". But at the same time this is not my fault: if I see something as blue (see myself as a victim and/or a "student") and in fact it is red (I am not "a victim" nor a student), it is not my fault I see it as blue. The only part where it is my fault is that

(i) I didn't put enough effort to learn social skills which would have helped me to interpret the situation correctly to begin with

(ii) Once I was in a given situation, I didn't put an effort to phrase my "questions" in a way that makes it obvious that they have to do with my own insecurities as opposed to my blaiming the other person

Now, both (i) and (ii) has to do with learning "social language" as opposed to having bad intentions. As a nice guy I am so idealistic that I feel that what is in my heart is all that matters, while learning "languages" (including "social language") is "too mundane" to do. As a result, I make social mistakes that make me LOOK "not nice", when "in my heart" I AM "nice". As a result of these mistakes, I get myself into trouble. This result in my insecurities and I try to express them. As I do, I inevitably mention other people who contributed to my insecurities.

On the outside "mentioning other people" looks like "backstabbing"; but to me it is only about "me" being hurt and NOT about them (I don't care "who" hurt me as long as I am hurt; nor do I care about getting back at them either). Now, i know it is "selfish" when htings are "about me" and not "about other people". But in order to see that I am selfish I have to "see" other people first. If I simply "do'nt see" other people in the specific context of the effect my actions have on them, then I am not malicious either. Just like if I drive a car and I "don't see" the person crossing a street, driving over them is not malicious either.

By the way, the "car" example is actually a very good one. A lot of people would say that if you drive over someone, it is still your fault that you didn't look (which is why these people still go to jail). At the same time, it is NOT true that "bad" people are any more likely to get into car accidents than "good" people are. The only correlation that there is is that "careless" people are more likely to do it than "careful" ones; which has nothing to do with "good" or "bad". So in the same way when the "nice guys" are involved in "backstabbing" it only implies that they are careless and it does NOT imply "bad intentions" at all.

Now, I claim that a nice guy is a lot more likely to be careless than a jerk. The reason I say this is that the nice guy is very idealistic and therefore he feels that social interactions should be based on what is "in his heart" while social rulees are too mundane to worry about. In the language driving, a nice guy would think that since "love conquers all" he won't "drive over anyone" since "his heart" is in the right place (of course I don't claim this applies to driving at all; it is just a very crude analogy). So in the social settings nice guy would be puzzled by why so much attention is put towards how to phrase things and so forth. As a result, a nice guy would carelessly do stuff that comes across as "not nice" and ultimately cause people to say "nice guys are not actually nice". But in reality his desire to be nice was sincere. He simply didn't pay attention to the "mundane" part that is necessary in order to carry out that desire.

I disagree. I think you can judge if a person is unsuitable for you in just one date- especially if they are having a bad day. How does the person react to a bad day? Do they lash out at others around them, including the person they are with? Do they become sullen? Do they attempt to share what went wrong with the person on the date? How do they react if the person doesn't say what they were expecting? These are excellent cues for compatibility. A relationship will include many bad days. If two people on a date can cope well together with one person's adversity, that's a good sign.

Dating isn't about fairness. It's about finding a person you will be compatible with. Different people are compatible with different things. It really has nothing to do with nice or jerk but rather about what two people want from a partner and what kind of person they want to spend time with. A woman who wants a loud man who can be just as loud and wild as her will be deeply unhappy with a quiet man, regardless of how nice he is. "Fair" is not relevent to this.

I was not referring to voice volume. Rather I was referring to how much a guy "goofs around". In fact, my own voice volume is naturally high, which contributes to my social difficulties (people feel I am yelling at them when in fact it is simply how my voice happens to be). But at the same time, I have I don't care for goofing around or joking and so forth.





Once again, I wasn't referring to voice volume. I was referring to how much a guy in question goofs around.





I think you are confusing "passive agressive jerk" with "nice guy". In a lot of cases, there is no passive agression, and the nice guy in question is, in fact, nice. But due to his lack of social skills his behavior FALSELY "comes across" as passive agression (see my previous response for more explanation of why thats the case).



The jerks who treat others badly are the extreme cases. But if we stay away from the exterme cases, then we will see guys who don'ot actually mistreat others but, at the same time, they are not connecting on a deeper level either. They are more into goofing around and so forth. But because they "goof around" in just the "right" way, they get the girls even though they are not feeling true love (to htem love is more like a sport).



But still there is one thing that being macho and having good social skills have in common: both is "sport". Being macho is more like a soccer, good social skills is more like a chess. But still, both are sport and neither has anything to do with what is in your heart. In fact, even the soccer-chess difference might not be as big as you would think. In case of social skills you have to be "fast enough" to "catch" the small phrase the other person just said and respond appropriately "right away", instead of saying something wrong and then having second thoughts. That makes social skills a "soccer" as well, not just "chess". And macho guys are good in sports so they are good in social skills too. On the other hand, nice guys don't care for sports, since what is truly in your heart has nothing to do with how well you play sports. Thats why nice guys have bad social skills.




I never said they are equivalent. I am only saying there are correlations.

I didn't realize you were using "loud" to mean "goofing around" rather than literal voice volume. But even swapping out those meanings doesn't change my response. There is nothing inherently nice about not goofing around. Lots of genuinely thoughtful people like to get goofy. My husband can be quite goofy and so can my daughter. I am less goofy than either of them simply because it's not my nature, not because I am nicer than them. But even though I'm not adept at being goofy, I make a good audience for it so my husband and daughter will be quite goofy with each other and sometimes put on a little goofiness demonstration for my benefit.

This is an example of what I meant about compatibility. It doesn't necessarily mean mirrorring each others' traits nor does it mean being attracted to some template of traits that all "worthy" men have. Goofiness is attractive to me because I have so little of it myself. I need a goofy partner to keep me from disappearing into my own seriousness. I would be incompatible with a serious man. His seriousness added to my seriousness would just be too heavy a psychological weight. This doesn't mean that goofiness is a trait that all men should cultivate because it's what women want. It's just what I want because it is a good counter-point to my own seriousness. Was I being unfair to serious men when I chose my goofy husband? Not relevent. Since a serious man would be incompatible with me, I should not be with one.


For the record, lots of nice guys are fond of sports. My own brother is a solid triathlete and a very nice man. If you get him on a bike he will competitively try to pedal faster than you (and run faster and swim faster- that's being a triathlete) but there is nothing jerky about this. He confines this competitiveness to the sport and will drop what he is doing to drive you to the airport or help you move or whatever is needed- even if he tried to run faster than you the previous day.