# In which I pit Nice Guys **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 16, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131 "2004-11-16T21:34:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/81 "2004-11-17T23:06:24Z")
No need to quote the whole damn post! The hamsters tire easily… > [@Malthus](#): > > An interesting analysis, but it is contradicted by my anecdotal and personal experience of life. > > There probably are men and women who behave in this deterministic manner. I don’t believe by any means that all do. I don’t for that matter think that I do, or that my wife does, or that the girlfriends I had prior to my wife did. They are tendencies, not physical laws. BTW, I in no wise am trying to say anything original. I’m basing this on what I think are commonly observable phenomena as well as actual science. Now, I may have gotten some things wrong in there, but it’s the scientific _approach_ that I think is key to understanding this topic. > [@](#): > > When I was young and a-courtin’, I had no money, no power, low rank and I do not believe I projected much in the way of dominance. I certainly was not a sports star or anything of the sort. > > I was, however, self-confident (maybe a bit too much 😉 ), reasonably charming and funny. Moreover, I have always really liked the company of women (lots of guys appear not to). I think the self-confidence we’re talking about here _is_ an element of dominance-projection. BTW, most people _do_ end up with someone of the opposite sex if they are trying reasonably. The question is to what degree can someone acquire the mate of his/her choice. So the fact that you got girlfriends doesn’t mean that my observations are incorrect. > [@](#): > > So I don’t think it is all as simple as your theory makes it appear. According to your theory, I would have been a “zero” as far as women were concerned. And yet, I am happily married. How did that happen? You were probably successful within the milieu you were operating in. In college I didn’t drink; ergo, I was not socially acceptable at parties; ergo, I could not go to parties and pick up chicks. I was a flop in that arena. But the guys who did score at such parties behaved in such a way as to succeed in that mini society: they smoked, drank, and acted “cool”; dominance and looks and whatnot (the ability to supply beer being the stand-in for wealth, perhaps) then sorted out who got the pick of whom. Now, had I had much dinero myself, I might have been able to go to such parties and transcend the sociological structure with status and bling: “Hi, I’m not into this childish drinking shit, but would you like to join me on my 40 footer on Lake Michigan this weekend?” See what I mean? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/82 "2004-11-17T23:07:43Z")
> [@passengerpigeon](#): > > I found a problem with your analysis. > > –p So money/power/rank/dominance projection are _not_ factors in how women select mates? ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/83 "2004-11-17T23:13:56Z")
> [@Roland Orzabal](#): > > When it comes to people who are just being themselves, “vibes” as a whole are basically a crock. > > . . . > > Bottom line: impressions like that are rarely completely accurate, often largely meaningless, and never under any circumstances reliable as a basis for judgement. Agreed. All I was trying to say is that if someone is underplaying his confidence and therefore being taken for spineless, _and he has a problem with that_, he might consider changing. I never meant to imply that it’s right to judge a book by its cover, merely that it happens. > [@Malthus](#): > > There is no question that people - men _and_ women - engage in repetitive behavious that harm their own interests: the difference is that the “nice guys” described here end up girl-friend-less as their “punishment”, and the women who get taken in by assholes end up _with_ boyfriends as theirs. > > Neither is good; but on the whole, of the two I would prefer to be the “nice guy without a date yet again” than the “woman suckered yet again by an ass”. From what I have seen, it is less dangerous and humiliating. Well said. Once upon a time, I was talking with my dad and mentioned that I was still seeing the guy I’d been seeing for a few months, but that things were starting to get rocky. He said, “Well, it beats being alone,” to which I replied “Sometimes.” He chuckled and nodded, knowing exactly what I meant. > [@Aeschines](#): > > As every guy knows, women want a guy with money, power, and social status. What a load of crap. I hereby formally withdraw the “watch the generalizations” comment that I made to **Roland** , and apply it to you. All men want is beauty, which you claim is objective, but all women want are these three subjective things? Give me a break. > [@](#): > > _So money/power/rank/dominance projection are **not** factors in how women select mates?_ Not for _all_ women, certainly not. Probably not even for most women. > [@dropzone](#): > > No, but you ARE the one who said > > > [@Me](#): > > > > What keeps your analogy from working for me is that sign language was taught in every class, every day for the first 12-14 years of school. > > I just wanted to say I think you are wrong and that such lessons are not taught, at least in an effective manner. > > > [@Me](#): > > > > Jane Austen? WTF?..The “mechanism in modern society to teach people how to interact” is society. You learn by doing, and it’s an ongoing process. Some people fall behind the curve, is all. > > I am talking about actual in-school training, like you referred to _Now_ I see where the disconnect is: I was trying to keep with **passengerpigeon** ’s analogy, which likened the ability to flirt/date to a skill that was taught in school on a day when some people were out sick. I replied that the analogy didn’t work for me, because the ability to flirt/date is something that is learned from simply living and interacting with others – therefore, it was “taught” in every class every day for the first 12-14 years of life. No literal class or training was implied. > [@](#): > > _However, I also know that Mr First Date does not know your expectations and how well he fits them (or you his) so you can both make a sound judgement before the date whether or not this is a good match. Given some time and effort on both your parts Mr Not Quite could become Mr Right._ So if I meet someone who doesn’t particularly interest me, I’m supposed to invest significant time and effort into getting to know him better anyway? No way – and I’d never expect or want any guy to do that for me. That’s way too much work for a first date. Sure, sometimes first impressions are cruelly wrong (and don’t think I haven’t learned that the hard way), but when it comes to dating they’re often all we have to go by. Which is why I think it’s fine to try and improve our first impressions – not fake them, just at least be aware of them – even though **Roland** thinks it’s a waste of time. It’s also why I prefer to interact with a guy a handful of times in a casual/group setting before deciding if I’m interested enough for a first date (which doesn’t require a significant amount of interest, btw). > [@](#): > > _Not your job to train him? No, but you’ll find that there are more Mr Not Quites out there than Mr Rights and that Mr What Was I Thinking? is far more common than either._ Of _course_ there are more Not Quites than Rights – that’s how it works! It’s also why I’m no female Wilmer Valderrama (who seems to date everything in sight). But it doesn’t mean that every single Not Quite has to be seen as a potential Right. Right? > [@](#): > > \*It’s not my fault. I was never taught how to behave. 😉 \* Touche . . . and LOL. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![malkavia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malkavia/32/5621_2.png) [@malkavia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/malkavia)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/84 "2004-11-17T23:21:54Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > So money/power/rank/dominance projection are _not_ factors in how women select mates? Maybe my hormones are out of whack, but I’d take hot and charming over rich and dominant any day. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/85 "2004-11-17T23:25:03Z")
> [@Misnomer](#): > > What a load of crap. I hereby formally withdraw the “watch the generalizations” comment that I made to **Roland** , and apply it to you. All men want is beauty, which you claim is objective, but all women want are these three subjective things? Give me a break. Oh the ol’ “generalization are bad” canard. First off, I never used the word “all,” as in “all women,” “all men,” and “all they want.” No _joke_, there are exceptions. There are different goals. Some guys, contrary to the majority, purposely look for a rich woman, and some women genuinely wish to dominate their partners and look for a submissive man. But the generalizations stand as highly useful. > [@](#): > > Not for _all_ women, certainly not. Probably not even for most women. I disagree. They are factors for the vast majority of women. Are you a guy? If so, your denying it surprises me. If not, then it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/86 "2004-11-17T23:31:19Z")
> [@malkavia](#): > > Maybe my hormones are out of whack, but I’d take hot and charming over rich and dominant any day. Preach it, sister. Now, I don’t want a deadbeat who will always be asking for a loan. I wouldn’t want to support a guy. But I don’t want “rich.” Hell, rich scares me a little. What do I need with “rich”? Dominant scares me a little too (a little is fine, but too much is annoying or icky). ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/87 "2004-11-17T23:37:56Z")
> [@malkavia](#): > > Maybe my hormones are out of whack, but I’d take hot and charming over rich and dominant any day. As I’ve been trying to say, the “rich and dominant” don’t form a natural pair; that is, one is not dominant _because_ he is rich. Bill Gates is rich but does not project the dominance I’m talking about. I think the “hotness” you say you like is very likely to comprise the dominance I’m talking about here. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/88 "2004-11-17T23:40:56Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > Preach it, sister. > > Now, I don’t want a deadbeat who will always be asking for a loan. I wouldn’t want to support a guy. But I don’t want “rich.” Hell, rich scares me a little. What do I need with “rich”? Dominant scares me a little too (a little is fine, but too much is annoying or icky). “Rich” might scare you because you perceive “rich” as pertaining to a completely alien social class or milieu. Personally, I would not want to date a very rich, high-status women of the Eastern Seaboard Brahmin caste; it would scare the hell out of me, too. I am simply not born and bred to operate effectively in that society. As for dominance; yep, you’re right, I think: there is a balance to be struck. Some women prefer more than others. ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/89 "2004-11-17T23:54:15Z")
> [@passengerpigeon](#): > > Just to be clear here, I capitalize Nice Guys specifically to distinguish between guys who are, you know, nice, and the specific personality type we’re talking about, and I’m pretty sure a lot of us have been pretty consistent at that as well. It’s a Term of Art ™. No offense need be taken. > > –p Sure, I know that’s the case in this context. Actually, I know it in every context. But as I’m guessing this thread isn’t the only case where you or women in general have complained about nice guys, don’t be surprised when the typical guy (other than me) doesn’t pick up on the nuanced distinctions between “Nice Guys” and their non-“Term of Art” counterparts. ---
**Author:** ![SusanStoHelit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@SusanStoHelit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SusanStoHelit)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/90 "2004-11-18T00:07:56Z")
> [@Hey you!](#): > > Sure, I know that’s the case in this context. Actually, I know it in every context. But as I’m guessing this thread isn’t the only case where you or women in general have complained about nice guys, don’t be surprised when the typical guy (other than me) doesn’t pick up on the nuanced distinctions between “Nice Guys” and their non-“Term of Art” counterparts. I don’t think you’re giving the typical guy enough credit, brains-wise. Anyone with an ounce of self-awareness will be able to see the distinction. When the “typical guy” starts wearing the skin of a wolf that he killed with his bare hands and presenting me with the carcass as a courting gift, _then_ I’ll be worried that y’all are overcompensating. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/91 "2004-11-18T00:30:42Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > Preach it, sister. > > Now, I don’t want a deadbeat who will always be asking for a loan. I wouldn’t want to support a guy. But I don’t want “rich.” Hell, rich scares me a little. What do I need with “rich”? Dominant scares me a little too (a little is fine, but too much is annoying or icky). A-fucking-men! I don’t need a guy’s rich, or domineering. And “hot” is subjective. I find Topher Grace from _That '70s Show_ hot-and a lot of people would see him as skinny and geeky. I find Ewan McGregor and Noah Wyle hot. A lot of women see Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp as hot, and they don’t do a thing for me. It’s much more than just being “hot”-everyone has a different idea of it, and sometimes it’s just random. I like guys who are funny, have kind of a quirky, odd sense of humor, are fun to hang out with, and who treats me like a human being. You know, someone who is a friend. See, I think it’s better to BE friends first, and then see where it goes. Most of the guys whining about being “Nice Guys” in this thread are seriously insulting women. You seem to see women as these cold, calculating creatures who are only after your wallets. Who want to be mistreated, and who use men and aren’t smart enough to see the “true nice guy.” Well that’s just bullshit, and quite frankly, if that’s your attitude, then I’m better off alone. No one owes anyone else a relationship. Anymore, I’m convinced that romance is just one big crap shoot. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/92 "2004-11-18T00:40:15Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > A-fucking-men! I don’t need a guy’s rich, or domineering. And “hot” is subjective. I find Topher Grace from _That '70s Show_ hot-and a lot of people would see him as skinny and geeky. Yeah, I know what you mean. I have eclectic tastes. An actor who I think is especially hot happens to be short and bald. (But he’s hot! Hot! Hot!) Short isn’t a problem, follically impaired isn’t a problem. Pudgy or fat isn’t a problem. Skinny and geeky isn’t a problem. There are hot guys who fit into all of these categories. A quirky sense of humor, however, is essential. Another litmus test is, “Do they actually comprehend who you are, what you do?” One guy caught my interest because he actually _looked_ through my sketchbook and was actually paying attention to it. Like, you know, he was actually _interested_. That wins big points. ---
**Author:** ![malkavia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malkavia/32/5621_2.png) [@malkavia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/malkavia)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/93 "2004-11-18T00:47:42Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > As I’ve been trying to say, the “rich and dominant” don’t form a natural pair; that is, one is not dominant _because_ he is rich. Bill Gates is rich but does not project the dominance I’m talking about. > > I think the “hotness” you say you like is very likely to comprise the dominance I’m talking about here. I dunno, unless dominance means having perfectly symmetrical eyebrows, piercing eyes, a nice rear end and a stunningly pretty smile. I don’t think women are as different from you as you’d like to believe that we are. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/94 "2004-11-18T01:37:25Z")
I’m really torn about how to respond to this, as I too am a Nice Guy and you all know just how torn we are about every little thing. I see a whole lot of me in the linked definition, and I am painfully aware of my many failings – thank you, BTW, for again reminding me of a few of them. 😛 Ok, granted, we are insecure in _at least_ our sexual relationships with women, and perhaps our social ones as well. But we are otherwise reasonable, kindhearted, tolerant guys, on the whole. We have a lot going for us, and I would suggest we can be trained out of out insecurity. Of course, I only suggest it because to insist on it would not be very Nice. I suggest this with your next Nice Guy: when you detect Nice Guy Behavior, you say, “Cut out that crap or I’ll dump you.” Mr. Nice Guy will be insecure enough to believe it (becuase it will be true in a lot of cases), and try his best to pretend he has self-confidence. He might slip once in a while, but rub his nose in it enough and sooner or later you’ll both forget he was whipped into it. Seriouly, consider the alternatives. There’s your ideal “fully mature self-confident” guys – how much of the heterosexual male population do they make up? Damn, I’m not even sure they exist except as a theoretical construct. Then there’s your redneck/jock guys, your supercompetitive domineering jerk guys, a small but measurable percentage of absolute geeks, and us. Who 'ya gonna call? If past experience is any guide, not me. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/95 "2004-11-18T01:53:41Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > As I’ve been trying to say, the “rich and dominant” don’t form a natural pair; that is, one is not dominant _because_ he is rich. Bill Gates is rich but does not project the dominance I’m talking about. Considering how often he has made me pound my head against my desk, and extract money from my wallet, I’d say he projects buku dominance. ---
**Author:** ![Carnick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Carnick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnick)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/96 "2004-11-18T01:55:01Z")
> [@SusanStoHelit](#): > > Actually, I’m very happy with my dating life overall. I’m pretty enough that I’ve never worried about getting my man, and if he doesn’t work out there are plenty more. “Your man” huh? Aren’t you the same one complaining about possessive guys? That’s right, your dates aren’t people, they’re just drooling sacks of flesh that are meant to fawn over your “prettiness.” If a guy stares at you funny and seems a bit too awkward for your tastes, hell, shit all over them, plenty more where that came from! :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > What’s that I hear? **Carnick** , hon, if you’re going to eat your heart out, at least wear a bib- they can get messy. :wally Why the hell would I be eating my heart out? Have a high opinion of yourself? Personally, I have enough self respect to not date a woman who displays such shallow behavior. But you don’t have to worry, you’re pretty enough to attract all the Not a Nice Guys you want. ---
**Author:** ![Fionn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Fionn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fionn)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/97 "2004-11-18T02:25:44Z")
> [@Soapbox Monkey](#): > > When is the “right time” to actually open up to someone you are dating? As a rule of thumb, match the other person. If they’re talking about their insecurities or difficulties they have, you can bring up yours. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/98 "2004-11-18T02:37:06Z")
> [@SusanStoHelit](#): > > I don’t think you’re giving the typical guy enough credit, brains-wise. Anyone with an ounce of self-awareness will be able to see the distinction. Absolutely. This usage of “Nice Guy”[sup]TM[/sup] to refer to a passive-aggressive whiner is borrowed precisely _from_ how the referred PAWs will sob about “girls will date brutes instead of Nice Guys”. It also ties in with the older cliché “Nice Guys Finish Last” which is an apparent misquote, and comes from the world of competitive sports, where it meant you play to win games, not popularity contests (duh)… > [@](#): > > In [baseball manager Leo] Durocher’s 1975 autobiography (“Nice Guys Finish Last”, of course) he claims he was misquoted. The remark, or something similar, was made on July 6, 1946 when Durocher was managing the Brooklyn Dodgers. He made was referring to his crosstown rivals the New York Giants when (according to him) he said “Take a look at them. They’re all nice guys, but they’ll finish last. Nice guys. Finish last.” He was quoted the next day by reporter Frank Graham of the New York Journal-American as “Nice guys finish last”. The (mis?)quote of course was later transposed to the fields of politics and business, where it was well received – probably adding a twist of Machiavelli’s maxim on loved vs. feared. From there it hit the general population as a maxim about any endeavor where men are seen as “competing”. In Leo’s original statement, honest observation that a team can be good guys but still end up in last place if the others have their game on and they don’t, it’s pretty much undeniable. Similarly if recast as Machiavelli’s rule that trying first to come across as lovable, rather than as someone to be obeyed, doesn’t work. But of course the problem is it gets perverted into both an excuse for ruthless _meanness_ in business/politics/life on the one extreme, and an excuse for defeatism and not even giving the task a sincere effort on the other. > [@](#): > > When the “typical guy” starts wearing the skin of a wolf that he killed with his bare hands and presenting me with the carcass as a courting gift, _then_ I’ll be worried that y’all are overcompensating. Drat. And I felt so buff when I actually wired a junction box… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/99 "2004-11-18T02:55:54Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Anymore, I’m convinced that romance is just one big crap shoot. I think . . . yes and no. I think a lot of problems come up when folks try to create models. “Women are like this; if I do this, that, the other, then I will push all the right woman-buttons and get me one.” “Men are like this; if I do this, that, the other, then I will push all the right man-buttons and get me one.” I’ve seen people – male and female – wind up behaving infuriated and betrayed when their button-pushee doesn’t react according to their model. They seem to think that that one was defective, they need to find a properly designed one – either that, or they need to berate the one they have into a position where it can be repaired to behave according to the model. This is where I see the ‘Nice Guy’ fellows coming from. They put on this game, adopt the position they’re supposed to take according to the model, and it starts going weird on them when their target woman doesn’t behave according to the plan. Or when it comes across as [fake](http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp02142004.shtml), as that game rather than a genuine interaction. There are female equivalents on this behaviour, who are only interested in guys who conform to a particular pattern and don’t recognise men who fall into a different one as potential partners. (The only piece of this pattern I’m sure about is “makes the first move”.) I suspect that a lot of the frustration that drives people into the Nice Guy role comes from this vicinity – there are enough women who have some sort of expected set-piece mating dance that the idea that a mating dance is some social intrinsic arbitrated by women is not entirely implausible, and the whole “trick” is in figuring out what it is and implementing it properly. Anyway, I think that a large part of finding a compatible partner is in finding someone who one can interact with person-to-person. Adopting processes and approaches to finding relationships that facilitate that strike me as being more likely to work more often than using processes that don’t aim in that direction. The model-building and finding someone to match the model process strikes me as being person-to-model with the hope that a good person/model match will make for a good person-to-person relationship. I suspect this of being errorprone, and thus increasing the random chance factor. I sometimes suspect that I actually got a significant benefit out of being so oblivious that I have no clue how to participate in these supposed mating dances as either party, and thus have no impulse to try to bother with them. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/100 "2004-11-18T02:56:00Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Most of the guys whining about being “Nice Guys” in this thread are seriously insulting women. You seem to see women as these cold, calculating creatures who are only after your wallets. Who want to be mistreated, and who use men and aren’t smart enough to see the “true nice guy.” Not to seem narcissistic here, **Guin** , but I gotta ask: are you including me in that statement? Because if that’s how my posts are coming off, then depending on why, one of the two of us needs to seriously re-evaluate what I’ve written. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131.md?page=6)