Category: Let's talk
Its a simple question, or set of them.
1. in your opinion, do nice guys finish last?
2. Do you believe that excluding criminal situations, a social agent exists in
society capable of equaling the balance back out?
3. what is the value of morality in these situations, compared to the benefits
potentially gained by casting some aspects of such aside?
I've just been noticing a lot of interesting trends in life. and thus, I started
pondering these questions.
wowww... I honestly don't understand your questions. Who finishes what?
When? I"m sorry maybe my state of sleeplessness prevents me from analyzing
the questions, so be back later.
I really should get some coffee before tackling this, but---
Yeah, generally nice guys finish last.
It's like the old question "does it rain more on the just or the unjust?"
Answer: "on the just because he has given his umbrela to someone who needs it worse."
Bob
guys, OP, or people in general?
is this a romantic question or across the spectrum topic?
Hmm. Very interesting questions, though I think more elaboration on 2 and 3 would be in order. As for nice guys/people finishing last, I think it’s more convoluted than it might first appear. Doormats often finish last. If you don’t stand up for yourself, you will probably finish last. If you don’t tell people no at some point in time, you’re gunna not only finish last, but build up resentment. But I think often bullies ultimately finish last. I’ve known some in my family, and you know what? In the end, they went away from this world unmourned and unloved. One of my grandfathers was a case in point. I didn’t go to his funeral. The ultimate example of a bully finishing last is, of course, Hitler. In the short run, he built his Germany into a huge empire, but in the long run, he brought it to ruin. Is this sorta what you’re looking for? BTW, good discussion of ethics in my view.
lol, this was a somewhat drunk post. so, excuse the well. badly worded aspects.
while you can take the question to mean relationships, I honestly thought of it
in a more general sense.
Same goes with using the term nice guys. I included that one as the generic
term, for nice people. the topic title came second, and I didn't go back and
correct things in the post.
Lastly, 2 was referring to any kind of change agent capable of establishing real
world downsides to casting away your morality. People can do a lot with out
going to jail, or destroying their lives, and it seems to me, most people who
give up their morals/ethics are insulated from most of the consequences. either
because they don't value the same things most of us do, in the same way we
do, or because they have been able to acquire shielding from the consequences.
usually via obtaining enough money to pay for some form of protection.
Most of the time, when I see this sort of question, I wonder if the asker is genuinely interested in the answer, or if they're just mad/sad/depressed that they bargained and worked for something and didn't end up getting the results they wanted. It does seem that the more tollerent you are of others, the more you end up getting shit on and used by society. I've heard it said several times on those competition singing shows on TV that someone was too nice and that they should grow some teeth if they ever wanted to get anywhere. I think that the nice people hold a rule book and play by those rules, then are shocked and disappointed when everyone else doesn't seem to play by that same rule book. But I've also seen people that are so nice, only to turn around and be mean or monipulative of someone else if they can get away with it, so I don't know where I stand on the subject. I think we all have good and evil in us, and that they both win, at different times.
Yes, and the good and evil, so to speak, depend on how the person you are doing the good/evil to sees it.
Is being nice, or perceived as such, a sign of weakness?
Is the nice person, or one that is perceived as nice actually weak?
If you think you finished last, because you were to nice, you did.
What is your goal? If you are willing to use people wrongly to get to that goal only makes you evil to these you have used, but not to these you have benefited with your using.
Sure, the rain falls more on the just, or kind. The question there is, do they mind getting wet?
In my life, I have learned to be as I am, in that I try to be kind, and helpful to anyone that comes in to my world.
Some use this, others enjoy it.
The ones that take advantage of my kindness only get what I'm willing to give, so haven't gotten anything at all, only they feel they did.
Absolutely we "nice guys" finish last, but I don't think it's a conspiracy, and anymore I
have come to accept it as fate rather than fight it anymore.
The true alphas have the magnetism to get what they want when they want. They can
convince the whole team at work to gang up on the one who did most the work, for
instance. Neither the grandfather nor Hitler care about their legacy. For the most part,
they got most of what they wanted and now they're dead.
People either try to change the alpha, or tell the nice guy it's not so bad being a serf, and
the alpha will get his in the end under some illusion of karma or hell, a delusion that
relieves society of any responsibility for justice.
In order for that to change, alpha dicks would have to be mostly selected against both
economically and socially. Sexually, too. But I don't see that happening.
Even and especially those groups who criticize privilege usually stick the alphas' crimes
against the rest of us average types while giving the alphas a free pass.
When they say tax the rich, or safeguard the market, they mean burden us middle class
types and give the top dogs a free pass.
Yes to your first question, but I think it's indemic. You can't stick it to 1 person.
Just so I don't sound like a total nihilist:
Without us average guys, us masses of unremarkable nobody's, society as we know it
would simply not exist. We pay for their tax breaks. While they are sexually selected for,
(on average get more dates and have more fun), we get stuck with the child support.
Interestingly, this latter case is also true among other primates.
It is the predictable us, whose predictability is scorned, who hold down the fort and
maintain stability.
I know that theories abound for why this happens among primates, mostly from the new
science of evolutionary psychology, but no one really knows.
I just try to stay under the radar. Alphas are uniquely unstable.
Omg James lol! Of course u were drunk
Someone help me I'm not intellectual enough to understand your post james
please? I could translate it into spanish but I won't because I'd have to have
your permission to do so. I like the topic and the posts but I don't get it, sorry.
I'd like to contribute to it. Words aren't so much of a problem as I have a
dictionary in the palm of my hand, it's just the topic itself. Thank you! :)
Dolce, he was shmammered, there is no meaning to the words he put together lol!
Let me break it down:
Nice people, generally decent women and men who ry and do the right thing.
Finish last, meaning gets passed over all the time, or much of the time, by others who are willing and able to climb over and use other people to reach some advantage.
Something that affects a lot of people of many different demographics. Real peple, real concerns. He raises a valid point many hav asked over the years, and many different answers put forward.
Probably, it comes form some real pain.
Irony that an issue gets raised affecting so many people, and the best we get is an argument about wording.
Great.
lol I know what nice people are, Leo! interesting, let me think a bit and i'll
return to respond
my take on this question is this.
nice people do not always have to finish last. the problem arises when said nice person is nicer to everyone else than they would be to themselves. people will often put more thought in to other peoples feelings than they do to their own. if you allow yourself to be treated like a doormat, you undoubtably will be treated as such. people have to realise that it isn't a crime to go for what you want.
good question by the way james. much more thought provoking than a lot of the other crap that seems to get asked about up on these boards.
Wow that post was well played and concise Dale.
I for one appreciated it.
Dale, you said "if you allow yourself to be treated like a doormat, you undoubtably will be treated as such."
I think that brings up the question,
is that true?
and, if it is, why is it true?
I, for one, believe that door mats do get treated like door mats. But I don't know why.
So, let's ask the oh so wise fello and fella zoners.
Bob
Love post 16. sums up my sentiments exactly. also, I'd like to say that sometimes, it's worth finishing last and its' worth being a nice person over being a bully or a jerk. Nice people don't always identify as doormats and they shouldn't always be identified as such.
Dormats are weak, and nice people aren't always weak--not by a long shot.
Dormats get treated the way they get treated because if you allow someone to step all over you, it's easy for everyone else to overtake you. It's not even a challenge, so why bother being nice to a dormat if either way, you get your way. lol. thats' the logic most humans have.
I have no respect for doormats--I was one once myself--and I do see a huge difference between doormats and nice people.
I think that nice guys, so to speak, maybe finish last--maybe they don't get to drive in the fast lane all the time, live the high life, have all the women--or men--have the beauty... whatever. but the so-called nice guys often end up with things worth more than the fast lane. Look at leo. he's a self-proclaimed nice guy. He's got a family, a wife and a kid who care for and about him--and he has a lot of respect from those of us on here because he knows how to do the right thing, he's honest and transparent and more open-minded than most of us tend to be. Would the alfa male as he sees them probably run over him like a bulldozer in some sort of competition or rat race? Maybe so. But even if the alfa-male wins the race, leo stil has what to him is priceless.
It's not about winning the game, guys. it's about how much you value what you have and how much you're willing to do to be in a good place with yourself and among others.
BTW, good girls like nice guys. an someone once told me that bad girls may be fun, but the good girls are worth keeping around. Same with nice guys. The're more valuable to a real chick in the end than the bad-ass who lies, cheats and gets his way in whatever way he can. Power isnt' always as attractive as people make it out to be. It doesn't really suit most people long-term, because you can be at the hight of you rsuccess in whatever, and then you have nowhere to go but down. lol. Just like a bubble.
Interesting posts all.
But doormats don't always get walked on. I'm willing to go out on a limb here and suggest that you who read this don't walk all over doormats. Maybe you're like Bernadetta and have no real respect for them. Maybe you are like me and sympathize / wonder what's wrong with them, but would never count on them for anything. But I'm guessing few if any of you actually do the walking on one.
Bernadetta brings up some interesting points though. The things we 'nice guys' allegedly get are of no actual interest to the alphas. I have known several alphas headed into retirement with absolutely no regrets for anything or anyone they walked on. Probably the most brutal example from out here was the Shanghai tunnels, where human trafficking was underway here in Portland. A few decades ago, the last of the human traffickers who used the tunnels died. Any deathbed confessions? Tales of how they wish they had done differently? Not by a long shot. They were willing to talk because they were too old to be prosecuted and there was no proof to link them beyond a reasonable doubt. They were proud of imprisoning women and making them into prostitutes. They were proud of having kidnapped working guys and shipped them off as slaves to the Orient.
I know people who like religion and karma like to think these get theirs in the end. They actually get theirs all the way through, and they write their own ticket. And are laughing it up all the way to the end. It's often of little consolation to the working guy getting stepped on that he is really in a better place, or the guy who isn't getting the date because the right one just hasn't come.
That is because, ethical or not, people still want some kind of gratification, for real. Delaying it forever is why relgion and communism fails.
When I found out about these Shanghai tunnels guys, it told me all I needed to know about a boss I worked for, and my ridiculous delusions about people ultimately getting their comeuppance. Those are just feeble gestures at trying to make a bad situation look good.
And then I see people actually work to try to reform these alphas, to show them a better way. The reformers totally don't get it: the alphas have zero motivation to change. Zip. None. They're getting all that they actually want.
You may not understand the attraction to taking advantage of other people. Nor do I. And neither of us can fully appreciate the motivations of someone who is willing to set someone else less fortunate up for failure, or unjust reproof.
But you and I look at human beings as fellow humans. Alphas look at human beings as resources to be used and disposed of.
That same alpha boss I had, is now prominent in some communities trying to advance women in secularism. And he, not I or anyone else, was the one calling women 'dear' in the office, or waiting on a woman to serve him coffee, something I had not heard of since my father's era. He with millions in a trust fund can talk and weep about privilege. He can talk about male privilege and move millions. He's not stupid, he's exceptionally brilliant not only in his field but generally so. I'm not debasing myself to say he is leagues above me in most areas.
Of me he used to say I didn't have enough swagger, or that I acted like one of the 'wanks' -- lower ranking people. Well, I do come from working class roots, and never mind picking up after a company luncheon or some other affair, making the pot of coffee or what have you, it isn't anything but reflexive to me.
He knows precisely what is going on, in fact better than most of us. And he has got a whole ton of people bamboozled into thinking he is the ultimate sensitive. And could paint me as quite the opposite with a few choice words. He was capable of turning an entire team of people on me, to such amazing proportions several of them afterwards came to me and apologized, saying they didn't know what came over them. I do now, if I didn't then.
So sure, I don't begrudge what I am or where I am, and am grateful to have a family. But I'm no fool: this guy will die with no regrets for anything. That's just one example.
Here's another:
When I traveled on business in the mid 2000s, if you wanted wi fi, you had to rent from the VIP center in the airports. I being an economy traveler was not flying VIP but occasionally would pay the fare for use of their wi fi. The VIP places were full of hysterical, childish and manipulative people. And everyone, myself included, gave them license to carry on like that. The slightest thing and you'd see them go off like a teenager who just had their cell phone taken away for the weekend.
These are clearly not stable people.
And they are willing to walk on whoever and whatever, and are capable of blaming the walked on for taking it. Much like a rapist blames the rape victim for having been raped.
Look at the recent Twinkie situation: They convinced most of you who watch Fox News it was the union workers (who made an average of $10 per hour) who caused this. They didn't tell you Hostess had ben bought, sold and merged so many times that they were now several billion dollars in debt, for products Hostess had no business being invested in.
Nope, the alphas got all the churchgoing ConservaChristians believing it was Uncle Fred from the union trying to put food on the table who put this poor poor company out of business. It's the company who is the poor little darling, you see. Only a brilliant alph, like my ex boss, is capable of convincing you of something so ridiculous. And, they took their shares and went home.
How about the way they got you and I convinced bailing out the banks was a good idea? These same types of people went home with millions in bonuses. People of average working salaries took the fall, wondered where they were going to put their kids, how they were going to pay for their kids' health care and food, and so on. But of course everyone sympathizes with the poor victim alphas.
The only way they will ever have any desire to change is if their very nature is ever selected against, en masse. Until then, they're good. Would-be reformers, save your breath and go do something else where you won't be so discouraged feeling like you're running uphill with a sieve full of water to fill a bucket.
No no leo. see, you're confusing Alfa-males with, noone other than sociopaths. Really. the people you described, your former boss, the sex trafficking guy--those are actually sociopaths. And yes, sociopaths are the perfect candidates for alfa-males, simply because they dont' have a conscience. You say that alfa-males use people as resources. No. Sociopaths use people as resources because they actually, clinically, lack a conscience. You'd be interested in this sort of thing, I'm pretty sure, so go read the book "confessions of a sociopath" if you have the time. It would fascinate someone like you immensely. I read it recently and it was disturbing yet fascinating. Becase most sociopaths aren't actually criminals. Not really. They have the capacity to be, but they're not. Most sociopaths climb to the top, they dont' stop at managerial positions--they have to be CEO or they're out to the next company, they dont' stop at getting the girl because they can. They get the girl because they need to manipulate her into liking him, it's a power thrill, but there's so much more to it than just scoring romantically or sexually. Did you know that 24.8% of humans are potentially sociopaths?
It would take me forever to type up all the characteristics of a sociopath versus a non-sociopathic alfa-male. Because you can have alfas with a conscience. But even those alfas, though they may beat the nice guy in the rat race, have a conscience and thus some remorse--and some regrets to go along with it all in the end. But the evidence is clearly there. the true sociopaths would never identify as sociopaths in public because to be a sociopath, obviously, carries a very negative connotation in society. No one will want to befriend you if they know for sure that you're not capable of being friends just to be friends. No one will want much to do with you if they know they will most likely be bamboozled by you. And if you're a sociopath, you literally live off of these fake friendships, you thrive on having the upper hand even when it's not necessary. You create mind games for people for yoru own amusement. nonsociopathic Alfa-males are competitive, but they're still in touch with humanity. When you're a sociopath, you dont' compete because you're in yrou own playing field, on your own level. You compete foryour own amusement, and winning isnt'born from effort, it's merely manipulation--and it's effortless when you have no conscience and no real connection with most people.
So in a way, you're right, these people probably have no regrets,and they do get what they want--most of the time. But they're still incredibly isolated, and even the author of "confessions of a sociopath" who identifies as a female sociopath, admits it can be a lonely road at times when you know you dont' have a conscience. lol
As for the VIP passenger types, leo, those people only get their way because they're divas. Most divas seek attention for themselves because they are mentally disturbed. You cant' tell me that it's not a dark path full of sad, lonely demons for these people to live, day in and day out, in such an unstable, capricious state. They may ultimately get what they want, yes. But they always want more. So ther'e never really satisfied.
the nice guy, so to speak, is somehow happy with less, even if he's aware that he indeed does have less than the alfa-type. The nice guy is happy to volunteer for the sake of human kinship. the alfa-dog always has to have a master plan for why he volunteers. Its really not the easiest life for these people. They can charm the pants off most, yes, but they never really get close to anyone. And while many might not show it, I imagine it must bother them at a deeper, more human level when they're in a vulnerable state occasionally.
We all need others in life. We all do, no matter who we are, even if we don't think we do. The nice guy realizes that, while the alfa-male never really does. And therefore he's lonely. How many popular high school chicks act like the bitch everyone expects them to be, smiling and ingraciating themselves to those from whom they can be an at an advantage, only to often break down in the privacy of their own room because life is just so damn hard.. they have no real friends--just appearances they have to keep up with. And when life becomes a real bitch, only sociopaths--and not even all of them--won't look back with at least a tiniy hint of pity and wish that someone had been there to pull them through.
The nice guy often has people at his deathbed, bidding him farewell. the alfa-male either have phoneies who are waiting for his money, or no one at all. lol. so go figure.
Nice guys may finish last or somewhere near it, but the other way to look at it is, somebody has to because everybody can't be first either. And if you have to shit all over people and stomp on their heads and lose all your friends to be first, is it really going to be worth it when you're at the top and absolutely alone? If that's not the case, then be happy you're last or near last or even near the middle, at least you've got lots of company, hopefully with people who are mostly not insufferable assholes.
Bernadetta and Godzilla lots of good points.
I couldn't find the book you're talking about on Bard but found a similar one:
The sociopath next door: the ruthless versus the rest of us DB 60305
I'll have to check yours out when I can go buy it lol after I get done paying taxes this year.
Anyway lots of good points. Here's what I wonder: How do we select against these people?
The only way to edit something like this out is to actively select against it. That does definitely mean sexually select against it, but it also means the type of selecting against it which would prevent people from believing the hype perpetrated on the workers at the Twinkie establishments and so on.
More than why do we finish last, or somehow taking the religious illogical stance that last is somehow best, perhaps we should ask how to select against these people. We've done this in other areas of evolution. Bernadetta got her kid vaccinated as I did with mine. We've taken control of nature in that situation and neither of ours will die of childhood illnesses like measles and mumps. We don't anymore say worthless things like measles and mumps are sent from the gods to build character.
See what I mean?
You can't reform these. I bet the book Bernadetta's talking about would illustrate this also. The real question probably is, how do we actively select against them?
Look at it this way: A couple hundred years ago, if a woman wanted to procreate, she would secure someone physically strong to work and protect her through the vulnerable state that is child bearing. we still have vestigial leftovers of this in society much like the appendix, useless except they flare up and rupture once in awhile. Over time, other characteristics are being selected for. It's a slow process, far slower than our society's changes, but it is starting to happen.
It's been done actively, not passively. Our evolution is no longer a passive thing, it's not been for quite some time now. So, how to actively select against these types?
For the record, selecting against them doesn't mean talk about how maybe on a deep level they might experience something bad: It means what it means everywhere else. They don't get advancement, they don't get dates, and so on. They're undesirables.
in short, you have to make the alpha sociopath types the 'class dork' as it were, the one nobody wants. You never change anything in evolution by telling reptiles they are better off without wings and that those with wings really have it worse on some deeper level. Only religious people do that, not pragmatists.
To select for something, those traits have to be rewarded. Nowhere in evolution will you find that desirable traits are rewarded with some kind of pat on the head saying they're really ok even though you usually get eaten or left out for them. That methodology is merely a human fiction promulgated by most relgion, and whose failure was spectacular under communist regimes like the U.S.S.R.
I think a fair amount of points have been brought up. But the more I learn of natural evolutionary processes, and the more hollow the statements of 'it's better that way' appear, the more selection for and against things simply makes way too much sense.
In short: If the frat boys stopped getting dates because the girls didn't like frat boys anmore, others would get dates instead, and the frat boys would go home. If you tell the others 'Oh, those frat boys are just shallow, it's better the way you are,' that is as silly as telling the ancestors of birds 'oh don't worry, you don't need wings even though pterodactyl has them.'
You can already see some of this in action in the newly evolving social networking spaces. Certain characteristics are getting selected for which were formerly selected against. And they are getting selected for, in the way selection actually happens. They are getting rewarded.
If the selectors never change what they selct, nothing will change.
So if you are less likely to date the frat boy, and you are millions of people, they will get selected against. If you are not believing these bamboozlers about working people and banks / huge companies on TV, they get selected against. Evolution is active, not passive, anymore. And it never happens because you tell the desirable trait it is better they be on the short end. Pterodactyls may have 'felt lonely' as it were, way up there away from Mother Earth, but selection favored wings instead of just thermal coolers in other reptiles so they could either fly away from them, or fly at them and knock them out of their space.
How do we select against them, is I think more the relevant conversation. In order for it to change, they have to not get rewarded, and those who aren't like them have to get the reward they would otherwise get.
I see this happening to some extent with the social networking generation, it's obviously lucrative, and I think they're right. They're likely to change how a lot of things happen. But that is because different characteristics are being rewarded.
I guess it's up to us en masse to actively select against those characteristics. In short, it doesn't matter if she or he feels bad later. If they got what they wanted, passed on their effects via genes or ruined companies or displaced workers and destroyed families, nobody cares if they weep later. They got selected for, and rewarded accordingly. One could only ask, since they got it all, are they even in a position to really regret. But that's probably beyond the scope of this.
So, how do we, en masse, actively alter evolution and reward the characteristics we want and select against these sociopathic and diva types we don't want?
I love all these last posts. Bernadetta I have to read that book. This is very
interesting
OK and I think I can answer Bob's question regarding Dale's post. I do believe it
is true. Doormats allow themselves to be treated as such. As bernadetta pointed
out, doormats are not nice, they're week. Most of them always have an excuse.
I know, but. You're right, but. I know, I know I know, but. It's the thought of
what others will think of them or do to them if they cease from allowing others
to take advantage of them. It's like the girl who knows she's being treated like a
doormat by an abusive boyfriend, and she has the support network to help her
leave. When she vents to you, the friend, she said but I love him, I know but,
that's the way he is and so forth. Are they really innocent about the situation,
or are they seeking sympathy. Well he said this to me, I can't believe she did
that to me, you get it. Of course not all cases are like this, but I do think that
some of these people know what situation they are in after a while, and choose
not to get out for fear of who knows, anything. Again I"m not talking about all
situations here. Why? Because they're week. It's not necessarily a bad thing,
but some people need a little push to grow up. For some it takes a lifetime but
ah well.
Bu that's the thing leo. We cant' select against them. not really, because clinically, scientists havent' yet figured out what gene or mutation of it causes sociopaths to be what they are. It's not environmental, it's actually something they're born with. And a lot of sociopaths are wonderful at fooling the non-sociopaths about their status of being. Even psychologists ans psychiatrists are folled often times, and only find out after hours and hours and hours of entensive testing, ro some alternate circumstance that makes them rethink their evaluation.
If these sociopaths are great at manipulation, then there's no eal way of knowing who's a sociopath and who's not. Not at first. and by the time you know, they'd have gotten what they wanted anyway. So you can't really select against them--not yet--I think.
If you want leo, I can loan you the book. the one you have from bard--I read that one too--but it's more about actual criminals versus the regular guy.
I'd be interested, but how does one loan out a book electronically?
Ok fair point about the sociopaths, Bernadetta.
But I can hardly say my ex boss is a sociopath. Or, if he is, I know a hell of a lot of people that fit that description, not just the frat boys I stayed away from when in college.
So you can't select against the sociopath. But the Tom Leykises and the Hugh Hefners of the world still get dates, attention, and so much more. You and I aren't in the field, as it were, so dates doesn't matter. Not for us. Except by influence perhaps. But how do we as a society select against the Donald Trumps of the world, say. Or the aforementioned.
We already select against these things all the time, knowingly or unknowingly. You unconsciously selected against a derelict partner who would not raise your son with you, even if you didn't plan to have a son.
And, I never learned this till later, I exhibited a few "selectable" behaviors early on in my current relationship. Not put-ons, it just happened. I never knew this was the case for nearly 20 years afterwards, but it happened.
On one occasion I was just being myself, I cooked her food after she had spent a horrible day in court having to testify at a trial that affected the center where she worked. This affected parents and kids and fellow teachers of hers. Most humans would do no less than seriously sympathize with someone put through such an ordeal as she and her coworkers had to endure. But we weren't even steady yet, or if we were it was brand new.
On another occasion, I carried a niece who was 2 at the time uphill through the parks because her legs were tired and we were still on a walk. I didn't know her, I had just met her, and barely knew her mom - the wife's sister.
Both of these activities would have been selected against, in a generation before your mother was born. I know this because I have spoken to men who are like myself, except that they were ridiculed by both men and women for being this way in the 60s, and in some places, even the 70s.
Their often untold stories are sad, really. In a modern context all of us understand, anyway. They were poignant enough they made me realize I'd been privileged to be born in a totally different time and place.
If, however, I had been maybe distant when She needed someone the night of the trial, even if polite but not the way I am, might that not have cost me? If I hadn't carried the niece on my shoulders, if even I hadn't offered to do it, might that have cost me? It's not an expectation. And I did it just to do it, as it were, because it was something I would do.
By selecting against, I mean that the Donald Trumps and the Tom Leykises, by their behaviors, get edited out. Don't get listened to, don't get dates, don't have everyone bamboozled by their TV shows where they get to say 'yu're fired'. Instead, the message is clear: They're selected *for*.
Ironically, just like I got selected for, in the situation I'm in, they also are being selected for in a huge number of ways that clearly advantages them and disadvantages others.
People are often uncomfortable with the idea of judging or selection, but that is precisely what all of us do all the time. I selected for the fools of the bank bail-out in 2008. I'd like to avoid doing that again, and so when the Twinkie situation came up, I did a bit of reading behind the scenes and found out this company had been traded around all over the place, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
We can, and we do, select both for and against traits all of the time. Not at birth, but during lifetimes and interactions.
I actively select against people who behave like my ex boss did. I will go out of my way to avoid such people or give them an audience. And I actively encourage others to do the same.
This is what I meant by selecting for and against these things.
But that's just it, leo. You never want to believe that anyone you know, ex boss, ex wife, former girlfriend or cousin or loved one... is a psychopath. You're convinced you'd have noticed it if they were. and you can't really. You're right that you can select against certain characteristics, but just because you or I , or tom dick and harry are conscious to doing so, you cant' guarantee that most people would be on board with it.
Simple about the borrowing of electronic books. I could dropbox it to you if you have dropbox, or I could message you a link or a zip file of it. lol. simple as that, since you asked. And I didnt' really mean borrow, because obviously, you wouldn't have to give it back. lol. because wht for. it's just a digital copy. the reason I said borrow is because the book is from bookshare, and since this is a public board and you're not supposed to disclose the sharing of books from bookshare unless your, lending, it to someone, I said' I'd, lend, it to you if you wanted. lol. So just a form of terminology. Bookshare doesnt' care if people pass books around from one person to another, as long as you don't share passwords, and you say that your, lending, the book to someone. lol. go figure.
Wow this topic has gotten way over my head here.
To answer the first question, yes good guys do often finish last.
I don't understand all the sociopaths and "selection" stuff.
Not all "winners" are sociopaths, and not all losers are passive door mats. Some times the line just works against you.
Think I need another beer.
Bob
Tom dick and hairy? Lol bernadetta I'm about to piss my pants at that one,
thank you! ahahahahahahahahahahahaha lol!
Thanks for the explain Bernadetta. I'll have to decide how, since anything personal I do on a iPad these days.
But Bob, we do select for and against things all the time. And we're a lot more active about it than we realize. For us, evolution is simply no longer passive.
Maybe I got off in the weeds there, but I'm thinking it's not totally irrelevant.
Bernadetta you may be right, I might be just wanting to imagine I wasn't taken. Entirely possible. A lot of it happened ten to fifteen years ago.
This is a really interesting topic. Probably one of my favorites because I can relate to it personally and bring a lot of personal experience to the table.
I suppose I'd still classify myself as a "nice guy". I'm laid back, easy going, usually non-confrontational as much as I can be, and I listen more than I speak. And despite becoming a more assertive person I can't deny that much of my personality hasn't changed. The difference between me now and me 2 plus years ago is that I'm not passive and I don't always try to be nice all of the time, because that obviously puts me at a disadvantage. Sometimes you have to put a foot down for the things you want, otherwise you will finish last. And I finished last in a lot of ways growing up. I didn't have many friends growing up and I didn't have much experience with dating until way in to high school. That was because I used to speak only when spoken to. And though I was always friendly to people who approached and spoke to me, not many people approached me probably because they didn't have any previous experience with a person who is blind and they weren't sure what to expect. So though I do agree that the nicer ones finish last, I think there are also other factors that can play in to where a person stands as compared to other people in the environment.
As others have said, nice doesn't mean unassertive. In fact, the assertive woman who stands up for her kids or family is the 'nice guy', as much as the assertive guy who stands up for his wife and family.
I don't at all see the idea of selecting for and against things as defeatist or negative. I personally realize I was fooled by my ex boss, or made to feel powerless - perhaps another way of being fooled. And I also was fooled by the bank bail-out business in 2008. And so in both cases, I deliberately select against such people.
Anybody who is no longer subject to religious manipulators (typically alpha females and alpha males), is also selecting for and against things.
Seeing this as an active situation, where we can choose to select for and against certain qualities, is actually empowering. I think a lot of people, including those that come off as very confident, see a lot of this as passive and we can't do much about it. The more and longer I think about any of this, the more I think we can. By using already existing selection processes.
And again, for some of the youngers, selecting against something doesn't ever mean you make the trait you want sound better, or the one you don't want have some kind of fabled lonely life at the end. It means the traits you want get rewarded by you and those you don't want get the exact opposite. Glenn Beck, a known manipulator, has all the followers he wants because people select for such traits. If everyone ignored him and treated him like the guy the girls all made fun of in high school, he would quietly go away. Or morph into something more desirable.
Putting a different spin on things, I wonder what the term “last” means. In many ways I have significantly less than I did say, ten or eleven years ago. I used to be in the legal profession. At one point I made over 80 grand a year in Manhattan. But it never felt like something I was in actuality. I worked my ass off and didn’t see much reward in it. I ended up stressing out to the point where I grew to hate practically everything about the law and the legal profession. I work in customer service now in upstate New York, making probably about a third to half what I was making back then, but I come home at night and don’t have to work on weekends or evenings. I don’t go into work the next day wondering what the hell’s gunna happen today. I have debts to pay down, but I’m happy. I’ve got people around me who love and care for me for the person I am, not the attorney I used to be. I can honestly say that lawyers are some of the biggest assholes on the globe, and I don’t miss being one of them. Because in the end I never really was. I don’t care that I have a JD, that I passed the bar and was admitted at one time. It felt like I was being a fraud. I just wish I’d gotten out in my second year of school because it would’ve ended up saving me a whole lot of grief. Maybe this is a tangent in some ways, but it’s just a question I have about what the term “last” necessarily means. Because I have my faults, definitely. I can be moody, somewhat bitchy at times, maybe a little sarcastic, not always the most internally confident human being on the globe, and definitely a bit of an introvert. But at my best, I think I’m an okay person. My peers seem to like me, I’ve lent money to people who’ve needed it, and I generally try to be helpful. I’m not a doormat, but I’m not a doush either. I wish I had a steady guy, but I figure that could still happen. But did I finish “last?” Depends on how you judge things, I suppose. I’d actually argue that given everything that could’ve happened, both the bad and good, I really haven’t finished last; not by a long shot.
Oo, I love the last poster's question--and the post in general. he's voiced exactly what I was trying to say, but in a much more concise manner. do you stilfinish last when your "last" is worth more to you than the "first place prize" would be? that's my point exactly. All these nice guys finish last bother me a bit, because the people who say it seem to be saying that the nice guy is a loser for not being on top. Maybe technically thats' correct... if that's the kidn of top you want to be on. But really, nice guys are more pleasant, they're often more intelligent, more kind, wiser, etc. They're honest--which may be why they don't scratch and climb their way to the tippy top. In the end, they're worth more.
I feel the sentiment of Johndy's post.
I also understand the attraction to the social science / parapsychology attitude of rearranging words to match values.
But selection happens not by rearrangement of words to mean different things. It means desirable traits actually get rewarded. Being in financial trouble, like Johndy is, and I was, then wasn't, now currently am again to the IRS for a few more months, is in no way being rewarded. People being laid off from huge corporations and being unemployed for years are not being rewarded.
Sorry, all the psychobabble makes absolutely zippo sense in a truly naturalistic context.
What makes sense in that context, since we actively select for and against things, is for the so called nice guy, (guy being gender neutral of course) to be selected for, and the alternative against.
If some in the psychobabble community had their way, they would tell pre-bird reptiles not to worry about the evil pterodactyls, because they really didn't want to be those anyway, horrible horrible things. And, these nice thermal flaps that they have help to cool their bodies in the heat, fan their eggs and keep them from poaching, and might even help in the water. Oh and is being eaten really so bad? I mean, maybe the pterodactyl at the end of its life is going to feel bad somehow for what it did. And ultimately as poop you will contribute to the cycle of life.
Does that sound like selection reward to anyone?
Now, the reality is, birds with wings actually got rewarded, and didn't turn out en masse at all like pterodactyl and similar. Most birds are not predatory except on insects. Flight, which birds might have ultimately been better at, was probably used to get away from the alpha pterodactyls.
So obviously, if we actually reward the characteristics we want, we won't get more alphas, but probably a new and improved something, that won't look at all like Leo or Johndy or Bernadetta or anyone else of us average 'nice guy' types. But it won't look like a pterodactyl alpha either.
The older I get (I feel so wrong even saying that), the less the social platitude responses make any sense or have any real comfort to me. And the more attractive becomes the objective and naturalist selection based approaches to things. Because it's actual, real, and makes sense.
I do get what Johndy was talking about. Someday I might not be in my line of work anymore, as I wasn't for a few years while running stores. I might very well be happier in some ways then. I completely get inauthenticity, something I have faced in other life areas until very recently.
I don't particulary want to be either a pterodactyl clumsily and inefficiently tearing apart prey, nor do I want to be the reptile with pre-formed thermal flaps not yet developed for flight. To get to bird status, certain things have to be selected for, in my opinion, and tangibly rewarded by society. Maybe some will think on some of this in upcoming elections, local and otherwise. There is one place we can reward characteristics we want and select against those we find undesirable.