The Cure for Nice Guy Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure if it's a fallacy, but the issue is his insistence that the world is as he thinks it is. It just isn't. Some of it is, certainly. But nothing like all of it. He's quite fixated on power, and how everyone worships it, except apparently the 'real' Nice Guys. He obviously feels powerless, and really would like to feel/be powerful. Only that might go against his self-image, So he projects it onto the world, and tries to disdain it.

He adopts the position of someone who just knows better - no, of someone who just is better. He is above us/it all, and looks down and laments the power-crazed world. He makes his 'suffering' a point of pride - oh, world, look at how you treat us men. But worry not! For we are satisfied in our goodness, whilst you go about your power-crazed ways. Yuck. Yuck yuck yuck.

It is, essentially, taking pride in one's proclaimed humility. Fallacy or not, there's a smug hypocrisy there.

To repeat myself: there are millions, even billions, of nice guys throughout history who have gotten into, and sustained, good, loving relationships, and had plenty of fine sex within those relationships. It is going on right now.

The Nice Guy drama is that only openly jerky men get to be in relationships. This simply is not the case. It just isn't. A simple look around will see that plenty of decent, upsanding fellows are in relationships of various length and seriousness. What's more, there are many openly jerky men who find it hard to keep a woman, or even get one interested in the first place. Again, the 'nice guys finish last' idea is a drama. A story some men tell themselves to make themselves feel better, that the reason they can't get a girlfriend is because they're too nice.

Only they're not nice. Even ignoring the Nice Guy entitlement tantrums. It's not nice to be passive-aggressive, or smug, or faux-humble, or to mistake your preference for not being assertive for a virtue (it makes anyone around you and/or dealing with you have to spend far too long in trying to guess what you might want so they can treat you fairly).

As to the type Klowglas is putting forward, throughout history and humanity there has been many an artist and writer and just plain everyday person who has considered themselves 'too good' or 'too sensitive' for the world. It really is nothing new. At least we sometimes get great art or thought out of it, though. Not sure I can see that happening with this generation.

Last edited by Hopper on 15 May 2014, 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i would have to be able to take him and his argument seriously before i could do that. "where is his fallacy not?" would be easier to answer.

the comment was definitely for the poster, but it also applies to anyone who subscribes to his idea of what a "nice guy" is. i have no problem with actual decent men who can see me as a whole person and not just something to try to f**k.

Hopper, you're probably right. Honestly, I just don't agree with the mocking part and would rather his logic be refuted. You've already shown one example with your GrandDad. It is a very fascinating story by the way.

By mocking him the way StarvingArtist is mocking him she inadvertently and slowly proves him right. I just wish people would use mocking less and use logic more. By calling him entitled, he is slowly being proven right. Consider him as a prosecutor and an interlocutor. He has made a claim and a charge. He has to prove his claim and charge. If one has a problem with another person's argument then attack the argument by showing empirical evidence against it, show it to be fallacious or illogical. Your grandfather is one example against his argument. If there is one there may be others.

cubedemon--i wish it were as simple as dismantling his faulty argument by providing logic/empirical evidence to the contrary.

the mistake you are making is assuming that he has never been presented with an argument that obviously proves his own to be false, and if he were presented with such proof he would logically change his position. people who defend "nice guys" with obvious emotional need to believe their own argument are confronted with logic that refutes their position constantly, from other people as well as their own observations of reality; but because they are so emotionally invested in believing women won't have sex with them because women are obsessed with "power" and they are just too nice to try to be "powerful" therefore it is women's fault for not wanting to sleep with them (or whatever irrational belief about people it is that they are clinging to), they ignore any evidence showing the reality of the situation to be contrary to their desperate belief--no matter how logical and undeniable is the evidence. if they were to change their view they would have to do a lot of introspection and analysis of themselves and their psyches because their internal picture would no longer match what they now know to be the logic of reality (no, not all women are obsessed with power--shocking!).

when i realise that someone is making an argument from such an emotional investment and they are unwilling to consider evidence to the contrary, i stop trying to present an actual argument to the contrary because it is a pointless endeavour. however, such people insist on participating in discussions about their faulty beliefs while not being willing to use their intellectual faculties to question themselves and their own arguments as well as the evidence presented to them. that is intellectually dishonest and, in my estimation, invitation for mocking.

I understand where you're coming from and never thought about it that way. For me, if I'm shown where I'm wrong on something or am able to analyze an argument myself to know where I am wrong I will alter my position. It is difficult for me to conceive that there are people who do this yet I have experienced this phenomena myself. I don't know why. Why wouldn't they want to get to better truths of things and get to an underlying truth of all?

First, I believe this nice guy syndrome comes form more than just wanting to have sex but wanting acceptance by his peers and the screwed up culture. My solution is to say screw it and focus on more important things in life like having fun, developing one's mind.

Second, A lot of people have this believe in this extreme form of internal locus of control. I do not accept that it is true that we have complete control of our lives. If we do have control of our thoughts and our lives, how? What is the mechanism especially if we do not live in a vacuum?

Third, I believe that there are cases in which society is at fault and the individual is not responsible.

Fourth, I believe America concentrates on positive thinking to much and instead we should concentrate more on critical thinking.

Fifth, I believe external locus of control has some basis to it.

Sixth, it would be awesome if people would show where I am wrong here on my blog. If my thinking is deluded then I wish others would show me.

http://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.c ... mit=Search

Is my reasoning faulty and if so where and what premises are faulty in the posts I've made here so far?

His 'argument' is 'everyone is power crazed (except us nice guys)'. That's it. That's all he has to offer. Why engage? There's little chance of changing his mind on the matter because, for him, 'everyone is power crazed (except us nice guys)' is his self-evident truth, his lodestar, the lens through which he sees the world.

There's no logic to attack. It's just the same assertion again and again. Here's my critique, though:

You know how those who fervently denounce sex, particularly of the homosexual sort, are so often found in the arms and legs and nether regions of people who are not their spouse, behaving in a way they purportedly loathe? Same thing here. Nice Guys, including the sort Klowglas has down as the 'real' nice guys, envy jerks. They want to be them. They're just crap at it. It is the only way they can conceive of interacting with a woman, barring a kind of bizarre place-her-on-a-pedestal thing, in an embarrasingly crude playing out of the whore/Madona conflict. "That jerk treats her like crap and still gets laid. I was nice to her and get nothing. Whore."

They want to be jerks, but for some reason, aren't. It's how they end up still being jerky, but in a passive-aggressive, unassertive kind of way. Or you get the sort Klowglas has in mind, who paint humanity as power-crazed and then situate themselves outside/above of it.

Of course, though far too many are, and though there's a little jerkness in most every man and woman who ever walked the earth (it's part and parcel of the human condition), most men are not jerks. They get by with just the occasional act of jerkiness (which tend to decline as maturity grows), and plenty end up in good, mutually fulfilling relationships. They don't envy jerks, so don't fixate on them.

But the Nice Guys, projecting their internal drama, their desire to be a jerk, into/onto the world, see jerks everywhere, like the puritans who see sex everywhere. They make everyone else bear their desire to be a jerk, so they can try and pitch themselves as the opposite. Only they're still within, and fully accepting of, the values of the jerk.

Their inner-jerk is strong, and at war with their inner-but-I'm-not-a-jerk. So, we end up with a synthesis - the Nice Guy. Jerk motivations, 'if I do this maybe I'll be able to seem like a decent person to myself and others' actions. And, of course, the 'nice guys finish last' drama, to give them a powerful narrative.

While I'm here, some notes on the related matter of The Friendzone:

i) There isn't one. If you must make a thing of how your feelings for a woman incline to the romantic when hers for you don't, call it a crush, or even unrequited love. At least those terms give the both of you a modicum of dignity, and focus the cause of the situation back on yourself, rather than complaining 'she put me in the friendzone'.

ii) Again, there isn't one. Being friends with a woman is not a punishment. Don't speak of it like you would the naughty step, or solitary confinement. If you think being friends with a woman is fit to be spoken of as a form of punishment, go sit on the naughty step and think that over.

iii) Again, being friends with a woman is not a punishment. If you are only being friends with her because you want to get her into bed, well, you're not her friend. Stop pretending to be

iv) 'But she uses our friendship to emotionally dump on me and for a shoulder to cry on before swanning off to her boyfriend whose callousness she came to crying to me about.' Yeah, that's friendship. If you're not comfortable with it, take it up with her. She's your friend. Or are you hanging on in the hope of getting her into bed? See point iii.

v) 'But she abuses our friendship to emotionally dump on me and for a shoulder to cry on before swanning off to her boyfriend whose callousness she came crying to me about'. I know. And you abuse your friendship to try and get her into bed. Well done. You deserve each other.

vi) 'But I don't just want to get her into bed! I want to be in a relationship with her!' See point i.

^this happens because they sense that to acknowledge the truth is to acknowledge things about themselves (typically unpleasant things) that they really don't want to acknowledge. they cannot accept the reality of their own truths (the content of their character, the way they treat others, their true motivations for their behaviour), and so they cannot accept external truths that in any way expose/relate to/reference their internal ones.

From what I can glean from this blog is that you are so desperate to think of yourself as some kind of martyr that you'll go to ridiculously convoluted, overly complicated and nigh incomprehensible lengths to portray yourself as such. This includes concocting absurd fiction with no basis in real life (your "trial" piece) to somehow illustrate how put upon you are. Delusional is right. A person with his head firmly in reality wouldn't need to go to such lengths to prove a point.

In a way, it's atypical of the average niceguy syndrome sufferer as those types (such as the "Cry-wanker" above and others in this thread) tend to go the opposite direction and make up overly simplified reasons for their lack of success (I.E. "Women I meet don't want to go out with me, therefore it must be because women only date jerks. I'm just "too nice" to be loved.") They think of dating and courtship like a business transaction (women are slot machines and if I put enough nice guy tokens in eventually sex will fall out) rather than the complex and unique social dynamic it actually is. When their experiences don't pan out the way they think it should (like in a business transaction) they feel cheated and bitter. That being said, the same entitled attitude and desire for pity is still readily apparent in your writings, no matter how many words you add to pad it out to make it sound deeper than it actually is.

What others don't seem to grasp is that it's that bitter whiny entitled attitude what women find truly unattractive, not being "too nice" to them.

A truly nice guy is nice without the expectation of getting anything is return. Being kind to others is not some kind of incredible accomplishment that deserves Martyrdom. It's literally the bare minimum necessary for being a decent human being. Nobody deserves jacks*** for being nice. Not sex, not praise, not even a thank you (although the latter's generally appreciated.) If the only positive adjective a person can think of to describe themselves is "nice" than they're either incredibly boring or not actually that nice at all.

Last edited by Geekonychus on 15 May 2014, 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, when I was 18-19 you could say I was guilty as charged as having the syndrome. As I went through college and learned critical thinking I started to realize how fallacious it all was. I rejected the culture that promoted the garbage that led to it. So, I shifted my priorities to things like to school work. Now, I have a beautiful wife who I love dearly. It was like a weight lifted off of my shoulders. Why won't others accept this logic? I was able to shift my thinking when I saw this crazy thinking. Why won't others do so as well? Why stick to something that is fallacious? Where is my thinking wrong? How do I get them to spin their own straw into gold?

expect if they don't agree with you.I have ''looked''at myself
and did change alot about myself.But because Im not
a anti nice guy,white knight male feminist,It doesn't count.

Yes,Just because I Improve my skills with ladies doesn't
mean I have to bash nice guys.And I got two ladies now,Btw.

Huh, what did what I write on my blog have to deal with nice guy syndrome? How do you connect the dots? Now I'm really confused. All I wanted was a critique on my writings and the things about American society that make no sense to me. This is the purpose of creating this thread. To make sense of certain things in my past and now it is to make sense of why others with this syndrome will not accept my advice from what I have processed. How were you able to mix apples and oranges?

This has been an educational experience thus far. I'm learning more and confirming my conclusions. Now, I have to reject an assumption I have held dear and that is that people are logical which is only partly true. I have to conclude that what Dr. Morris Berman says about people not being logical has partial truth to it. People don't always use logic to make their decisions and come to their conclusions. They use emotional data as well which is enlightening for me. Fascinating! I would like to understand more.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 15 May 2014, 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

apparently you wanted to change and were ready and mature enough to do so, and made the effort to re-examine and question your ideas to see what was leading you astray. that's not an easy thing to do for many people, and is commendable. unfortunately not everybody gets there at the same rate--some get there very late in life, and some (lamentably) never get there at all. in some people, the desire for truth just never gets stronger than the fear of it.

I want and have this inordinate desire to get to the truth(s) of all and the reasoning. It is so complex though as truths are so interwoven together and there are grey areas.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 15 May 2014, 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Billiscool is the perfect example of starvingartists points in action. His perspective is so narrow that he can't even comprehend why a man would actually agree with a women unless they were looking for something romantic in return (whiteknighting.) Like most nice guys, he judges his self worth by the number ladies he pulls, not his character.

um, congratulations, i guess? those are two lucky ladies, bill--you are a treat.