>We are meant to trust the person next door, and so we help others with the faith that they will help us in return. In this environment, jerks will be found out and, ideally, shunned.
It isn't a black and white jerk/non jerk. I want my neighbor to be nice to me, and a jerk to the guy who tries to rob my house.
Be loyal to your team, and give the other team hell!
Self-help drivel for people who realize that anti-social behavior pays off and they're annoyed because they realize they're not aggressive so they fantasize that those jerks might be found out and then they'll really suffer.
It's like believing in the afterlife where some supernatural entity judges people fairly and will cast the evil ones into eternal torture. But instead of believing that it happens after death, it only maybe happens before death.
But it doesn't, and they know it, which makes it sting even more.
There are a lot of fictions that are valuable to society. Might this one be important to hold up for the sake of "incels"? In the end, you'll get the girl and the jerk will be lonely, so until then don't get too angry and continue being a productive member of society.
I don't know. Christianity tells the same story, and that worked well enough, but there's always the question of whether people don't go crazy because of the fairy tale, or whether they look for the fairy tale to keep themselves from becoming depressed over their powerlessness.
It's a story that's still deeply embedded in cultural storytelling even as society becomes less religious. I can't tell whether it's not working well because people are discontent or whether it's working well because without it they'd run amok.
These fictions are like using substance abuse to forget about your problems but at a societal level. Sure, you can get high and forget your life sucks but putting in the actual work to make life not suck is better in the long run. We should fix our problems rather than papering over them with damage control and coping mechanisms.
Ah, probably not. I get the impression that most incels are bitter because following the rules and being good hasn't brought the rewards they were promised by fiction. In reality, the pretty girl and the ugly nerd with a good heart rarely end up together. Honesty and persistence are punished. Confidence is more valued than intellect. The exposure of societal lies through experienced reality leads to radicalization and resentment just as often as apathy and depression.
> In reality, the pretty girl and the ugly nerd with a good heart rarely end up together.
This is complex the ugly nerd often only thinks they have a good heart. It's their self-perception, which, if you listen to women, is not a shared perception.
Yeah it's complex, the perceptions regarding who has a "good heart" are also skewed due to the halo effect where attractive people get higher ratings, which ugly nerds lose out on.
The opposite gender counterexample is a "jerk with a heart of gold."
I'm sure there's some truth to what you're saying, but it's also a fact that people who break all the rules and are pretty objectively 'bad' are rarely punished in the court of sexual selection. A history of illegal activity, violence, lying, stealing, etc. are rarely going to be a demerit in comparison to being short or having a stutter. The myth that people are really considering non-physical factors into their mating choices is not really helping anyone, and probably actually hurting the dating market by proliferating unrealistic expectations.
Isn't that a contradiction? If humans never adversely selected against jerkness, how did we evolve kind people?
> The myth that people are really considering non-physical factors into their mating choices
Did you mean that people primarily select for physical attractiveness? This reads like you think people never consider non-physical factors, which I think is trivially disprovable.
Look, I'm not saying that hot people don't fuck more often. But I am saying that the ugly nerd with a heart of gold is ... also a toxic narrative, and is based on the nerd's belief they have a heart of gold. I frequently read the 2x chromosome subreddit for what interactions with self-professed "nice guys" are like, and I wouldn't for a minute think these dudes are even halfway decent people.
> Isn't that a contradiction? If humans never adversely selected against jerkness, how did we evolve kind people?
In my experience, most people aren't all that kind to people they're not related to or well-acquainted with. Those that are tend to be taken advantage of and looked down on.
> Did you mean that people primarily select for physical attractiveness? This reads like you think people never consider non-physical factors, which I think is trivially disprovable.
People do sometimes consider non-physical factors, but only after they filter based on physical attractiveness, and usually that's only for long-term mate selection rather than casual sex or affairs. Like, I'm a complete POS with a horrible attitude and personality, no money or job, and an extensive criminal record, but I never have difficulty finding sex partners because I'm slightly above average in height and have a symmetrical face. My friend who works hard, is always honest, and will give you the shirt off his back - he can't get the time of day because 5'2".
Time the jerkiness well, and how can anyone tell which you are? An opportunistic jerk who otherwise cultivates a 'nice' reputation is going to attract the same kind of gossip as anyone else in a position of authority, no?
Maybe jerks get further ahead in life than "nice guys". Maybe they are in wealthier, more powerful and have more sex. And maybe they find person after person they can use to get ahead.
But they constantly need to steer themselves and others. They can't have loving, caring and trusting relationships with people. They can't trust to be liked no matter what. In the same way they use people to get ahead, they themselves get left behind the moment they don't perform. This puts an immense pressure on them, and to put it in the words of the article, they are at war their whole life.
I'd totally trade money and status for not fighting my whole life.
I have been with such a person and I can tell you the cognitive dissonance of that life weighed on them and made them generally unpleasant in many ways.
They can, yes. The question is, however, what their natural behaviour is. Are they generally nice people and act like jerks just to get ahead? Or are they jerks and need to keep it together with family, friends, etc? Either way, in one part of their life they need to behave against their nature.
natural behavior for example can be to love and help close people but realize that world around is competitive and everyone tries to bite everyone.
I also think "jerk" assessment comes from people who do not accept such world, do not want to compete and prefer to be in the comfort zone, and blame surrounding instead by calling names.
If you want to not be a jerk (and I, like you, don't want to be one) you have to accept that it is going to cost you in terms of social success, wealth and so on. This doesn't mean you can't be a success (in those terms) without being a jerk, but you can't be as much of a success, and that you will be outpaced, on average, by people of similar ability who are willing to be a jerk.
Accept this, and yet still choose to not be a jerk. You can do it. I believe in you.
(Unfortunately this is exactly the advice a jerk would give you: one less jerk to compete with...)
If you want to be a nice person, you can't be nice in hopes of being rewarded later. That's not nice, it's just spineless. I am trying my best to be kind and generous even though I know I'll not "win" anything by society's standards. What I get is a sense of integrity, which is enough.
Notice how the author puts "disagreeable" and "dominant" people in the same bucket as "manipulative" and "exploitative". That says a lot about his world view. Having leadership abilities and not being a yes-man is apparently in the realm of sociopathic behavior in his book.
Yes, the ex-friend who cuts in line because he believes nobody else matters is an asshole. But that's not remotely the same thing as being disagreeable.
You can be a genuinely kind person and still be a "jerk" when the situation calls for it. That's called having a spine. The nice-guys-vs-bad-boys dichotomy is a juvenile coping mechanism adopted by people who are afraid to assert themselves.
I feel like the author just breezed past the most important line his ex-friend said: “Mostly everyone just backs down, but if I think they’re going to kill me, yeah, I’ll probably let them go first.”
Ultimately these types of jerks only exist because they were lucky enough to be born into a society civilized enough to tolerate them but not yet advanced enough to do anything about them. Not much earlier in history you needed to behave this way you would need to have some sort of physical or social power to back this up. A person can get away with just cutting in line because we (rightfully so) abhor violence more than we do the breaking of minor social norms so the chance that someone will just bop them on the nose are extremely low, and as a civilization we still have a plethora of bigger issues to address than mild cases of jerkish behavior.
The way I see it, the fact the people can act feel like they can get away with acting like this is a sign that we are becoming more civilized. From here we either advance to eventually we reach the point were the police and the courts have nothing better to do than issue fines cutting in line without permission, or we regress and jerks need to live with the reality that anytime someone may decided to just shank them and pay the wergild.
What is civilized except the ability to create a civilization that is most perfect and worth living in?
Civilized doesn't mean "meek" or "long-suffering", consequently it isn't civilized to tolerate behavior unbecoming to living in a good civilization (aka uncivilized behavior).
A more civilized society doesn't suffer people who impose on others, or who put themselves first at the cost of others. A more civilized society is one where people don't cut others in line in the first place, either because they have the decency not to, or because they know they'll pay consequences if they do.
Exactly, but at our current point of civilization we don't really have many options to deal with people that break minor social norms. The person the author of the article was speaking of has realized that if they hold their ground until for anything allow physical violence they can get away with a lot because civilized people realize getting into fist fights over mild offenses is detrimental in the long run. If a politician ran on a campaign to change laws and setup law enforcement to deal with these people any sane individual would wonder why focus on this instead any number of more important issues. If civilization continues to progress I feel like eventually we will get to the point where 'jerks being jerks' is the biggest thing effecting our quality of life.
It works both ways, the jerks also know it's not worth making a scene in public and maybe even getting kicked full strength in the balls if they escalate too much.
They'll go to the back of the line with a simple "The line starts over there", as long as you're willing to fight in the small number of cases they're so insane they would in fact have a full on brawl at Target over a line.
This is why I hate the whole idea of "Not being a stick in the mud".
Most of these jerks could be stopped with a simple "there's a line", the more egregious cases might need a snapshot and a post to r/iamatotalpieceofshit or similar.
in my personal life i'm basically a pretty mellow and passive guy. in running a business however, i'm nice to genuinely nice people (not 'niceguys') and an absolute galaxy-sized asshole to jerks, because generally they're coming after something of mine or my team's and not at all subtle about it.
when peoples' livelihoods and money are on the line there's absolutely no backing down or you're going to get chewed up by these kinds of people.
it's the sociopathic types you really have to worry about because they're both at the same time. the only upside to a jerk is they're transparent and it's usually not personal, they're just a jerk to everyone.
50 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadIt isn't a black and white jerk/non jerk. I want my neighbor to be nice to me, and a jerk to the guy who tries to rob my house.
Be loyal to your team, and give the other team hell!
*facepalm
It's like believing in the afterlife where some supernatural entity judges people fairly and will cast the evil ones into eternal torture. But instead of believing that it happens after death, it only maybe happens before death.
But it doesn't, and they know it, which makes it sting even more.
It's a story that's still deeply embedded in cultural storytelling even as society becomes less religious. I can't tell whether it's not working well because people are discontent or whether it's working well because without it they'd run amok.
This is complex the ugly nerd often only thinks they have a good heart. It's their self-perception, which, if you listen to women, is not a shared perception.
The opposite gender counterexample is a "jerk with a heart of gold."
> The myth that people are really considering non-physical factors into their mating choices
Did you mean that people primarily select for physical attractiveness? This reads like you think people never consider non-physical factors, which I think is trivially disprovable.
Look, I'm not saying that hot people don't fuck more often. But I am saying that the ugly nerd with a heart of gold is ... also a toxic narrative, and is based on the nerd's belief they have a heart of gold. I frequently read the 2x chromosome subreddit for what interactions with self-professed "nice guys" are like, and I wouldn't for a minute think these dudes are even halfway decent people.
In my experience, most people aren't all that kind to people they're not related to or well-acquainted with. Those that are tend to be taken advantage of and looked down on.
> Did you mean that people primarily select for physical attractiveness? This reads like you think people never consider non-physical factors, which I think is trivially disprovable.
People do sometimes consider non-physical factors, but only after they filter based on physical attractiveness, and usually that's only for long-term mate selection rather than casual sex or affairs. Like, I'm a complete POS with a horrible attitude and personality, no money or job, and an extensive criminal record, but I never have difficulty finding sex partners because I'm slightly above average in height and have a symmetrical face. My friend who works hard, is always honest, and will give you the shirt off his back - he can't get the time of day because 5'2".
"being a jerk gets you rich, promoted, and laid. Being a jerk is sounding pretty attractive."
and much later
"when he gets found out — when people fully realize what he is — then he will be alone and outcast"
I also think "jerk" assessment comes from people who do not accept such world, do not want to compete and prefer to be in the comfort zone, and blame surrounding instead by calling names.
If you want to not be a jerk (and I, like you, don't want to be one) you have to accept that it is going to cost you in terms of social success, wealth and so on. This doesn't mean you can't be a success (in those terms) without being a jerk, but you can't be as much of a success, and that you will be outpaced, on average, by people of similar ability who are willing to be a jerk.
Accept this, and yet still choose to not be a jerk. You can do it. I believe in you.
(Unfortunately this is exactly the advice a jerk would give you: one less jerk to compete with...)
lol.
So you might consider joining a monastery with other nice people.
Yes, the ex-friend who cuts in line because he believes nobody else matters is an asshole. But that's not remotely the same thing as being disagreeable.
You can be a genuinely kind person and still be a "jerk" when the situation calls for it. That's called having a spine. The nice-guys-vs-bad-boys dichotomy is a juvenile coping mechanism adopted by people who are afraid to assert themselves.
Ultimately these types of jerks only exist because they were lucky enough to be born into a society civilized enough to tolerate them but not yet advanced enough to do anything about them. Not much earlier in history you needed to behave this way you would need to have some sort of physical or social power to back this up. A person can get away with just cutting in line because we (rightfully so) abhor violence more than we do the breaking of minor social norms so the chance that someone will just bop them on the nose are extremely low, and as a civilization we still have a plethora of bigger issues to address than mild cases of jerkish behavior.
The way I see it, the fact the people can act feel like they can get away with acting like this is a sign that we are becoming more civilized. From here we either advance to eventually we reach the point were the police and the courts have nothing better to do than issue fines cutting in line without permission, or we regress and jerks need to live with the reality that anytime someone may decided to just shank them and pay the wergild.
Civilized doesn't mean "meek" or "long-suffering", consequently it isn't civilized to tolerate behavior unbecoming to living in a good civilization (aka uncivilized behavior).
A more civilized society doesn't suffer people who impose on others, or who put themselves first at the cost of others. A more civilized society is one where people don't cut others in line in the first place, either because they have the decency not to, or because they know they'll pay consequences if they do.
They'll go to the back of the line with a simple "The line starts over there", as long as you're willing to fight in the small number of cases they're so insane they would in fact have a full on brawl at Target over a line.
Most of these jerks could be stopped with a simple "there's a line", the more egregious cases might need a snapshot and a post to r/iamatotalpieceofshit or similar.
I think being more prone to violence in general as a society doesn't change anything about the jerks.
Being a jerk is relative to the rest of the society. They were simply more violent than the average individual in the wild west, but they existed too.
when peoples' livelihoods and money are on the line there's absolutely no backing down or you're going to get chewed up by these kinds of people.
it's the sociopathic types you really have to worry about because they're both at the same time. the only upside to a jerk is they're transparent and it's usually not personal, they're just a jerk to everyone.
Yep.
> if Bregman, Dunbar, and Wilson are right, when he gets found out — when people fully realize what he is — then he will be alone and outcast.
That's a lot of hypotheticals. Maybe the boss is a jerk, but he's still the boss.