How to Stop Being a Nice Guy. Thoughts?

[EasterJoy]

I am not going to analyze the motives of God. You are talking about an infinite entity that is incomprehensible.

I wish Zoltan Cobalt was still around, he was also influenced by Objectivism but he was way better at defending it.

At the end of the day, I am rather cynical about most people and would prefer to be left alone by them. The Bible tells us to love our neighbor, I can a better neighbor if I have a good fence.

If you can’t analyze the motives of God, how could you have a relationship with God based on Objectivism?

The New Testament is very plain, and very plainly in direct opposition to Ayn Rand:

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there also will my servant be. The Father will honor whoever serves me. John 12:24-26

But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Luke 6:27-30

Neither Ayn Rand nor the plain meaning of the New Testament gives you a choice. They both tell you that you cannot have it both ways. You have to choose. You can follow Ayn Rand, you can follow Christ, you can follow some other way, but you cannot follow both Ayn Rand and Christ. If you try, you’ll have failed to follow either one.

 

[Rau]

If God does not want a person who works hard, is always trying to better himself, lives with integrity, and does not harm others, why would I want God?

Is Ayn’s philosophy the only one to promote those (good) attributes? Clearly not.

And are they enough for God? Are they the key things you take from the Gospels?

 

[Xantippe]

Is Ayn’s philosophy the only one to promote those (good) attributes? Clearly not.

And are they enough for God? Are they the key things you take from the Gospels?

Also, “does not harm others” is going to be a very murky area.

A lot of people think they are not hurting others who obviously are.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

At the end of the day, I am rather cynical about most people and would prefer to be left alone by them. .

This is probably one of those " careful what you wish for" things. There are lonely nursing homes full of this type of fulfilled wish. But if alone is what you think drives your happy self… Then alone it may indeed be…

 

[starshiptrooper]

So, you think you can live your way and have things exactly your way and then one day flip the switch and be a loving husband and self-sacrificing father for the rest of your life?

To me, that sounds like preparing for a marathon by having a dozen Krispy Kreme a day habit. I just don’t see how you get from here to there.

You keep conflating rational self-interest with blindly following mere whims. I am quite aware that anything worth having can only be achieved through struggle. From a Randian perspective, this is not sacrifice. A sacrifice is giving up a greater value for a lesser one. Committing time and resources to your children definitely does not qualify.

The bottom line is, I recommended reading Rand as an antidote to the cultural programming that screws over niceguys. They are taught that they should be altruistic and that this behavior is universal. So they think others will reciprocate out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course, it is not universal but consciously or unconsciously promoted by the people who benefit from it. The types who shame the niceguy as a creep or passive-aggressive despite the fact that he is trying to live up to society’s standard and achieve his goals by their approved methods. That is far more manipulative, deceptive and disgusting than anything in Rand’s philosophy.

 

[DarkLight]

You keep conflating rational self-interest with blindly following mere whims. I am quite aware that anything worth having can only be achieved through struggle. From a Randian perspective, this is not sacrifice. A sacrifice is giving up a greater value for a lesser one. Committing time and resources to your children definitely does not qualify.

The bottom line is, I recommended reading Rand as an antidote to the cultural programming that screws over niceguys. They are taught that they should be altruistic and that this behavior is universal. So they think others will reciprocate out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course, it is not universal but consciously or unconsciously promoted by the people who benefit from it. The types who shame the niceguy as a creep or passive-aggressive despite the fact that he is trying to live up to society’s standard and achieve his goals by their approved methods. That is far more manipulative, deceptive and disgusting than anything in Rand’s philosophy.

The Bible teaches us to give without expecting anything in return. That’s the Christian way - to follow Christ and to serve and help others without expecting that we will gain any earthly reward, simply because it’s the right thing to do. How many of the great saints who went out of their way to help the poor do you think did so because they expected any return on their investment?

 

[EasterJoy]

You keep conflating rational self-interest with blindly following mere whims. I am quite aware that anything worth having can only be achieved through struggle. From a Randian perspective, this is not sacrifice. A sacrifice is giving up a greater value for a lesser one. Committing time and resources to your children definitely does not qualify.

The bottom line is, I recommended reading Rand as an antidote to the cultural programming that screws over niceguys. They are taught that they should be altruistic and that this behavior is universal. So they think others will reciprocate out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course, it is not universal but consciously or unconsciously promoted by the people who benefit from it. The types who shame the niceguy as a creep or passive-aggressive despite the fact that he is trying to live up to society’s standard and achieve his goals by their approved methods. That is far more manipulative, deceptive and disgusting than anything in Rand’s philosophy.

Christianity absolutely DOES NOT teach that loving your enemies is universal behavior. More to the point, though, you have it all wrong about how people get into the trap of being “too nice.”

No, the “nice” people we are talking about DO NOT follow society’s standard or approved methods. They get where they are by a) allowing a few people in their lives (often alcoholics, drug addicts or workaholics in their families) to manipulate them to give in inappropriate ways and b) by hoping that they can run up the score of favors done to others high enough that they will be beyond criticism or social rejection. The kind of “nice” that the authors of the “stop being the nice guy” pieces were talking about, after all, is not really giving with no expectation of a return. It is giving that expects to get a return without having to ask for it, won by a habit of going around and giving to people who usually didn’t ask for and almost never deserved the help they were being given.

Don’t you get it? Did you even read the articles in the links that kicked off this thread? The*** inappropriate*** nature of the giving that self-described “nice guys” do is their problem! That is exactly why they turn off the women they’re pursuing. They give too much to people who are not asking them to do it!!

It is like being sent a piece of merchandise for a “30 day FREE TRIAL!!” It isn’t free. There is the expectation by the giver of the unsolicited, unneeded and unwanted merchandise that the giver is eventually going to find a “buyer” in this way, that he’s going to achieve reciprocation if he does enough unsolicited giving. He (or she) expects that people are going to rain nice things on his head that he never asked for!! Then when it doesn’t happen, he gets bitter about it.

 

[Xantippe]

Christianity absolutely DOES NOT teach that loving your enemies is universal behavior. More to the point, though, you have it all wrong about how people get into the trap of being “too nice.”

No, the “nice” people we are talking about DO NOT follow society’s standard or approved methods. They get where they are by a) allowing a few people in their lives (often alcoholics, drug addicts or workaholics in their families) to manipulate them to give in inappropriate ways and b) by hoping that they can run up the score of favors done to others high enough that they will be beyond criticism or social rejection. The kind of “nice” that the authors of the “stop being the nice guy” pieces were talking about, after all, is not really giving with no expectation of a return. It is giving that expects to get a return without having to ask for it, won by a habit of going around and giving to people who usually didn’t ask for and almost never deserved the help they were being given.

Don’t you get it? Did you even read the articles in the links that kicked off this thread? The*** inappropriate*** nature of the giving that self-described “nice guys” do is their problem! That is exactly why they turn off the women they’re pursuing. They give too much to people who are not asking them to do it!!

It is like being sent a piece of merchandise for a “30 day FREE TRIAL!!” It isn’t free. There is the expectation by the giver of the unsolicited, unneeded and unwanted merchandise that the giver is eventually going to find a “buyer” in this way, that he’s going to achieve reciprocation if he does enough unsolicited giving. He (or she) expects that people are going to rain nice things on his head that he never asked for!! Then when it doesn’t happen, he gets bitter about it.

Also, this unsolicited giving has the very undesirable dual effect of 1) scaring off decent people (who are scared to death what the desired quid pro quo is going to turn out to be for this unasked for largesse) and 2) attracting bad people to feed.

So, of course the “nice guy” is going to find himself eventually surrounded by jerks–he’s scaring off the normal people.

 

[EasterJoy]

Also, this unsolicited giving has the very undesirable dual effect of 1) scaring off decent people (who are scared to death what the desired quid pro quo is going to turn out to be for this unasked for largesse) and 2) attracting bad people to feed.

So, of course the “nice guy” is going to find himself eventually surrounded by jerks–he’s scaring off the normal people.

I’d like to reiterate that this is almost always due to an incorrect understanding of how Christian charity works. It is sad how many really decent people go through life not understanding why they keep having relationship problems. They don’t understand that it is necessary to think about whether some form of self-gift is appropriate and when such gifts ought to be considered as falling under the negotiated boundaries of a reciprocal relationship and when they ought to be considered a pro bono matter that will not be rewarded until the Last Judgment.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Christianity absolutely DOES NOT teach that loving your enemies is universal behavior. More to the point, though, you have it all wrong about how people get into the trap of being “too nice.”

No, the “nice” people we are talking about DO NOT follow society’s standard or approved methods. They get where they are by a) allowing a few people in their lives (often alcoholics, drug addicts or workaholics in their families) to manipulate them to give in inappropriate ways and b) by hoping that they can run up the score of favors done to others high enough that they will be beyond criticism or social rejection. The kind of “nice” that the authors of the “stop being the nice guy” pieces were talking about, after all, is not really giving with no expectation of a return. It is giving that expects to get a return without having to ask for it, won by a habit of going around and giving to people who usually didn’t ask for and almost never deserved the help they were being given.

Don’t you get it? Did you even read the articles in the links that kicked off this thread? The*** inappropriate*** nature of the giving that self-described “nice guys” do is their problem! That is exactly why they turn off the women they’re pursuing. They give too much to people who are not asking them to do it!!

It is like being sent a piece of merchandise for a “30 day FREE TRIAL!!” It isn’t free. There is the expectation by the giver of the unsolicited, unneeded and unwanted merchandise that the giver is eventually going to find a “buyer” in this way, that he’s going to achieve reciprocation if he does enough unsolicited giving. He (or she) expects that people are going to rain nice things on his head that he never asked for!! Then when it doesn’t happen, he gets bitter about it.

Beautifully stated!

 

[Xantippe]

I’d like to reiterate that this is almost always due to an incorrect understanding of how Christian charity works. It is sad how many really decent people go through life not understanding why they keep having relationship problems. They don’t understand that it is necessary to think about whether some form of self-gift is appropriate and when such gifts ought to be considered as falling under the negotiated boundaries of a reciprocal relationship and when they ought to be considered a pro bono matter that will not be rewarded until the Last Judgment.

Right.

In reciprocal relationships, gifts and favors need to be kept at a level where the recipient can easily return the favor. Years ago, I worked in Russia and had lots of Russian friends, and it was only after a while that I realized that we had to be careful with the size of gifts, because my Russian friends would KILL themselves trying to reciprocate at the same level.

In my everyday life, (barring huge emergencies), I try not to ask any favors that I wouldn’t be able to easily return. For example, I wouldn’t ask my good friend to watch my kids unless it was an emergency, as I don’t want to watch her kids unless it’s an emergency. That may not sound very nice, but it’s kind of a variation on the Golden Rule. (I am generous to my friend in other ways–for example with hand-me-downs–but I make sure not to ask for favors that would be difficult for me to reciprocate.)

But then charity is a totally different thing entirely. There will be times when you leave the world of friendship and enter the world of social work, but I try to be conscious which set of rules I am operating under.

 

[Xantippe]

One of my friends (who is an amazingly generous person) has belatedly realized that her friend is kind of a user. It’s all a one-way street–can you watch my kids, can you get my packages, can you pick up this at the grocery store, could I borrow some tampons, etc., etc. (Yep–she seriously said that about the tampons. )

My friend eventually realized that her friend (if that is the right term) was never reciprocating in kind and balked at any requests. I believe that friend has been moved from the reciprocal relationship category to the “will help if in serious need as fellow human being” category.

 

[EasterJoy]

Right.

In reciprocal relationships, gifts and favors need to be kept at a level where the recipient can easily return the favor. Years ago, I worked in Russia and had lots of Russian friends, and it was only after a while that I realized that we had to be careful with the size of gifts, because my Russian friends would KILL themselves trying to reciprocate at the same level.

In my everyday life, (barring huge emergencies), I try not to ask any favors that I wouldn’t be able to easily return. For example, I wouldn’t ask my good friend to watch my kids unless it was an emergency, as I don’t want to watch her kids unless it’s an emergency. That may not sound very nice, but it’s kind of a variation on the Golden Rule. (I am generous to my friend in other ways–for example with hand-me-downs–but I make sure not to ask for favors that would be difficult for me to reciprocate.)

But then charity is a totally different thing entirely. There will be times when you leave the world of friendship and enter the world of social work, but I try to be conscious which set of rules I am operating under.

The main thing is that you be honest about what reciprocation you have in mind before you give and what expectations you want to lead others to have. It is up to you to set and articulate your boundaries and to respect, as you point out, that you have to respect the standards of others as you do it, and not put them on the spot by how you act.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…
. From a Randian perspective, this is not sacrifice. A sacrifice is giving up a greater value for a lesser one. Committing time and resources to your children definitely does not qualify.

…

I think Rand’s point, at least what I remember as I haven’t read any of her stuff for more decades than I care to admit is-

If one makes a rationale choice to make an effort/give up something for another the more accurate term is – gift.

A sacrifice is you being used/forced by someone else into giving up something. Again, communism sacrificing you in terms of owning whatever you produce.

We as Catholics speak of Christ’s sacrifice as also being a gift to humanity. It was a sacrifice in the sense that His human nature wasn’t really thrilled about being crucified on a cross and He was forced onto it by other humans. However, as God He clearly didn’t have to do this, could have stopped it but willingly cooperated in order to give men the gift of salvation.

My choosing to give a part of my earnings to the poor isn’t a sacrifice in Rand’s terms because it is a willing act on my part and therefore a gift.

In short-- Rand rejected the idea of ‘self-sacrifice’ as impossible- if I recall correctly. Choosing to do things for others is a gift, a choice freely made.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I am really not sure what the heck we are in disagreement about. I never denied that niceguys are unsuccessful and unattractive. We agree that their.conduct is the problem. To me, the only difference is my assessment that they are misguided and frustrated with nobody telling them where they went wrong instead of being both passive aggressive and incompetent villains.

As for this discussion on generosity, I give to the people that I know and share values with. I cannot go out of my way for everyone, both practicality and my concept of justice forbid it. I give so-called “common courtesy” to the average stranger and I take the appropriate measures to deal with toxic individuals. I have read enough Rand to know that is perfectly compatible with Objectivism. It is also better than some “altruistic” people who ignore the people in front of them while virtue-signaling for strangers.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am really not sure what the heck we are in disagreement about. I never denied that niceguys are unsuccessful and unattractive. We agree that their.conduct is the problem. To me, the only difference is my assessment that they are misguided and frustrated with nobody telling them where they went wrong instead of being both passive aggressive and incompetent villains.

As for this discussion on generosity, I give to the people that I know and share values with. I cannot go out of my way for everyone, both practicality and my concept of justice forbid it. I give so-called “common courtesy” to the average stranger and I take the appropriate measures to deal with toxic individuals. I have read enough Rand to know that is perfectly compatible with Objectivism. It is also better than some “altruistic” people who ignore the people in front of them while virtue-signaling for strangers.

The disagreement is whether one can please both the real Ayn Rand and yet also please God.

I don’t see how it is possible. She wasn’t simply advocating for a realistic view of defining morality on an overall cost-benefit basis, but even that is not according to the Gospel. As it was, she defined morality on a cost-to-the-individual-benefit-to-the-individual basis. That is really opposed to the idea that “unless a grain of wheat shall fall…”

She did not believe that we owe all to God. She just didn’t.

 

[DarkLight]

I’m reminded of some advice that has been passed around pretty frequently with young women.

Take a guy out to a restaurant. Watch closely how he treats the waitress. However he treats her is how he’s going to end up treating you.

 

[Sarcelle]

I’m reminded of some advice that has been passed around pretty frequently with young women.

Take a guy out to a restaurant. Watch closely how he treats the waitress. However he treats her is how he’s going to end up treating you.

My parents gave me that advice.

 

[starshiptrooper]

The disagreement is whether one can please both the real Ayn Rand and yet also please God.

I don’t see how it is possible. She wasn’t simply advocating for a realistic view of defining morality on an overall cost-benefit basis, but even that is not according to the Gospel. As it was, she defined morality on a cost-to-the-individual-benefit-to-the-individual basis. That is really opposed to the idea that “unless a grain of wheat shall fall…”

I always interpreted that verse in terms of suffering being necessary for growth.

 

[EasterJoy]

I always interpreted that verse in terms of suffering being necessary for growth.

It goes beyond that. He is saying that death is necessary for resurrection. You cannot be in it for yourself. If you try to save your life, you’ll lose it, but if you lose your life in this world for Our Lord’s sake, it will be saved.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
1 Cor. 1:22-25

Ayn Rand and St. Paul were most unequivocally not preaching the same thing. Neither could have been plainer or more adamant about that than they were.