The Science Behind "Nice" People

GorillaEsq

I wonder how your large circle of friends and family feel about your fatalistic outlook. Truely, I would like to know how successfully you move through our society with a contrary philosophy.

Two issues here. First, I'm not defined by what others think. Second, you would have to ask them.

The general consensus is that I'm someone they're very, very glad to have on their side.

Truely, I would like to know how successfully you move through our society with a contrary philosophy.

I'm not sure how my philosophy is contrary.

geekyjock76

Although there are times when the "if you scratch my back..." scheme surfaces even in every day life, there are other motivators that explain why people act nice to others. Your deeds may simply be the means to make each person you encounter have a more enjoyable day.

opuntia

In my mind, "trolling" is someone that posts things like "I hate grandmas and puppies." On strings like this, the word "troll" is typically used as a last-resort cliche' because the poster has no other recourse nor argument.

Maybe it's defined differently on this site (or in your mind) then, but on all other sites I've been on, trolling is defined as posting something inflammatory in order to get an emotional response, rather than posting to genuinely interact with people and exchange views. Throwing out statements and questions to bait people rather than stating genuine views or asking genuine questions.

The OED defines it as:

'Computing slang. To post a deliberately erroneous or antagonistic message on a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response.'

I doubt that a post of 'I hate grandmas and puppies' would get much response. It's a bit too obvious!

SuperstarDJ

I used to go about my life assuming everyone I meet is a piece of *kitten* until they proved otherwise. Never trusting anyone, never giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. It's actually a pretty safe way to live your life. You will never be taken advantage of, because you will never let anyone get close enough to do so. However, I realize it doesn't make for a very happy life. It's not that you won't have friends, but more than likely you'll have friends who feel the same way you do. So you'll probably sit around discussing your very cynical views of the world.
I decided to change things up, and try to follow one simple rule: treat others as I like to be treated. In other words: be nice. Surround yourself with nice people. Distance yourself from negative people. This doesn't mean I trust everyone. Trust has nothing to do with being nice.
In regards to big, mean, scary people who come off as intimidating: that's their issue. I've spent time with some mma fighters. Guys who train full-time on how to kick *kitten*. Guys who walk the streets knowing they can whip about 99% of the people they run across. These are some of the nicest, most humble guys I've ever known. We go out to a club, and the last thing on their mind is trying to look tough, because they have nothing to prove to anyone.
Just my .02

^^ THIS! ^^

I'm curious, on which world do you reside, exactly?

A world where every single stranger I bump into is not a potential threat...

That does sound like a nice world.

Unfortunately, the world I live in has Department of Justice statistics that show 1 out of 3 women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their life....

[/quote] Yes, and I have been one of the 'one-in-three' but it was a family member. Also...

...The same statistic say that 8 out of every 10 Americans will be a victim of a crime before the age of 40.

Again, I've been horrifically attacked, on multiple occasions by my partner. Again, somebody known to me (The worst crime committed against me by a stranger was my cell phone snatched from my hand).
So, being a victim of assault and abuse by the people who I should be able to trust the most should surely make me extremely wary and mistrustful of people, no?
No. Of course it took me a long time to get to the place I'm at now, but it just feels like a nicer world to live in now. As I've stated already, I cannot control the actions of others but I can control my reactions to them and the world around me.

Can I come live in your world??

You are very welcome to come live in my world It's quite nice here really.

GorillaEsq

The OED defines it as:

'Computing slang. To post a deliberately erroneous or antagonistic message on a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response.'

I doubt that a post of 'I hate grandmas and puppies' would get much response. It's a bit too obvious!

By that definition, every court docket, summons and subpoena in the country is technically "trolling."

_VoV

I wonder how your large circle of friends and family feel about your fatalistic outlook. Truely, I would like to know how successfully you move through our society with a contrary philosophy.

Two issues here. First, I'm not defined by what others think. Second, you would have to ask them.

The general consensus is that I'm someone they're very, very glad to have on their side.

Truely, I would like to know how successfully you move through our society with a contrary philosophy.

I'm not sure how my philosophy is contrary.

I agree that he's not being contrary, since his argument is as legitimate as any other.

This is an old argument on the nature of man. There's even Biblical precedent for his argument on the point of 'original sin.' It has continued through the ages as a prime philosophical question. And now science is getting into the act. His argument is not without merit, but I think the critical question of motive is too simplified: altruism may have a primary motive which serves an external good, but results in personal side benefits (feeling good; being respected in the community; possible future rewards).

FlaxMilk

I'd say it's more correlated than proven.

Actually, it's one of the most highly accepted scientific theorems in history. Google "Price Equation."

Nice story, but the Price Equation has actually been disproven.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519311003754

The equation doesn't actually hold up to reality.

You haven't answered my posts except when I am pretty sure you thought you were responding to someone else, but I hope you answer this one. (Am I not being mean enough? Would being mean give me the advantage in this situation?) (I can't read the article, so I'm interested to know what's in there.)

Silverkittycat

The general consensus is that I'm someone they're very, very glad to have on their side.

Sooooo....in addition to your kids and bacon.. that's what you need? Oh well, if you're content being the gorilla, I'm glad it works for you. Thanks for your contribution and some Sunday morning amusement. If you find something that works for you, stick with it?

tbspoon09

what a load of cynical crap

I agree with you ^^ this is such a cynical point of view and very sad. I just got back from Sunday School and my church has some of the nicest people I have ever met in my 39 years on this earth. They have on many occassions helped me & my family with absolutely no thought of getting anything in return. I think you forget that sometimes people are "nice" simply because they love!

GorillaEsq

You haven't answered my posts except when I am pretty sure you thought you were responding to someone else, but I hope you answer this one. (Am I not being mean enough? Would being mean give me the advantage in this situation?)

Sorry. It's hard to keep track of who's hating me at what particular moment.

The links provided go to a publication that simply theorizes a possible missing variable in Prices theory, based on a third theory.

I can find links to pages that use the same approach to disprove gravity.

gayje

Very rarely would a woman find a man attractive, and commence to beating that male with a stick.

I don't think all of us can be grouped into one or other categories based on math or science, because there IS the existance of humanities. And I want to add that the above quote USED to be me but since I am officially done "breeding" I just may go around willy nilly with my man-beater stick and, well, who knows? I just may sport the stick and not use it.

NormalSaneFLGuy

The OED defines it as:

'Computing slang. To post a deliberately erroneous or antagonistic message on a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response.'

I doubt that a post of 'I hate grandmas and puppies' would get much response. It's a bit too obvious!

By that definition, every court docket, summons and subpoena in the country is technically "trolling."

erroneous - mistaken, wrong, incorrect
antagonistic - hostile

You're stating that every docket, summons, and subpoena is incorrect or hostile? That's just stupid.
Hell a subpoena just requests someone to appear. How can that even be defined as erroneous or hostile? At best you could claim it as unnecessary unless you're claim is that 100% of subpoenas have the incorrect information for the person that is being summoned; however that would mean no one would ever get it. So then you must mean that 100% of subpoenas are hostile. No, they are a technical procedure. In some circumstances it could be perceived as hostile, but some is not all.

When I get called for jury duty, that's incorrect and hostile?

Do you even listen to what you say?

I_wanna_live

what a load of cynical crap

I agree... if this was the case, then I know 15 guys and girls who are single... no kids... and are the nicest people you would ever come a crossed. But, it is the *kitten*, pricks, dirt-bags, etc... I know that the other gender flock to.

FlaxMilk

I haven't hated on you--I think that's the problem! The only issue I'm really taking is with the notion that this is proven rather than correlated. (The homicide rate goes up with ice cream consumption. This is proven. However, the two are only correlations and don't indicate causation. The theory is that as the heat rises, people are more aggressive due to discomfort and other biological changes. But they also eat more ice cream. My theory is that those eating the ice cream are less likely to commit homicide in the heat. Because ice cream rocks.)

GorillaEsq

The OED defines it as:

'Computing slang. To post a deliberately erroneous or antagonistic message on a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response.'

I doubt that a post of 'I hate grandmas and puppies' would get much response. It's a bit too obvious!

By that definition, every court docket, summons and subpoena in the country is technically "trolling."

erroneous - mistaken, wrong, incorrect
antagonistic - hostile

You're stating that every docket, summons, and subpoena is incorrect or hostile? That's just stupid.
Hell a subpoena just requests someone to appear. How can that even be defined as erroneous or hostile? At best you could claim it as unnecessary unless you're claim is that 100% of subpoenas have the incorrect information for the person that is being summoned; however that would mean no one would ever get it. So then you must mean that 100% of subpoenas are hostile. No, they are a technical procedure. In some circumstances it could be perceived as hostile, but some is not all.

When I get called for jury duty, that's incorrect and hostile?

Do you even listen to what you say?

Read it again.
Then go Google the word "antagonistic."
Then read your post again.
Then go Google the word "ironic."

But I'll tell you what, to prove a point. I'll summons you to court, and subpoena your family members.

We'll talk about how happy everyone is to be there.

My post above was a joke, dear.

opuntia

The OED defines it as:

'Computing slang. To post a deliberately erroneous or antagonistic message on a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response.'

I doubt that a post of 'I hate grandmas and puppies' would get much response. It's a bit too obvious!

By that definition, every court docket, summons and subpoena in the country is technically "trolling."

Well, technically, by definition, this 'computing slang' is about posting messages on online forums, so doesn't apply to real life court situations. People posting on a 'chit-chat, fun, and games' forum aren't on trial, and it's not your job to persuade a jury that they're guilty. Context is everything - things may be the accepted norm in one situation, but not in another. For instance, it's considered perfectly acceptable to strip naked in your bathroom before you get into your bath, but it's not considered acceptable to do so in the middle of the street before you step into a puddle.

likemeinvisible

what a load of cynical crap

Exactly. What do you expect to gain if you give money to a random homeless guy you met on the street ? Sounds like the OP has an excuse for not being nice, because according to "mathematical formula" no one else is.

GorillaEsq

Well, technically, by definition, this 'computing slang' is about posting messages on online forums, so doesn't apply to real life court situations. People posting on a 'chit-chat, fun, and games' forum aren't on trial, and it's not your job to persuade a jury that they're guilty. Context is everything - things may be the accepted norm in one situation, but not in another. For instance, it's considered perfectly acceptable to strip naked in your bathroom before you get into your bath, but it's not considered acceptable to do so in the middle of the street before you step into a puddle.

Yes. I know. I was making light of the "antagonistic" and "publication" aspects of your definition.

atsteele

I buy into the fact that being "nice" helps the "herd" but not necessarily entirely buy into the example of the woman being nice only to potential mates. I've had a lot of guy friends which I would never consider "mating" with. hehe BUT that being said, they did offer a nice barrier in social situations such that I didn't have to deal with anyone hitting on me. The herd offers protection to the individual.

GorillaEsq

I haven't hated on you--I think that's the problem! The only issue I'm really taking is with the notion that this is proven rather than correlated. (The homicide rate goes up with ice cream consumption. This is proven. However, the two are only correlations and don't indicate causation. The theory is that as the heat rises, people are more aggressive due to discomfort and other biological changes. But they also eat more ice cream. My theory is that those eating the ice cream are less likely to commit homicide in the heat. Because ice cream rocks.)

Hmm. I do like ice cream.