The Science Behind "Nice" People

opuntia

Ok, I see what you're saying now. So, would it be acceptable for me to simply question other people's motives, until I'm sure of their intentions?

Lol - I'm not your mum, and you're a grown man, so you don't need my permission! Obviously it's up to you to choose your own behaviour based on the evidence you see. The discussion wasn't even about acceptable behaviour, as far as I was aware, so I'm not sure why you're asking me this. But as I stated in a previous post, it's normal human behaviour to look for reasons behind people's behaviour - behaviour doesn't exist in a vacuum, and successful communication depends on working out why people are saying what they're saying and doing what they're doing. Most humans do this automatically, regardless of whether they've studied psychology or Price's theorem.

GorillaEsq

Do you believe that people aren't truly, genuinely nice but are just acting nice out of their own self interest?

Until they prove otherwise, yes.

That doesn't mean I'm gonna jump-up and whoop 'em. That just means I'm guarded until I understand their motivation.

Sometimes that happens within seconds... Sometimes that never happens at all.

SuperSexyDork

You were talking about human behaviour, and the reasons behind it. That falls into the category of psychology, whether or not you use the term 'psychology' or not, and it remains in the category of psychology even when you apply statistical theorems to it. Nothing has been 'proven' about human behaviour in this way. All you can say is that there is evidence to suggest a theory. However, obviously in this case, there is contradictory evidence. You can predict, but the predictions will not always be correct. And even if they were, this would still be a theory. The Price equation isn't a proof. It's a theorem, also called the Price theorem. And the results that derive from it are not a proof about human behaviour.

Ok, I see what you're saying now. So, would it be acceptable for me to simply question other people's motives, until I'm sure of their intentions?

Do you believe that people aren't truly, genuinely nice but are just acting nice out of their own self interest?

That's not how I interpret the theorem. Being nice is in our self interest, so feelings and rewards have developed to encourage that behavior. It's no accident that we "feel good" when we help other people. It's a build in reward which developed because getting along with others is in everyone's interest, including ours.

I think to look suspiciously on nice bahavior based on this theory is ascribing an ulterior motive to people that they really don't consciously have.

I interpret this theorem the same way. It's genetically encoded into us to be nice to each other for the survival of ourselves and society as a whole. The way it is encoded is a built in reward system for being nice to others.

It's not normally a conscious thing. We do nice things- we feel good about ourselves or have more positive feelings as a whole. Most people don't see that as motive, precisely because they don't connect the dots on a conscious level. That's why most people on here assume that they don't have ulterior motives for being nice to people.

That being said, using this theory to justify mistrusting people is counterintuitive because you're assuming a level of conscious selfishness that most people being nice to you simply do not have.

NormalSaneFLGuy

I think you've confused "big and scary" with "self-righteous and idiotic."

ErinBeth7

ayeeee.....I feel like im in college again. this too much critical thinking.

FlaxMilk

Ok, I see what you're saying now. So, would it be acceptable for me to simply question other people's motives, until I'm sure of their intentions?

I think that's healthy enough, as long as it doesn't consume you or cause you to go all attorney on the person being nice. Caution is well advised in the world.

I'm gonna apologize in advance because I set you up with that on purpose. (In fairness, I did ask you to go read it again.)

In my original post, I said...

The short answer... I distrust everyone until they otherwise prove trustworthy (which for most, never happens).

Which you affirm is "healthy enough." When it comes to strangers, I'm not rude. I'm indifferent.

As for me being big, scary and intimidating... I would be such if I were carrying a bouquet of roses, wearing a sundress and singing the theme song from Barney & Friends.... I'm a 6'3, 270 pound, meathead, combatives & firearms instructor, that went to law school.

My physique and disposition don't exactly scream, "Hey there friendly-friend... let's spoon."

I think you are responding to someone else. I don't have any issues with *anyone* being distrustful until proven otherwise. My job ensures that people trust me. When people ask why they should, I tell them that they absolutely should not feel pressured to until they have made up their own minds. I didn't say anything about you anywhere, just that I disagree that Price's equation is "proven." I do agree that it is impossible to argue that people are 100% nice with no personal gain.

The mother who referenced comforting her sick child--the gain is that you are not experiencing guilt or having child services called. That doesn't answer why you would feel guilt. (Price may argue it's related to furthering your line--I disagree with that. It may be one of the factors, but it is not the only factor.)

And please don't dismiss theories put forth by "manic depressives!" Some of the most brilliant people in the world have had Bipolar or Depression. Check out NAMI's lists. It's argued that Abraham Lincoln suffered from Bipolar Disorder. And having manic depression does not stop someone from being a brilliant mathematician.

GorillaEsq

I think you've confused "big and scary" with "self-righteous and idiotic." ...said the Globe to the big, scary man, as he scurried back behind his anonymous picture and the safety of his home computer.

See, now I know not to send Globe a friend request. He's expressed his feelings honestly. :happy:

opuntia

What about mothers? I am certainly not experiencing any personal gain at the moment (1am) as I sit & comfort my sick child.

The idea behind parents is that their children carry their genes. So keeping your child safe and alive ensures that you will not die out - when you die, there will be someone to carry on your genetic material and have children of their own. So you're automatically protective of your own flesh and blood. It's an instinct. Selfishness isn't automatically a bad thing - people need to have an instinct to look after their own, because otherwise people would die out. Just like people have an instinct to look after themselves - if you see a truck hurtling towards you, you get out of the way quick. That is a good thing.

It's not as simplistic as the OP suggests. People act out of a variety of motives. People are often kind to people with no possible reward simply because they like to see themselves as a nice person, and they like to be doing something productive and positive. This can be seen as selfish, strictly speaking, but then you don't act outside of yourself. You are yourself, you act in accordance with your own values, your own sense of self - you can't easily separate your actions form this.

MaraDiaz

Sorry if someone already mentioned this, but I've been thinking: If being nice is an evolutionary advantage, our species has probably evolved not just to be nice but to genuinely enjoy being nice, just as we evolved to enjoy the act of procreation because it passes on those genes.

So not being nice is probably a recipe for being miserable. So most people should probably just enjoy both the feeling and benefits of being nice and don't worry about it.

wild_wild_life

Do you believe that people aren't truly, genuinely nice but are just acting nice out of their own self interest?

Until they prove otherwise, yes.

That doesn't mean I'm gonna jump-up and whoop 'em. That just means I'm guarded until I understand their motivation.

Sometimes that happens within seconds... Sometimes that never happens at all.

I think that's a perfectly valid attitude, FWIW. And while I don't believe it is supported by the theory you described, I'm sure there are any number of other theories out there in support of it.

NormalSaneFLGuy

I think you've confused "big and scary" with "self-righteous and idiotic." ...said the Globe to the pathetic impotent child, as he walked away feeling pity for the misguided kid who believes his perception is the right one.

See, now I know not to send Globe a friend request. He's expressed his feelings honestly. :happy:

For the record, I'd gladly say it to your face. I find it amusing that you think your physical size is threatening to everyone.

Sarauk2sf

I think you've confused "big and scary" with "self-righteous and idiotic." ...said the Globe to the big, scary man, as he scurried back behind his anonymous picture and the safety of his home computer.

See, now I know not to send Globe a friend request. He's expressed his feelings honestly. :happy:

Actually, he expressed his opinions and you changed what he said to try to make yet another 'I am big and scary' comment. Yes we get it, you are a lawyer, you do martial arts, you are big, you feel the need to equate yourself to a gorilla ad nausea. The scary bit, well, you are entitled to your self-aggrandizing opinions of yourself.

SuperSexyDork

Sorry if someone already mentioned this, but I've been thinking: If being nice is an evolutionary advantage, our species has probably evolved not just to be nice but to genuinely enjoy being nice, just as we evolved to enjoy the act of procreation because it passes on those genes.

So not being nice is probably a recipe for being miserable. So most people should probably just enjoy both the feeling and benefits of being nice and don't worry about it.

Yeah it's been mentioned twice actually. Not that it shouldn't be mentioned again.

Do you believe that people aren't truly, genuinely nice but are just acting nice out of their own self interest?

That's not how I interpret the theorem. Being nice is in our self interest, so feelings and rewards have developed to encourage that behavior. It's no accident that we "feel good" when we help other people. It's a build in reward which developed because getting along with others is in everyone's interest, including ours.

I think to look suspiciously on nice bahavior based on this theory is ascribing an ulterior motive to people that they really don't consciously have.

and

I interpret this theorem the same way. It's genetically encoded into us to be nice to each other for the survival of ourselves and society as a whole. The way it is encoded is a built in reward system for being nice to others.

It's not normally a conscious thing. We do nice things- we feel good about ourselves or have more positive feelings as a whole. Most people don't see that as motive, precisely because they don't connect the dots on a conscious level. That's why most people on here assume that they don't have ulterior motives for being nice to people.

That being said, using this theory to justify mistrusting people is counterintuitive because you're assuming a level of conscious selfishness that most people being nice to you simply do not have.

NormalSaneFLGuy

I think you've confused "big and scary" with "self-righteous and idiotic." ...said the Globe to the big, scary man, as he scurried back behind his anonymous picture and the safety of his home computer.

See, now I know not to send Globe a friend request. He's expressed his feelings honestly. :happy:

Actually, he expressed his opinions and you changed what he said to try to make yet another 'I am big and scary' comment. Yes we get it, you are a lawyer, you do martial arts, you are big, you feel the need to equate yourself to a gorilla ad nausea. The scary bit, well, you are entitled to your self-aggrandizing opinions of yourself.

shhh. If you say too much it will be obvious that he's over-compensating for something.

GorillaEsq

What about mothers? I am certainly not experiencing any personal gain at the moment (1am) as I sit & comfort my sick child.

Really? I mean, really? As a parent, you are in no way "gaining" from nurturing your sick children?

Ok... stop for a second. I want you to think about what you said there. Take your emotion out of it. Take your empathy out of it. (I have 4 kids... I get it... but humor me for a second....)

Price's Evolution of Altruism mathematically proves that altruism is a component of evolutionary development. Which means if you are altruistic, you stand a better chance of surviving and continuing your genetic code.

If you nurse your children back to good health ....and they grow-up healthy ...and they have healthy, altruistic kids ...and those healthy kids grow-up and have healthy, altruistic kids.... thennnn....

Ohh... Oohhh.... I think.... I think the light is starting to flicker.... Stay with me..... You can do it...

jesusHchris

I think you've confused "big and scary" with "self-righteous and idiotic." ...said the Globe to the pathetic impotent child, as he walked away feeling pity for the misguided kid who believes his perception is the right one.

See, now I know not to send Globe a friend request. He's expressed his feelings honestly. :happy:

For the record, I'd gladly say it to your face. I find it amusing that you think your physical size is threatening to everyone.

I rarely crack a grin in these mindless forums. I did at the first (original, not modified) post in this quote and again at the follow up.

I do love the thought of the "big tough guy" philosophizing about how and why is is out there striking fear into everyone's hearts when really just looking like an a**.

supplemama

I just read up on George R. Price, it was an interesting read. He sounds like a man who struggled mightily with his theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price#Conversion

I aspire to become a truly nice person, I think it is admirable to be generous of spirit with no intention of personal gain. I have met few people in life who are genuinely nice...one of them was my husband's grandmother on his dad's side. She passed away yesterday, and she was one of the kindest people I have ever met. She is one of the people who inspired me to become a positive thinker and choose to try and extend courtesy and genuine decency to everyone. This is something I often fail at miserably, but I'm trying.

Bentley2718

Not if he consents she's not. There are a number of legal precedents for consenting to assault--professional boxing being the most obvious.

I can promise you, there are no legal precedents in which someone "consents to assault." Mainly because the legal definition of "assault," is battery, or the threat of battery, without consent.

The "precedent" you're attempting to quote (badly by the way) is known as "assumption of risk." "Assumption of risk" is a tort defense which prohibits a plaintiff from recovery against a tortfeasor upon the defendant's demonstration that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk associated with a dangerous activity that subsequently caused damage or injury.

Again, none of this has anything to do with the discussion.

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to argue with me and opine on topics you clearly do not understand?

I could easily ask the same of you with regard to your original post. However, you are correct, the law is not my area of expertise, so I won't bother continuing the argument. I would be curious to see an explanation of why, if battery is always illegal, professional boxers, MMA fighters, etc. aren't all arrested when they exit the ring.

GorillaEsq

Actually, he expressed his opinions and you changed what he said to try to make yet another 'I am big and scary' comment. Yes we get it, you are a lawyer, you do martial arts, you are big, you feel the need to equate yourself to a gorilla ad nausea. The scary bit, well, you are entitled to your self-aggrandizing opinions of yourself.

Thanks. Do I have your permission to continue? Moving forward, I'll email you my string topics in advance for your prior approval before I go off discussing things on the forum.

Please accept my apologies. How dare I do and say things as though I have the right to do and say things.

opuntia

I think you've confused "big and scary" with "self-righteous and idiotic." ...said the Globe to the big, scary man, as he scurried back behind his anonymous picture and the safety of his home computer.

See, now I know not to send Globe a friend request. He's expressed his feelings honestly. :happy:

Actually, he expressed his opinions and you changed what he said to try to make yet another 'I am big and scary' comment. Yes we get it, you are a lawyer, you do martial arts, you are big, you feel the need to equate yourself to a gorilla ad nausea. The scary bit, well, you are entitled to your self-aggrandizing opinions of yourself.

shhh. If you say too much it will be obvious that he's over-compensating for something.

Lol - seriously, I do find that people who like to see themselves as big and scary are often trying to compensate for insecurity. And I guess this could be quite common among people on a site like this, because body-building is one obvious way for a person to build visible bulk and strength. Not, of course, that everyone does it for this reason, but it's likely to be the reason for a few. Wonder if we could apply Price's theorem to that too. We need a thread on the science behind people who lift weights too - I imagine there are a few interesting reasons for it.

GorillaEsq

I could easily ask the same of you with regard to your original post. However, you are correct, the law is not my area of expertise, so I won't bother continuing the argument. I would be curious to see an explanation of why, if battery is always illegal, professional boxers, MMA fighters, etc. aren't all arrested when they exit the ring.

Because that's not battery.

VegesaurusRex

What about mothers? I am certainly not experiencing any personal gain at the moment (1am) as I sit & comfort my sick child.

Really? I mean, really? As a parent, you are in no way "gaining" from nurturing your sick children?

Ok... stop for a second. I want you to think about what you said there. Take your emotion out of it. Take your empathy out of it. (I have 4 kids... I get it... but humor me for a second....)

Price's Evolution of Altruism mathematically proves that altruism is a component of evolutionary development. Which means if you are altruistic, you stand a better chance of surviving and continuing your genetic code.

If you nurse your children back to good health ....and they grow-up healthy ...and they have healthy, altruistic kids ...and those healthy kids grow-up and have healthy, altruistic kids.... thennnn....

Ohh... Oohhh.... I think.... I think the light is starting to flicker.... Stay with me..... You can do it...

So you are GorillaEsq, now. I remember your previous incarnation. You got kicked off the board, right. Gorilla Esq? Wow! You simply gotta let everyone know you are a lawyer, don't you? You must be very insecure. If I remember correctly, you didn't know much about the rules of evidence either.

Anyway, just remember, King Kong was a sympathetic character. Probably because he didn't go to law school.

MaraDiaz

Well what do you expect? Human beings run on our genetic codes. We're also walking bags of mucous, blood, and feces. Did you really think anyone would thank you for the reminder on this lovely Sunday morning?

secrets_out

Excuse me but I LOVE your movies Mr. Willis!! But i must inform you that I don't find you big or scary....more of a sweet and cuddly type

FlaxMilk

I could easily ask the same of you with regard to your original post. However, you are correct, the law is not my area of expertise, so I won't bother continuing the argument. I would be curious to see an explanation of why, if battery is always illegal, professional boxers, MMA fighters, etc. aren't all arrested when they exit the ring.

Because battery is without consent. Boxing is consensual. (Though that opens up a can of worms--why is it legal to pound on each other if you both agree for money but not to have sex for money? Neither one is necessarily safe for the people involved.)

FlaxMilk

Also, Gorilla, did you read my response post? Were you talking to me or to someone else?

GorillaEsq

I do love the thought of the "big tough guy" philosophizing about how and why is is out there striking fear into everyone's hearts when really just looking like an a**.

Your screen name is JesusHChris.

That's the shortest, yet arguably most compelling argument I've made on this string, yet.

GorillaEsq

Excuse me but I LOVE your movies Mr. Willis!! But i must inform you that I don't find you big or scary....more of a sweet and cuddly type

Shhh. They don't need to know that.

musiche

I am often asked why I'm "big, mean and scary." More specifically, why do I come-off as "intimidating" and/or "indifferent about other people."

The short answer... I distrust everyone until they otherwise prove trustworthy (which for most, never happens).

The longer answer is the Price Equation.

In 1973, George Price, a Harvard professor, chemist and evolutionary statistician established a mathematical covariance equation that definitively calculates altruism and mutability as conjunctive elements of evolution and natural selection.

In lay terms... He proved mathematically that people are only altruistic (aka "nice") to survive and serve their own best interests.

Fundamentally, the algorithm establishes scientific proof that people are only "nice" to serve their own needs of survival and propagate their own genetic code.

The theory is extremely complicated from a mathematical perspective, however fundamentally, it's easy to understand when one boils-down the premise to the old adage "strength in numbers."

By working together as a group, human beings are more likely to thrive and subsequently propagate. Being "nice," is attractive to other with whom one would cooperate and/or breed.

Example: When a woman finds a man attractive, she does so because that male displays physical and/or mental characteristics she would like her offspring to inherit. Thus, in most cases, that female would be "nice" to the potential mate.

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

Thus, thousands of years ago, tribes were formed. They shared food, water, social conventions, and other basic instruments of conveyance. They also bred with each other.

Tribes became towns... towns became cities... governments... countries.... entire societies... etc.

All that said, the core issue remains true to this day... People are "nice," because they "want something from you" and/or it serves their genetic agenda.

It's been proven, mathematically.

Something to ponder on your way to Sunday school this morning.

Keep being awesome.

Update
For those posting things like, "Well sure, if you look at scientifically..." George Price killed himself two years after this paper was published because he couldn't handle the fact that he eliminated the notion of "humanity," with a proven scientific principle.

So... You're saying you're not nice because you don't want anything from anyone?

Not even human contact, affection, the chance for human interaction, sexual gratification, etc..?

We all want something from someone else. As human beings, we crave a sense of community, we need it. Isolation distorts the mind and changes us into frail beings mentally.

As 'scientifically proven' as you say this philosophy is, it isn't the entire story of the human element. Altruism in it's purest form does exist. Some people really do want to help people for the sake of helping someone else - because they love the feeling of doing something selfless. Then, you say, that person is getting personal gratification, which mean they are actually getting something from the transaction. But that's just it, no human interaction is ever one-sided. It's always give and take. What you put out in life, you get back. I guess you don't believe in karma.

I don't understand what exactly you're saying about yourself. You are "big, mean and scary" because you want nothing from your fellow man, and there's the scientific theory to back up your negative persona, so it's justified in your eyes? If you crave a lonely life, then yeah, justify it in whatever way serves you, but what a crappy way to live. How can one be happy like that? I am certain you have people in your life, people you love and care about, and the fact that you're on MFP at all at posting (interacting with others) shows you are a social being who craves human contact. You have those people in your life because you gave them a chance.

My philosophy, is that I give anyone the benefit of the doubt first off. I will give you the chance to be trusted by me, and once that trust is broken, it's gone. Most people just want a chance, and to be thought of poorly right off the bat only says to them that you are a negative person who probably isn't worth the time and then they don't care what you think of them anyway. You become an afterthought and anyone else with an ounce of optimism will seem more attractive that you. Largely, what you see in people tends to come out, whether there is merit to it or not. People often think "Well, if they already think I'm _____, then I may as well be".

Everything in life is perspective. Seeing is believing. If you see people as untrustworthy and awful, then that's all you will ever see and that's the reality you will live in. If you don't give life a chance to be something else, then you are doomed to surround yourself with this negative attitude.

One last thought, the scientist who's work you are basing your attitude on, you said he offed himself after a couple of years because of his shotty beliefs... If you model yourself so much after him, are you destined for the same demise? Perhaps you need some psychological help because, from what you wrote, seems like your life sucks and you feel like you aren't the problem... Everyone else is... And quite frankly, you're wrong.

Life is what you make of it. Make it better.

jesusHchris

I do love the thought of the "big tough guy" philosophizing about how and why is is out there striking fear into everyone's hearts when really just looking like an a**.

Your screen name is JesusHChris.

That's the shortest, yet arguably most compelling argument I've made on this string, yet.

I'm not sure what your argument is. Does my screen name validate your constant need to prove yourself, or is it easier just to deflect?