Jump to content

Talk:Nice guy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New article

[edit]

I have just created this article mostly from journal articles. There is a lot more research on this subject to summarize, so it's only just a rough start. I will also update it to discuss the book No More Mr. Nice Guy. I know that there are a lot of strong opinions on this subject and polemics on the internet from various perspectives, but let's try to keep this article verifiable. If anyone knows about more references to "nice guys" in pop culture, like movies/TV, the page needs more of that stuff because right now it is mostly summarizing academic research. Also, I kept "nice guy" in quotes throughout the entire article. Do people think this is the right way to go? --SecondSight 10:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and other items

[edit]

What a great topic. I checked the language category, but there does not seem to be much there. Linguistics might have more categories. Category:Popular psychology may or may not fit. You may want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics as well. The term wise guy may have some relevance in a comparison of such terms. More thougths: You may want to move the word "controversial" from the first sentence to some place else as it seems too defensive. You may want to clarify the first sentence term the general public discourse. Does every culture in the world have a nice guy term or is it more specific to certain cultures? Here is a suggestion for the lead: "Nice guy" is a term in the general public discourse and in popular culture for a human male with certain personality traits and behaviors.[1] The term is vague, and means different things to different people, and thus some see the term as controversial.-- Jreferee 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I removed "controversial," from the first senstence, because it is mentioned later in the paragraph anyway. And I am well aware of the history of the Nice guy syndrome article ;) --SecondSight 02:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do no like this article. It has a pro bad boy agenda. It is suggesting every women fancies the same thing. Is wikipedia the right sort of place for this sort of pub bar drivel. Which i actually find offensive. Anyway women who find bad boys attractive are just not very nice people themselves. There does not seem to be any reference to that fact. Many of the books referenced to are not text books, but cheap pub trash, by people with an often nasty agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.2.202 (talk • contribs)

The primary goal of this article is not to be liked, but to discuss verifiable sources on the topic in a neutral point of view, and that is what it does. If the research is incomplete, anyone can fix this by adding to the article any research that is left out. All of the sources except one are to peer-reviewed journal articles, which is not cheap pub trash. It summarizes plenty of research which seems to contradict the hypothesis that women go for bad boys, like the Urbaniak & Killman article. As for suggesting that every woman fancies the same thing, all I can say is: have you actually read the article? The Herold & Millhausen study I heavily cited found that women varied in their preferences. As for "pro-bad boy" bias, you will have to be more specific about which passages bother you. If there is any overarching theme to the article, it is that "do nice guys finish last?" is simply a stupid and ambiguous question. If you read my edit summaries, you would have noticed me saying that I will add more studies later, some of which find that women are less likely to go for dominance and masculinity in men. --SecondSight 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with the NPOV drive of Wikipedia, though, I'd like to add my support of the accurate though badly typed unsigned comment above. This article does a good job of explaining one side of the "Nice Guy Syndrome" debate, which is the confusion many experience about why women appear to prefer bad boys to nice guys, but does not address some of the feminist movement's concerns about Nice Guy Syndrome -- namely, that the Nice Guy is also generally objectifying women, and seems to experience confusion that he is not entitled to sex in return for being sensitive, caring, and supportive. This viewpoint claims that Nice Guyism is in fact a subtle and insidious continuation of misogyny, and confuses acting the part of a Nice Guy with actually being a nice guy -- or a nice person. I'm going to watch this entry for now, and see if I can't dig up some sources that would be useful here. Ceramufary (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm aware of that feminist perspective, though I haven't really seen it articulated in sources that are any higher quality than blog posts. If you can find something citeable for Wikipedia, then that would be a great addition to the article. --SecondSight (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, that book is simply a self-published work of one person's opinion, not a peer-reviewed work. What makes it any more reputable than a high-quality feminist blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.146.98 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories again

[edit]

I added this to Category:Gender. I'm thinking about creating a Category:Masculinity or Category:Gender roles or Category:Gender identity, any of which would work well with this article, and any of which will help break up the Gender category. Fishal 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity vs. vagueness

[edit]

From the article:

The term is vague, and means different things to different people.[2]

If there are different meanings at use, then this would be a case of ambiguity, not vagueness. I'm not quite willing to change it, though, since doing so might render the statement at odds with the citation. How does the cited article explain it? Simões (talk/contribs) 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, and ambiguity captures the author's meaning better (yet I think the term is vague also). I just changed it. --SecondSight 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Agentic": Relating to an agency?

[edit]

None of the common dictionary sources have a definition for this word. What the heck does it mean, and should it be replaced in the article with a clearer synonym?

Uriel-238 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day song and the seduction community

[edit]

The mention of the Green Day song Nice Guys Finish Last and the views of "nice guys" in the seduction community were removed without explanation; I have added them back in, but to the Appearances in popular culture section because I think they fit better there. --SecondSight 05:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerk

[edit]

Why does it link to the derivitive of acceleration instead of the personality type? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.78 (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're a nice guy, but...

[edit]

...this article doesn't mention the Internet meme as described in its Chinese counterpart at all. So I wonder why there's a (InterWiki) link between the two? --Kakurady 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging this page

[edit]

I noticed a bunch of tags on this article. So I went to the talk page to find an explanation of them to help me improve the article. However, I found no explanation. Consequently, I'm removing the tags for now; anyone is welcome to re-tag the article with whatever they want if they also include an explanation on the talk page about exactly what the problems with the article are. --SecondSight (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Difference

[edit]

So wikipedia equals Encyclopedia Dramatica now? Theres no difference? Bullshit articles like this are really going to be maintained? Wow. Everyone is right, aren't they, WIKIPEDIA WAS A BAD IDEA and this article among many, many articles IS PROOF.Sanitycult (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a bit more specific on exactly what you think is wrong with the article? --SecondSight (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ode to a Nice Guy

[edit]

Should we finally add it? Its now a well known internet quote and should be able to be sourced quite easily. If anything id look forward to responding to the sad little logical fallacies critics reply to the "Ode" with, it should be quite easy, all they seem to come up with is "oh, a nice guy is really a manipulative ass". 124.178.158.1 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Forlorn[reply]

Male surplus among the younger generation of males

[edit]

This isn't just true in China and India where there are tens of millions of "surplus" young males because they practice sex selection. But also in western countries even thought there this is much less sex selection. Larger numbers of males are born, but they used to die of disease and accident at a greater rate. Now in western countries they survive and by the time the older and larger generation of baby boomer males are finished marrying off younger women, males born after 1980 have a harder time finding women unless they are very socially skilled and/or wealthy. There may be as many as 200,000 surplus male born/surviving/not marrying every year for last 30 or so. This leads to phenomena like Black blocs that want to destroy capitalism etc. See My blog entry Surplus Males Riot in Georgetown and info from my Street Fighting Man article. And other forms of revolution against govt. Another reason govts feel they have to beef up security and/or go to war - to deal with all those angry young surplus males. (It might even be a semi-subconscious phenomena among older males.)

I don't know if you can find an article that actually will tie together the "nice guy" theories here and the male surplus theories. But something to think about. See Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. Den Boer's Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population. See recent article No Country for Young Men. wiki articles I've been meaning to enter relevant info into, if not already there, include: Sex ratio, Population pyramid and see also linked from there.

The good news is there is a surplus of females over 50, so if the guys just decide they like older women, No problema! Carol Moore 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

In the Western World, young men are at a massive disadvantage because a) there are far more young men than young women, b) older men take such a high proportion of young women, c) the large majority of young men want young women, but a high proportion of young women prefer significantly older men. As stated in the first comment in this section, far more male babies are born than female. It must also be pointed out that whilst aborting fetuses purely because they are female is most common in China and India, it also happens amongst communities in the Western World whom are extracted from those countries. In many parts of the Western World, there are large numbers of immigrants, a disproportionate number of whom are young men, further skewing the demographics against young men seeking female partners. F W Nietzsche (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

last paragraph of first section

[edit]

"In reality nice guys are not afraid of being sexual. Nice guys just simply do not want to be rude when they first meet someone. Nice guys do not feel they have to turn off their sexuality, this is just a myth by people who try to play psychologist. The problem is most young females are reluctant to get to know nice guys past the first meeting or first date. This is because of their bizarre pre-conceived notions. They will over analyze everything the nice guy says and draw a conclusion to fit their assumption. The young immature female will take his kindness for weakness or they will even assume he is desperate. A common and popular pre-conceived notion of young females is nice guys are suppose to lack self confidence. They will look at the nice guy's modesty and assume he lacks confidence. Young women will even assume the nice guy will be clingy and needy in a relationship. If they heard that one nice guy did something they will assume all nice guys will do the same thing. This is the main reason for many of the pre-conceived notions. A lot of young females will get their perception of nice guys from television, example Dawson's Creek. Just because the character is uptight about adult sexual situations they will assume every nice guy in the real world feel exactly the same way. There is not a problem in the dating world for "nice girls" because males do not analyze women in that way. Males do not consider a woman being a little too nice as a big deal or something to lose sleep over. A young female will take one aspect of someone and assume a whole paragraph of things about the person. Example: He is nice, which means "he has to be this, this and this". Nice guys usually have to deal with a lot of psychobabble from the general public due to numerous assumptions. Psychobabble means the speaker lacks the experience and understanding necessary for proper use of a given psychological term. In other words the person using pyschobabble is just a "want-to-be" psychologist, who lacks true intelligence. Being insecure, needy clingy and controlling in a relationship are actually traits of many bad boys but many immature young females will slap these negative traits on nice guys to justify their negative opinion of them. This is due to their extreme immaturity."

sounds kinda POV to me. and no citation. Mathnerd314 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Disease to Please

[edit]

A section devoted to a certain book, which not only isn't central to the understanding of the concept, but also isn't really about nice guys at all, seems really out of place here. /Julle (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot less out of place than you might think, I've added some new material, which helps understand the relevance of the original disease to please content. 81.141.136.148 (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heartless Bitches International

[edit]

Why is their website reliable for anything (even the opinions of the authors), and why is it relevant to this article? There seems nothing there that is sufficiently notable, even to the concept of the internet culture of this topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions expressed on HBI are representative of an internet culture that views self-proclaimed 'nice guys' as not really nice at all, but as men who have fallen into a pattern of unhealthy behaviour and/or thinking characterised by (1) befriending women who they are attracted to in the hope that the friendship will develop into a sexual relationship rather than being up front about their intentions, (2) placing the object of their affection on a pedestal and allowing themselves to be doormats in the hope that these sacrifices will be repaid in the form of sexual or romantic attention, (3) a sense of entitlement that makes them very quick to point out all of the 'nice' things they have done for a woman who rejects them, (4) believing that women are too stupid to know what's good for them because they prefer to date men who 'nice guys' resentfully label 'bad boys', (5) very quickly turning nasty once their advances are rejected, often dramatically re-evaluating women who they professed to love (or women in general) as 'heartless bitches'.
I think it makes perfect sense in terms of this article's content to report the existence of this view, of which the HBI site is representative. It would be better if the HBI website wasn't the only example of it cited, but it is a popular one that forum users often link to to re-educate 'nice guys'. I hope this satisfies your concerns. --Distinguisher (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. What we can say is to remove HBI from the quote, leave {{cn}} tags, and see if anything comes up. I'll do that, but I don't think it will remain very long as unsourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any compelling reason to remove it as a source, and you've crippled the section in the name of compromise. What exactly is your objection to using this source? Keep in mind that it's a source used to reference a point of view held by some rather than to support a claim of fact. Your assertion that the source isn't "reliable for anything (even the opinions of the authors)" is bizarre. Are you saying that the source isn't an accurate reflection of the opinions of the people who wrote it? You've also asserted (again without argument) that it lacks relevance to the internet culture surrounding the Nice Guy concept. This is absolutely false. Here (http://xkcd.com/513/) is another example of the same ideas expressed in the well-known XKCD web comic. There are many others. --Distinguisher (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it, as HBI is a very good source about what HBI has or has not posted... plus removing the links & mentions basicly makes the section sensless. If you're willing to agree that this viewpoint exists, and that the essays were in fact published, then I can't see how you can object; as personally I would consider the site to be notable simply for its frequent use as a re-educational tool. 81.141.136.148 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section is senseless, even with HBI as a reference. Still, I won't revert, although I will tag all the sources as requiring verification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph in this section states that essays were posted on the HBI site and describes their content. The cited references indeed support that these essays exist and have the content that the article claims they have. The question of relevance can be debated, but their reliability as proof of their existence is without question.
In the second paragraph, two claims are referenced: On 21 July 2002, a link to HBI was posted on Fark and This marked the beginning of a firestorm of angry emails from "Nice Guys" along with a trickle of praise and new contributions from both women and men who could identify with the site, a number of men claiming that the site had helped them put their lives into perspective. The HBI sources mention this Fark posting and include a selection of emails HBI claims to have received in its wake. In other words, the source appears to support the claims made in the article, and unless you think it plausible that HBI invented the story about the Fark posting and fabricated the emails it published, I see no reason to doubt the reliability of this information.
As a result, I am removing the verify credibility tags and leaving the relevance-section tag.--Distinguisher (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Arthur Rubin - What exactly makes you feel that the information is sensless?81.141.136.148 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HBI is not reliable as to Fark. I'm deleting the section again. If you want to restore it, please restore the {{verify credibility}} tags in all instances where we're not just quoting the web site; treating their interpretation of statements as if they were real is also a clear violation of Wikipedia principles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Against my better judgment, I'm restoring the section with adjusted tags, and placing explanations for most of the tags. Unless an explanation of why the tags are inappropriate is presented, I may send this to an article RfC for consideration of the wider community. Sending it to 4 or 5 different, appropriate, noticeboards might be considered spamming on my part, even though it clearly violations WP:SYN and WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, I have outlined why HBI should be considered an appropriate source about its own content (see above), hence I will remove the verification tags until you provide a counter-argument. I note that you have now introduced a further tag about improper synthesis that you didn't see fit to include earlier. In my view, the statements in this section are a straightforward reflection of the site's content involving no more synthesis than can be expected in interpreting the content of any source that is not merely quoted, hence I can see no compelling reason for this tag. We can count on Arthur opposing its removal, but if other contributors would like to have a say on this, let's hear some arguments.
As to the reliability of HBI on the Fark posting, here is a link to the actual Fark posting in question: http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=243921. The post indeed exists as described by HBI, hence I will remove the verify tag on this claim.
In one of two of your verify tags questioning the existence of angry emails, you say "We don't know or have reason to believe that these "angry emails" were real, or that the letter quoted is real." More to the point, we have no reason to doubt that they are NOT real and I think we should treat the source in good faith, especially since there are some 36 pages of e-mails published on the HBI site, which would be an extraordinary length to go to to fabricate evidence and without any obvious motive to do so. Basically, I regard the insertion of this tag as mischievous on your part, and I'm removing it. You are showing signs of wanting to win an editing dispute rather than having any interest in the quality of the article.
If other contributors want to chime in on this dispute, I would hope that we can resolve any outstanding issues here on this talk page, but if some mediation becomes necessary, then so be it.--Distinguisher (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read the disputed section through, and ended up removing the improper synthesis tags, seemed to be a valid attempt to summarise the text of several (highly simmilar) essays than it did a sythesis of a new idea from said essays.TheKrikkitWars 11:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKrikkitWars (talk • contribs)
The fact that the quotes seem to use real E-mail addresses suggests that they're real, but a blog which calls their essays "rants" doesn't really lend credibility. However, in general, blogs and personal web sites cannot be used in any way to indicate the "truth" of the statements, only that they were made, and only as attributed to the person posting them (not necessarily the persons who are claimed to have made them). Please see WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources (particularly #Questionable sources), and WP:RS#Statements of opinion). I'll concede the synthesis tag may have been inappropriate, but it's only appropriate to summarize statements if they were otherwise reliable. I'll now take this dispute to WP:RSN#Nice guys and HBI, to see if my interpretation of WP:RS has consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the term 'rant' is a stylistic choice in keeping with the HBI site's image. There is no question that they are statements of opinion, informed as they may be, but as has already been discussed, the article is not claiming that the views of HBI are correct. It is asserting that they exist and what they are. This is worth mentioning in the article because these views are representative of a particular opinion about 'nice guys' that is common within internet culture and which HBI helped to establish. If there is confusion about whether the article is stating the opinion as fact, then all that is needed is to make this clearer in the text. If there is any doubt that this opinion is popular on the internet, then the article should include references to other examples of it such as the XKCD comic mentioned above.
HBI is also not a blog or personal website. HBI is a registered trademark in the US, and the site has a membership with discussions and events. Some mentions of the HBI website in US, Canadian, Irish, Danish, UK, Australian and New Zealand media can be found at the following url, including several interviews specifically devoted to the Nice Guy issue: http://www.heartless-bitches.com/press/sitings.shtml
I will also note that your reasons for objecting to the inclusion of this source keep changing. --Distinguisher (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as "Heartless Bitches" is an extremely obscure website (with a global ranking of 294 000 according to Alexa) it is really pushing it to argue that it represents any broad consensus on the part of the internet culture. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website where anyone can push their pet agenda.70.30.91.2 (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's *current* ranking is not a measure of the influence that this website had at the time it gained the aforementioned media attention. It's influence has certainly been felt very widely irrespective of its current status. I will therefore reinstate the material. Your agenda point works both ways of course. If the issues raised by HBI are critical of attitudes you hold personally, then you might as an editor have a motive to delete such material.--Distinguisher (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so hard for you to believe that many editors (including myself), view the section as a whole to be OR, synth, bias, and possibly even self-promotional material? That's all I can infer from its inclusion. yonnie (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Man this discussion is hilarious. It looks like a scrabble to discredit a negative view of attitudes some of the editors hold personally, through whatever route possible (listing "OR, synth, bias and self-promotion"? really? Clutching at straws...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.156.145.5 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Summary

[edit]

I added a new summary since there basically was none. The reference I found might need to be reformatted. It was based on a quick google search, but the guy is a Doctor and the site has "nice guy" in the title. Since I only used it to help clarify the common notion of the "nice guy" (not whether it was an accurate model) I think it is a sufficient reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.202.241 (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~MrEff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.202.241 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice guy vs. Jerk

[edit]

A "Jerk" as glorified in the american popular culture, is someone who feeds off the "system" (Being it the bureaucratical system, the social system or any other system), and is happy about it. A "Nice guy" is a deviation from a "Free man" or someone who wants to be free. A nice guy tries to get along with the system but not be a part of it; This makes perfect sense when you think of "girls" in the western world , in their 20's , who would rather sleep with a jerk and get consultations on their feminty and their looks from a nice guy, because they simply dont dare cross the lines of their community and sleep with a "nice guy" while at the height of their fruitfulness.


And "Fear of rejection" often associated with nice guys , is a deviation from "self-worth" and "self-respect" ; since there's nothing to lose in a public confrontation with a female other than your self-confidence and your social prestige when a female ,who you would consider lower than yourself as a fellow human, rejects your advance and says no to you.

212.80.5.212 (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp[reply]

Nice guy vs jerk

[edit]

Nice guys often come from a secular background, who are wrongly taught at home from an early age to respect the opposite sex and see her as equal in terms of intelligence and everything else. Jerks on the other hand come from semi-religious households (the extremes of abrahamic religions often) who by default see the opposite sex as inferior and in need of protection.

This makes sense when you think of the so called "Girl-power". Girl-power is completely useless on a jerk, a girl cannot hurt a jerk's feeling with her words and gestures because he's simply not thinking about what she says, but instead if the girl was to attack the jerk physically then he would in fact respond to it very violently. 84.241.20.45 (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp[reply]

It's other way around in Serbia. Women date or have sex with "bad boys", but they always marry not nice guys, but total wimps. The more of a wimp you are, the better you are off... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.111.42 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.16.125 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of this useage

[edit]

""Nice guy" is a term in the general public discourse and in popular culture for a male with certain personality traits and behavior." Not true, I've never heard this usage before. Which country? When?

Also the references are bad - for example the first reference only gives the name and date, not the full details.

I hope this article is not mostly based on pulp-non-fiction self-help books that are the result of speculation rather than genuine research. 92.29.115.158 (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is. They still get articles. yonnie (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'nice girl' phenomenon

[edit]

I think I've experienced this myself when dating a girl. Many guys will appreciate a woman with more passion and 'spice' if you will than a boring, always submissive girl that almost makes you feel like you're her father and can tell her what to do! I agree it's not going to stop guys from dating girls with these traits in the same way that many girls will avoid 'nice guys', but it doesn't make for a balanced relationship.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think many males would like to have a female who is submissive but playful, that is to say enthusiatic about sex, maybe with a little teasing and fun, rather than just a girl who sits there and does nothing, obeying the male's every command. The article should reflect this if this can be sourced.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant male traits, or objects of male attraction, which have their own articles are Girl next door and Madonna-whore complex. If you're using a definition of the meaning of "nice girl" which would probably be different from many other people's definitions, then it shouldn't be added to the article without a source... AnonMoos (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen those articles and they don't quite fit it. I dated a 'nice girl' for a while and she didn't seem interested in sex. She was only 18 and I suspect that she had not learned how to have an orgasm. Females can go for a long time without ever having learned to orgasm.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herold & Milhausen

[edit]

Herold and Milhausen[7] found that 56% of 165 university women claimed to agree with the statement: "You may have heard the expression, 'Nice guys finish last.' In terms of dating, and sex, do you think women are less likely to have sex with men who are 'nice' than men who are 'not nice'?"
This is a question, not a statement. How do you agree with a question? Furius (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, Herold and Milhausen are cited numerous times in the article, but there's no reference beside their name and a year. Any clue what articles they could be referring to? I'm not sure how one is supposed to be able to quote an article if that article isn't named - either by title or by journal..163.160.107.179 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This belief is rooted in misogyny[...]"

[edit]

I'm tagging this as OR for lack of anything better. It reads as somebody making stabs in the dark at the motivations of a wide range of individuals. Is there any evidence that these factors are actually what cause this belief to arise? 90.210.200.56 (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that women are hypocrites who all go for "bad boys"? If that section goes, then it's only fair that the "There is an active debate..." section goes, since there's no evidence for that.163.160.107.179 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the entire paragraph. It is unsourced and, since it does not summarize what is stated (and referenced) elsewhere in the article, it does not belong in the lede, in any case.--Boson (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"These particular"..

[edit]

I've reverted this, as the paragraph is already clearly about the viewpoint of HBI, it doesn't need restating - and the repetition of "these particular" is pretty jarring.163.160.107.179 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HBI reversion

[edit]

I've reverted the edit removing the HBI section; I feel that Distinguisher made a very good case as to why it's a reliable source earlier on this page back in 2010. Having a criticism section gives a neutral view to the article, I feel, also.163.160.107.179 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think Distinguisher did NOT make a very good case as to why it's a reliable source on the trope, it seems like we should be able to pull in a couple articles on "Nice Guys of OKC" ( http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/2012/12/note-nice-guys-ok-cupid ) as a foundational source and then use HBI as backing color. Further, I don't think it's a criticism section, it's a section that provides a different definition for the stereotype of a "nice guy." The academic studies here (loosely) classify a 'nice guy' as being someone who has more feminine and less dominant characteristics. The HBI and now "Nice Guys of OKC" styling of a nice guy is that of a guy who acts like an entitled victim when his 'nice' behavior does not result in sex or a relationship (friendzoned.) The article needs to be structured in a way that recognizes that the term "nice guy" now has a new connotation of someone who expects something in return for being 'nice' as well as a term for the guy who isn't a misogynistic 'bad boy.' I think this was the point of the whole "Nice Guy (tm)" moniker.Antiterra (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A poor choice of words on my part, certainly. The New Statesman article does look like a good source though, I'll take a look and see if we can restructure the "Other Viewpoints".163.160.107.179 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is well written and sourced, but completely out of step with the actual usage of the term

[edit]

This article misses the point completely.

The article conflates the study of outcomes resulting from having "nice" traits ("nice guys finish last") with the outcomes achieved by men who self identify as a "Nice Guy", which is a completely different conceptually.

"Nice guys finish last" is the idea that normatively "positive" personal traits can have negative outcomes.

"Nice Guy" syndrome is an belief among a subset of males that that "women don't like nice guys" because they are "nice" to women that they find attractive and those women still do not sleep with them. Reduced to its core, and particularly if the believer is angry, bitter or resentful as a result, this is an essentially misogynistic, transactional viewpoint of relationships whereby "sex" or "a relationship" are the deserved results of consistent acts of kindness. To put it more flippantly, its the belief that one should "insert "niceness", receive sex", and that a woman who does not respond as expected is somehow being unfair to them.

As a secondary criticism, the article is deeply biased as it appears to have been written by males who self-identify as "nice guys", i.e. the subject of (at least parts of) the article. The term "nice guy" is in modern culture most frequently used negatively (and this is a popular, not exclusively feminist, critique), but the article presents the subjects of such descriptor in a near unfailingly positive light with any criticism limited to "feminists".

In many cases the sources cited actually support a view inverse to the statement they are cited in support of. Take this example:

"One of the main points of the “Nice Guy Syndrome” is that many women have the cognitive dissonance to verbally affirm (“de jure”) that they are more attracted to intelligent, sensible, faithful and comprehensive men independently of his body build, car possession or wealth status while in the “real world” of everyday western societies (“de facto”) they date, and more specifically have sex with, muscular and/or wealthy, car-driving and externally bold/ruthless men independently of his perceived cultural status, intelligence or moral character.[3]"

[3]Desrochers, Stephan (1995). "What types of men are most attractive and most repulsive to women". Sex Roles 32 (5–6): 375–391. doi:10.1007/BF01544603.

Reading the study itself the headline conclusion is that women are more attracted to men with feminine traits (direct quote: "Feminine males were preferred as friends and romantic partners over masculine males.") - this is the inverse of the Article's point.


There are two potentially good articles in here, but at the moment, by failing to distinguish them from each other and by presenting "nice guy syndrome" as a failing in women rather than the men who propose it, the result is one [u]terrible[/u] article completely out of step with both its own sources and popular usage of the term it is supposed to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.156.145.5 (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 'I have rewritten the opening paragraphs with some greater balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.156.145.5 (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that there has never been a purported "Nice Guy" who wasn't seeking sex? That the claimants are always sexually frustrated, complaining on behalf of themselves instead of observing trends in others, or noting difficulty in achieving non-sexual friendships, or even trends in the world at large of "Nice Guys" being generally less succesful despite commitments to whatever principles they purport to have?
Interesting.192.249.47.187 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, they're claiming you're a douchebag./sarcasm 69.42.19.171 (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"blame-the-victim"

[edit]

...how in the bloody hell is "Nice Guy Syndrome" "blame-the-victiming"? At best, the only "victim" I can see in the scenario is the guy not having sex, if you can even call that being a victim. Is there any actual source that calls the "syndrome" victim-blaming, or are we just throwing in OR because the internet loves to hate on this type of person?

I mean...is it in reference to some kind of assertion that it's the woman's fault she's in a negative relationship because she chose the "Jerk" over the "Nice Guy"? That seems...totally tangential to the whole concept of a "Nice Guy" (which should be focusing on the guy, not the hypothetical women off doing hypothetical things in hypothetical women land), but on top of that...how isn't that true? I mean, yeah, the actual responsibility for the negative things being done lies on the head of the "Jerk", but the fact that the relationship exists is still a joint choice on her and the dude's part.192.249.47.187 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, none of the sources attributed call it that either. Only one mentions blame" and doesn't call them a "victim", I've edited the lead. --66.203.207.66 (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The victim in the situation would be the female as the act of harassing somebody into potentially having sex with you is predatory --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Can anyone source the second paragraph of the lead, specifically the belief in the cognitive dissonance of women - or the statement that women are more into car drivers and bodybuilders? The paragraph was previously sourced with something that pretty much claimed the opposite (see discussions above), so I'd be really tempted to remove that paragraph entirely, but I know that it'd just get reverted163.160.107.179 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Nice Guy (Trademark)"

[edit]

This use of the ™ sign for the "Nice Guy" term seems odd, wouldn't it be more appropriate to just use quotations every time the word is used instead? 194.166.30.49 (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV??

[edit]

The Negative Context definition seems to come not from the research but from popular culture. There seem to be two POV's there.

The current summary:

When used in a negative context (sometimes capitalized), a "Nice Guy" implies a male who is unassertive, does not express his true feelings and uses acts of ostensible friendship with the unstated aim of progressing to a romantic or sexual relationship.[citation needed] The term is often used in the context of dating and romantic or sexual relationships with women.

This negative definition seems (to me, for sure) to be from the POV of the sub-entry 'related concepts', as quoted in the article (insecure, unwilling to articulate, hypocrisy, manipulation). These concepts relate to the concept of "nice guys finish last".

My proposed summary (which was POV-deleted):

When used in a negative context, a (sometimes capitalized) "Nice Guy" is often used to indicate a discrepancy between women's stated preferences and their actual choices in men, especially in the context of dating and romantic or sexual relationships with women.

This seems (to me, for sure) more conform the popular culture definition, and supported by the mentioned "nice guys finish last" research.

It seems to me that the summary of this article should more reflect the most researched/used negative context. But I am not gonna go into an edit battle over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.74.3.66 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think an article split between the two uses of the term would work best. That said, the change in question concerns the second negative use of the idiom, one that is sourced in article and appears at the end of the lede, and without the article split, both should be included. Your proposed summary goes against the sources (WP:NOR) and that is why it was reverted --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted/sourced research Abstract starts with: "The purpose of this study was to investigate why some women report a desire to date nice guys but prefer dating jerks." http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-005-6758-z
I agree totally with a split, btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.74.3.66 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sources later in the article, maybe we should change that one. I see your point though, I've personally seen the term used both ways. If anything this article needs a split and then a major overhaul. Unless the use of the term by feminist theorists is seen as a sarcastic response to the classical one. Even so, it would fit better to have the split. As it stands the article is pretty confused --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sources wrong

[edit]

I just checked some of the sources quoted, and find some disparities:

the first comes from http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Nice_guy_syndrome, not the stated one.

the second comes from an internet rant.

the third is no longer active or an advertisement, no link to content at least.

the fourth, the [citation needed], also seems to come from http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Nice_guy_syndrome

the fifth seems kinds okay, see above.

It almost seems as if someone just added some reference links at some time, just to pretend standing... 178.74.3.66 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC) AS[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nice guy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nice guy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinionated section?

[edit]

I found the section "Results of research" a fairly interesting read. Summaries of actual studies carried by actual scientists with verifiable research that shed some light into this "phenomenon". Then I got into the last section "Nice guy syndrome" where I found this breath-taking paragraph: 

   The extremely misogynistic incel and red pill movements (part of the anti-feminist manosphere) recruit depressed, frustrated men – who may suffer from "Nice Guy syndrome" – into the alt-right, with Jordan Peterson's "alt-light" videos on YouTube as a typical gateway.

Oh, don't worry, it has a citation. Where does the citation takes to? A random blog entry in a random online media outlet by a random writer. A very opinionated blog entry by a very opinionated random writer. It even goes to quote a random Twitter user that goes by the name "Ms. Happy Die Happy". Is these the kind of citations Wikipedia will use from now on? Because oddly enough, this isn't the first article I encounter with these type of citations that attempt to convert opinions into actual knowledge. --186.84.89.47 (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more solid research sources.

[edit]

The studies that were referenced were lacking. While it is a good start, it does not read like a scientific study. More research studies and more scientific approaches to peoples' perceptions would help out this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanStefanidis (talk • contribs) 06:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations [34] and [35] link to the same study but only to the abstract of it I can't find a free source for the full text but I'm dubious of the claims in the sections its cited because they're written like incel shit.
(Seriously "women are more likely to return to the nice guys (they previous rejected)" Can anyone show me where the study says th) is?
Citation [56] links to an opinion article _about_ a study from 2005 that says at the end of the article that it's "not even close to proven."
This is laughably shoddy work imo and I'd quite like to see those citations and their cited sections either removed or improved. God only knows what the rest of the sources are like. 2601:2C4:4000:C170:9CF4:FE2E:DC9F:3B92 (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops I meant citation [36] not [56] 2601:2C4:4000:C170:9CF4:FE2E:DC9F:3B92 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The posts from this IP on this page are from me. I finally got around to making an account.
I'm removing/rewriting some of the content citing Herold & Milhausen (1999) because I did find the full text of the study and it does not support the claims made. Cedarstrees (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage

[edit]

This article is intellectual garbage.

How can any researcher objectively assess whether a survey candidate is a 'nice guy' or 'bad boy'? And are people not capable of acting as one or the other? Totally ridiculous notions.

And how can anyone possibly know whether they are more or less sexually experienced than any other person? It defies rationality.

Complete and utter garbage. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clitoral photoplethysmograph? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not scientific or even really psychological. 2600:1001:B12F:86DE:0:50:6D06:CF01 (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed "Vandalism"?

[edit]

I had all my edits reverted as well been warned for "vandalism" for adding terms such as "soyboy", and "sissy" to the "see-also". While these terms are incredibly pejorative and offensive, I am actually shocked these edits were removed for being regarded as "vandalism".

In all honesty, I saw such additions as perfectly relevant given the context (such terms are essentially synonyms for "nice guy" by various online male communities dedicated to pick-up artistry and dating) especially when such movements are listed in the actual article, that being "redpill movements", "incels" and the "manosphere", who all frequently utilize terms like this in their vocabulary in the same vein as terms like "beta-male". Also, I felt that additions such as "Hybristophilia" were also perfectly relevant to the article, as the saying "nice guys finish last" in relation to romance implies that people find an attraction to men who are "bad boys" that are more aggressive, dangerous, or even break the law, with "Hybristophilia" (attraction to criminals) being the logical conclusion of such an idea.

Obviously, this doesn't intend to validate or promote any such inflammatory, extremist perspectives, especially of the misogynistic manosphere and the far-right, however to regard my contributions as intentionally unconstructive vandalism, in my opinion, seems rather harsh. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nice_guy&oldid=1246794840"