100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Nice Guy vs. Nice Guy | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
dconexion
on
Tue 07/12/11 03:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think a nice guy would just be himself. He should treat others that way he wants to be treated. Its not rocket science. But a lot of people aren't into science when it comes to affairs of the heart. They seemingly can't see that men and women are essentially different sides of the same coin- they are people and generally have feelings that can be hurt by those who sometimes turn off their conscience to get what they desire. Science tells us that men who act out under the 3 negative personality traits dubbed 'The Dark Triad' are often much more successful with women than scrupulous men, especially those who lack classic good lucks. But do birds of a feather flock together? I think so, and I have to wonder about women who make it a point to denigrate the masculinity of men who have learned to become immune to their manipulative behaviours-- the complementary female version of the Dark Triad. I guess the big trouble is that those birds don't do nests together too well, and the older one gets the more likely one is going to come into contact with broken nesters. So, would I rather get an MRI than go out on a date? Gee, that's toughie... -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Wed 07/13/11 12:31 PM
|
|
((((((LadyLid)))))) loved it..     yeah, those were funny. For first dates, I like to go to funeral parlors. Everyone is nicely dressed, it's quiet so we can talk, and the fare is free. Going to weddings would be better, I admit, but they throw you out of there. I tried before. Plus, taking your date to a wedding is dangerous. She will get ideas. Don't let her drag you to the maternity ward on the first date. You'll buckle under. Ah, and for the E-type of personality. Executions. Being in the audience behind the glass. She will throw herself at you, literally, when the switch is pulled. Her mother will have a good opinion of you, she will ask you, "Darren, it's been nine days, and my daughter still looks like she's been zapped on your date. Ah.... what a man you must be." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think a nice guy would just be himself. He should treat others that way he wants to be treated. Its not rocket science. In a dating framework, that only works for gay people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think his point is that they are one and the same. That's because no one here on Mingle is going to speak on behalf of a true nice guy. If a true nice guy is defined by how others perceive him, then no one will ever believe it when he describes himself as a nice guy. But without knowing people who know him, a person will never know how others perceive a possible nice guy. And so, meeting in person is not enough. You have to meet his people....friends, acquaintenances, coworkers, etc. of both sexes to get the real picture. In short, on Mingle a nice guy is S.O.O.L. ***** On second reading, the true nice guy is honest, with himself and others, no matter how bad or uncomfortable the truth is. He's probably a nice guy because he has had a few bumps or snags in his life which have humbled him. He won't offer much about himself unless asked. This seems to be Wux's definition, but it still does not seem to fit what most women want. I wonder how much of this is self fulfilling prophecy (not you specifically). People make up their mind ahead of time how others will respond and it affects what they choose to say or do. I consider myself a nice girl, if asked, I would have no issue saying so. I could easily explain that I have been told by others I am a nice person. It doesnt involve anything but truth , its not that complicated or egotistical(if ASKED). I find it sad that even if one is ASKED if they are nice, there are all these outside issues running through their head about the 'niceness' of answering the question .... I actually agree, both on the self prophethizing, and that you are nice, MsHarmony. You are also feisty, when it comes to discussions. That makes you even better than just "nice girl". I am the same way as you, except I am not feisty but arrogant, not nice but I think funny, and not girl but a boy. And entirely also due to self-prophession. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not taking the post personally. I am completely disagreeing with the entire post. Everything you put in the second example which you claim is a "nice guy" is a guy accepting and admitting to some negative phrase when people tell them that. I disagree entirely. No one needs to accept or agree to negative comments about themselves to be considered nice. To me that is merely letting people walk over you and thus a doormat. Am I a nice guy 100% of the time? No. Would I consider myself a nice guy? Yea sometimes as by my definition I take other peoples feelings into consideration and more often then not do what I can to make sure others are comfortable. Just in general put others before myself in a lot of simple situations (such as giving an elderly person my seat on the subway). This is however my own definition and I really could care less how others classify me. Taken in this context, I admit you are right. The nice guy by definition, is a guy, and he is nice. I think definitions are made after a language has been formed, and defitions of personality types are accurate descriptions of commonly accepted long-established categories. Categorizing, new categories, are made in the present, and the people who make them want to say something different from what words in the language already have covered. Categories are boxes each of which has a set of correspondign qualities. In this categorical typology, the errors are alwasy there as everyone is an individual, but the categorizing can always be done, if the categorical defintitions can be applied. So what I am saying is that I was categorizing, and you were using the language, when we talked about nice guys. Your basis was the already formed definition of what each word means, and my basis was a conceptual image, which maybe can't even be populated by real people, coz maybe there is no person on earth who can fit the category. You took the wisdom of the elders, the wisdom countless generations that formed and refined the language. I on the other hand went out on a limb and made a category for my own amusement, but which potentially has no correspondence to reality as a typological classification. --------------- The only thing I want to say, is that you were right in saying I was wrong, but ONLY if you took my classification to be an equivalent to what language has for its definitions. If you take my first post not as a common consensus, like meanings of words, but as new proposal for a way to categorize, then there is no possible way to say that the category is wrong or false, and there is no way to say that the category is good or correct. Of course it can be said that it can be populated, or not populated, but the category as such is not a false one or a true one. It may produce an empty set, but is it wrong? no. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think a nice guy would just be himself. He should treat others that way he wants to be treated. Its not rocket science. But a lot of people aren't into science when it comes to affairs of the heart. They seemingly can't see that men and women are essentially different sides of the same coin- they are people and generally have feelings that can be hurt by those who sometimes turn off their conscience to get what they desire. Science tells us that men who act out under the 3 negative personality traits dubbed 'The Dark Triad' are often much more successful with women than scrupulous men, especially those who lack classic good lucks. But do birds of a feather flock together? I think so, and I have to wonder about women who make it a point to denigrate the masculinity of men who have learned to become immune to their manipulative behaviours-- the complementary female version of the Dark Triad. I guess the big trouble is that those birds don't do nests together too well, and the older one gets the more likely one is going to come into contact with broken nesters. So, would I rather get an MRI than go out on a date? Gee, that's toughie... -Kerry O. Every time I go out, I get into a horrible fight with an official or another. Today the woman at motor licencing bureau asked me to please leave the premises. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Wed 07/13/11 01:02 PM
|
|
I think a nice guy would just be himself. He should treat others that way he wants to be treated. Its not rocket science. But a lot of people aren't into science when it comes to affairs of the heart. They seemingly can't see that men and women are essentially different sides of the same coin- they are people and generally have feelings that can be hurt by those who sometimes turn off their conscience to get what they desire. Science tells us that men who act out under the 3 negative personality traits dubbed 'The Dark Triad' are often much more successful with women than scrupulous men, especially those who lack classic good lucks. But do birds of a feather flock together? I think so, and I have to wonder about women who make it a point to denigrate the masculinity of men who have learned to become immune to their manipulative behaviours-- the complementary female version of the Dark Triad. I guess the big trouble is that those birds don't do nests together too well, and the older one gets the more likely one is going to come into contact with broken nesters. So, would I rather get an MRI than go out on a date? Gee, that's toughie... -Kerry O. Sorry, your post deserves some thought, because it is good. The Dark Triad is resented by women because the triad are impervious to tricks... This implies that manipulation is something that men like to aviod, and it implies that women depend on it. That's fine, it has merit to say that. (Knhm. Er, I am too scared of the women here on the site to come straight out and say you're right, but darned be if I don't agree with you.) But the species survived with manipulating women and with men who resent manipulation. And only very few Dark Triads are present, which means, they have not taken over the race, despite their superior mating skills. This can mean only three things, mutually independent, but not mutually exclusive: 1. Their mating skills are not superiour after all. 2. Their type came to being by a mutation not too early in our evolutionary history. 3. Their mating skills are good, and their genetive mutation occured early enough, but their offspring tended not to survive. The third point can be accounted for these men's natural resistence to manipulation. Manipulation by women make men fix the leak in the roof or the faucet, they sand the walls, they pave the driveway, they paint the walls, which they would not if left alone, but they do it due to female manipulation. Which means that for men, fixing the nest and making it conducive to raise kids is as important or more, than simply screwing women, provided these men want to propagate their genome via offspring production. I don't know. This was a nice, thought-provoking comment, Kerry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not taking the post personally. I am completely disagreeing with the entire post. Everything you put in the second example which you claim is a "nice guy" is a guy accepting and admitting to some negative phrase when people tell them that. I disagree entirely. No one needs to accept or agree to negative comments about themselves to be considered nice. To me that is merely letting people walk over you and thus a doormat. Am I a nice guy 100% of the time? No. Would I consider myself a nice guy? Yea sometimes as by my definition I take other peoples feelings into consideration and more often then not do what I can to make sure others are comfortable. Just in general put others before myself in a lot of simple situations (such as giving an elderly person my seat on the subway). This is however my own definition and I really could care less how others classify me. Taken in this context, I admit you are right. The nice guy by definition, is a guy, and he is nice. I think definitions are made after a language has been formed, and defitions of personality types are accurate descriptions of commonly accepted long-established categories. Categorizing, new categories, are made in the present, and the people who make them want to say something different from what words in the language already have covered. Categories are boxes each of which has a set of correspondign qualities. In this categorical typology, the errors are alwasy there as everyone is an individual, but the categorizing can always be done, if the categorical defintitions can be applied. So what I am saying is that I was categorizing, and you were using the language, when we talked about nice guys. Your basis was the already formed definition of what each word means, and my basis was a conceptual image, which maybe can't even be populated by real people, coz maybe there is no person on earth who can fit the category. You took the wisdom of the elders, the wisdom countless generations that formed and refined the language. I on the other hand went out on a limb and made a category for my own amusement, but which potentially has no correspondence to reality as a typological classification. --------------- The only thing I want to say, is that you were right in saying I was wrong, but ONLY if you took my classification to be an equivalent to what language has for its definitions. If you take my first post not as a common consensus, like meanings of words, but as new proposal for a way to categorize, then there is no possible way to say that the category is wrong or false, and there is no way to say that the category is good or correct. Of course it can be said that it can be populated, or not populated, but the category as such is not a false one or a true one. It may produce an empty set, but is it wrong? no. Yes if we completely ignore what words mean then we can't say you are wrong. We also can't say you are speaking anything because the words would have no meaning. Are you really serious with this remark?I mean typing in a language and then trying to defend yourself saying "well I was only wrong if you are referring to the meaning of the words in the language I was typing" is kind of ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I think his point is that they are one and the same. That's because no one here on Mingle is going to speak on behalf of a true nice guy. If a true nice guy is defined by how others perceive him, then no one will ever believe it when he describes himself as a nice guy. But without knowing people who know him, a person will never know how others perceive a possible nice guy. And so, meeting in person is not enough. You have to meet his people....friends, acquaintenances, coworkers, etc. of both sexes to get the real picture. In short, on Mingle a nice guy is S.O.O.L. ***** On second reading, the true nice guy is honest, with himself and others, no matter how bad or uncomfortable the truth is. He's probably a nice guy because he has had a few bumps or snags in his life which have humbled him. He won't offer much about himself unless asked. This seems to be Wux's definition, but it still does not seem to fit what most women want. I wonder how much of this is self fulfilling prophecy (not you specifically). People make up their mind ahead of time how others will respond and it affects what they choose to say or do. I consider myself a nice girl, if asked, I would have no issue saying so. I could easily explain that I have been told by others I am a nice person. It doesnt involve anything but truth , its not that complicated or egotistical(if ASKED). I find it sad that even if one is ASKED if they are nice, there are all these outside issues running through their head about the 'niceness' of answering the question .... I actually agree, both on the self prophethizing, and that you are nice, MsHarmony. You are also feisty, when it comes to discussions. That makes you even better than just "nice girl". I am the same way as you, except I am not feisty but arrogant, not nice but I think funny, and not girl but a boy. And entirely also due to self-prophession. but other than that,, we are EXACTLY alike 
|
|
|
|
|
