Why "Nice Guys" are often such LOSERS

[Rollo Tomassi]

As I stated before, think of a spectrum. On one end is the abusive, wife-beating, sometimes incarcerated, "Jerk". On the other is the omega male, doormat, symp "Nice Guy". The common mistake is assuming that most men end up somewhere in the middle of this; they don't. In my estimation, a good 85% of men in western culture lean well into the 'Nice' end of the spectrum because that's all any woman has ever told them they needed to be in order to get with a woman.

I understand the fear of a mass of men radically leaning their personalities towards the Jerk end of the spectrum as prompted by the PUA or MRA communities. Let me be the first to say those fears are unfounded. Guys don't search out the community, blogs or forums like SS (we don't advertise) because they're getting too much pussie from being archetypically 'nice'. In fact the observation that more, shall we say, "self-centered" Men seem to be getting laid most consistently is so prevalent that there's an entire section dedicated to it on the main SoSuave page, leads me to believe that a sudden paradigm shift to Jerk-ness isn't remotely the threat that anyone should fear. Nice Guys, by definition, have a real tough time effectively pulling off acting like a Jerk, much less converting their personality's to that of a Jerk.

 

[Blue Phoenix]

Well, and what about nerds?? They´re nice guys too? Another kind?

People say that nice guys (in general) are afraid of their own sexuality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3PlcqOoTVY&feature=related
This video shows it perfeclty!

Now compare it to a jerk!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srf3a8NtJjM&feature=related
This IS the difference!

 

[The_411]

Why not just boil it down to the ability to not be intimidated or hesitant because that's what it comes down to really. Women don't care about nice they care about being able to not give a damn. They want men who will stand up for themselves and not be disrespected and guys who can say what they think and not constantly pull verbal punches.

Women describe it as nice because nice has a "positive" connotation in the English language and is much more pleasant than boring, uninteresting, passive, *****.

If a girl thinks your nice that means you need to re-evaluate your manhood essentially. It also means you need to dial up the negs and sexual jokes immediately.

 

[Stagger Lee]

As I stated before, think of a spectrum. On one end is the abusive, wife-beating, sometimes incarcerated, "Jerk". On the other is the omega male, doormat, symp "Nice Guy". The common mistake is assuming that most men end up somewhere in the middle of this; they don't. In my estimation, a good 85% of men in western culture lean well into the 'Nice' end of the spectrum because that's all any woman has ever told them they needed to be in order to get with a woman.

I understand the fear of a mass of men radically leaning their personalities towards the Jerk end of the spectrum as prompted by the PUA or MRA communities. Let me be the first to say those fears are unfounded. Guys don't search out the community, blogs or forums like SS (we don't advertise) because they're getting too much pussie from being archetypically 'nice'. In fact the observation that more, shall we say, "self-centered" Men seem to be getting laid most consistently is so prevalent that there's an entire section dedicated to it on the main SoSuave page, leads me to believe that a sudden paradigm shift to Jerk-ness isn't remotely the threat that anyone should fear. Nice Guys, by definition, have a real tough time effectively pulling off acting like a Jerk, much less converting their personality's to that of a Jerk.

I agree many guys do lean too much to the doormat, symp, omega side. But you know what though for the purposes of finding the middle ground few former nice guy/PUA students go to the opposite side of the spectrum, the abusive, woman-beating, sometimes incarcerated, "Jerk". They typically go to the "Overcompensating D!ck" (O.D) point. The best explaination I seen by far is TAO's write up, butchering the alpha male http://www.practicalpickup.com/butchering-the-alpha-male . This is not all the way to the bad boy end of the spectrum but it is close. And it's definitely not near the middle where you want to be. Following the PUA literature does not reliably lead rAFCs to the middle ground.

I think if guys followed their natural male inclinations or "gut" instead of women's and society's misdirected suggestions and shaming them into being an omega, they'd find their own internal inclinations would put them in the middle ground.

I do think being a nice guy does work against guys and the middle ground will improve their success, but I don't think all this nice guy, Jerk or middle ground stuff makes all that much difference. I've seen plenty of guys approach more girls than the average guy does in 3 or maybe even 100 lifetimes with the whole spectrum of nice guy to jerk angles and it didn't make a whole lot of difference. Appearance makes all the difference.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

And of course, as if on cue, Roissy comes up with yet more data on why women love Jerks:

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/chicks-dig-jerks-more-scientific-evidence/

- Narcisisstic, irrational self-confidence is more attractive to women than modest, rational defeatism. (See: Poon Commandment XI)

- Being a rule breaker (a form of psychopathy) is attractive to women. (Playing by the rules will win you plaudits from polite society, but it won’t help you get pussie.)

- Using people for personal gain is attractive to women.

- The Dark Triad works best for short term sexual hookups (the kinds of mating opportunities most men would jump at if they were easy to get). LTRs require a small but significant infusion of beta provider game to remain healthy and satisfying for any woman.

- Being disagreeable is attractive to women.

- Being power-hungry is attractive to women.

- Never sweating the small stuff is attractive to women.

- In other words, being an aloof, uncaring a-hole — an amalgamation of all the above traits — makes you optimally attractive to the greatest number of hot chicks.

- Contrary to feminist flailing to gender equalize the attractiveness of *******s by claiming that men prefer bîtches, this study conclusively shows that the Dark Triad suite of a-hole traits works better for men than it does for women. That is, men don’t dig bîtches.

- None of the above would ever be admitted by women, so don’t bother asking them.

Be sure to check out the comments section for more observations and input on this topic.

 

[zekko]

And of course, as if on cue, Roissy comes up with yet more data on why women love Jerks:

Roissy loves jerk game, and will jump on anything to support the idea.

Notice, however, that the scientific article he refers to says that the "dark triad" behaviors only help in short term mating situations, and are in fact a detriment to long term relationships.

For LTRs:
"individuals who score high on the Dark Triad traits are not well suited for or interested in maintaining long-term relationships, where continued reciprocity is integral".

And:
"once their qualities are evident to others, excessively self-serving individuals should be viewed as undesireable, and thus, to be avoided by potential long-term partners".

So, as long as you're not interested in getting or keeping a long term girlfriend or wife, go ahead and be a jerk.

 

[Paintballguy]

I've had a HB tell me straight up that she was turned on by me being a **** to her.

 

[st_99]

'No fear' of women with a 'take it or leave it' attitude and 'indifference' belief system is what you need. Nice guys tend to NOT have these attributes where jerks are more likely to have it.

 

[Nutz]

a sudden paradigm shift to Jerk-ness isn't remotely the threat that anyone should fear. Nice Guys, by definition, have a real tough time effectively pulling off acting like a Jerk, much less converting their personality's to that of a Jerk.

Great advice. You guys need to heed this! I'm seeing a lot of guys not wanting to become the "jerk" stereotype they imagine "jerks" to be. The reality is that they're just not the beta supplicating wussy chumps and actually challenge women. Yes some are women beaters and criminals, but not all sexually successful men are. In fact I think that's a pretty fringe minority. The dark triad traits may be valid though, but you don't have to go full a$$hole to become more attractive.

When I teach guys to get out of their comfort zone, i don't want them inching forward. No, I want them to take one giant step over the line, and then another giant step again for good measure. And even then they often will find what they're doing isn't really all that over the top or unacceptable behavior to the women. It blows their minds just how ridiculously conservative they've been playing the game all this time. And if the guys do happen to take things too far, scale back slightly until you find the sweet spot. Inching forward will take years to do the same thing as opposed to crossing the line and calibrating back from it.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

NUTZ, you're just making my point here. Most men WOULD prefer to inch towards the jerk end of the spectrum, if at all, and assuming they come believing things aren't as they previously believed. The more common mindset for beta males is to expect that women should appreciate them for being the 'nice', dependable, self-sacrificing guy that every woman since his mother has told him he should be.

It's far easier to believe that the world should change for you than to accept the truth that you need to improve yourself to get the things you want. It's the lazy man's path to disqualify or cheapen things that he desperately wants, but lacks the motivation to change himself to get. So the hot, 'quality' girl he wanted before becomes the 'trashy club slut' after she rejects him. The real quality girl should love/desire him unconditionally, "for who he is" rather than force him into improving himself.

It's exactly this mindset, this beta male default to the 'nice' end of the spectrum that 85% of guys subscribe to, that makes the guy who leans into the 'jerk' end of the spectrum attractive. Yes, the confidence and indifference are Alpha traits, but in a world awash in nice guys ready to buy a hot girl a drink, it's the guy who 'could give a shít' who she marks as a sexual potential.

So as I said, we ought to worry less about social implications of converting nice guys into jerks than making them self-aware to begin with.

 

[vatoloco]

The dark triad traits may be valid though, but you don't have to go full a$$hole to become more attractive.

"...'bad boys' are never boring. They provide the wide range of emotions that women crave, even if not all those emotions and/or actions are positive. You don't necessarily have to be a 'bad boy' to get women. But you do have to be exciting in that respect in order to get them and keep them."

From here.

 

[Tazman]

First off, I'm skeptical of the idea that women came up with the pickup definitions and terms "Nice Guy" and "Jerk". I think they come just as much from the male's lament. As samspade puts it:

As guys, when we use the terms, it isn't meant as an evaluation of sexual market value. However, that's exactly the context with which women refer to these archtypes.

As far as women are concerned, one is more attractive then the other, but that also depends on the circumstances of the women making these judgements.

When I was younger I used to wear a marijuana leaf earring. I described a situation to a female coworker, where I wore it to work and was sitting in front of a supervisor who could see it plain as day (I saw him look at it through my peripheral), but said nothing about it.

This woman then tells me "that's why I like you". This wasn't even my intention, she just came out and said it. In that moment she probably wouldve described me as a "bad boy", even though I wouldn't have considered myself to be. Sometimes it can be that simple. It's the behavior she liked, the fact that I risked getting in trouble to wear this thing in an inappropriate environment, I sort of put the challenge out there and suffered no consequence (regardless of how frivolous it was at the time).

 

[zekko]

Looking at that study again, I think it would be a huge mistake to read it and draw the conclusion "women prefer jerks". Roissy's article draws conclusions that simply aren't there.

Basically, the study took a bunch of guys and asked them how many sexual partners they've had. Not surprisingly, guys who had stronger "dark triad" traits had more sex partners. It's not too hard to see why this is.

The study actually states that having these dark triad traits are beneficial as a short term strategy for dating, not that these guys are inheritently more attractive. It also shows that these guys are also at a huge disadvantage when it comes to long term relationships.

Here are the three dark triad traits:

Narcissism: Obviously if you are stuck on yourself, you're going to assume the girl is attracted to you. This tears down a lot of barriers to approach anxiety and such. If you assume she will like you, you're not going to be hesitant about approaching.

Machiavellianism: Being willing to manipulate others is obviously going to be a help short term with women. Basically, tell the girl whatever she wants to hear in order to get into her pants. The guy is deceptive as to his real nature.

Psychopathy: Being unable to form strong human attachments, these guys are obviously going to focus their goals on short term, rather than long term relationships. A more normal male will likely have more LTRs than the psychopath, and thus a smaller amount of sex partners.

Again, the study shows having the dark triad traits are helpful as a short term strategy. But are a big disadvantage in the long term - in other words, as soon as the girl figures out what the guy is really about.

This is pretty much consistent with what I've always thought: The bad boy does whatever he has to do to get into the girl's pants. And intercourse can often lead to an emotional attachment from the girl.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

When I teach guys to get out of their comfort zone, i don't want them inching forward. No, I want them to take one giant step over the line, and then another giant step again for good measure. And even then they often will find what they're doing isn't really all that over the top or unacceptable behavior to the women. It blows their minds just how ridiculously conservative they've been playing the game all this time. And if the guys do happen to take things too far, scale back slightly until you find the sweet spot. Inching forward will take years to do the same thing as opposed to crossing the line and calibrating back from it.

Nutz man, would you give me a constructive example of how a beta wuss might jump across that line as you may say? Why do so many of us nice guys inch forwards barely able to do so until our social conditioning pulls us back?

Is there a way to be Alpha without being a Jerk-@ss?

I do agree with you Rollo that it is definitely easier to call her b!tch and not really look at our behavior and mindset -- the question becomes really, if someone has had AFC behavior that clearly has given them repeated negative results in their lives -- WHY are they unable to break the cycle? Why do they repeat their AFC mannerisms in their next relationship? Thinking as though "this time or this person will be different"?

In some ways being self-serving (even with women) may really be more about self-respect. When we sacrifice a great deal for others we really do disrespect ourselves...But where is the fine line there? I myself definitely enjoy helping people -- I gain a great satisfaction out of doing kind things for others. Can the non-Beta-chump, the more dominant man still do acts of kindness?

Why do nice guys have trouble being more self-serving? What social constructs are holding us back? Are the feelings of guilt we experience just social conditioning?

 

[zekko]

For a man to drop all his convictions and principles just so he can get laid, just to please some pvssy, THAT to me is the biggest supplicating wuss act I can think of.

You should be a strong, tough, masculine male who stands up for yourself, doesn't put girls on a pedestal, and doesn't get dragged into feminist ideals of what they say a man should be. That, however, has nothing to do with being an @sshole.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Looking at that study again, I think it would be a huge mistake to read it and draw the conclusion "women prefer jerks". Roissy's article draws conclusions that simply aren't there.

Basically, the study took a bunch of guys and asked them how many sexual partners they've had. Not surprisingly, guys who had stronger "dark triad" traits had more sex partners. It's not too hard to see why this is.

The study actually states that having these dark triad traits are beneficial as a short term strategy for dating, not that these guys are inheritently more attractive. It also shows that these guys are also at a huge disadvantage when it comes to long term relationships.

Here are the three dark triad traits:

Narcissism: Obviously if you are stuck on yourself, you're going to assume the girl is attracted to you. This tears down a lot of barriers to approach anxiety and such. If you assume she will like you, you're not going to be hesitant about approaching.

Machiavellianism: Being willing to manipulate others is obviously going to be a help short term with women. Basically, tell the girl whatever she wants to hear in order to get into her pants. The guy is deceptive as to his real nature.

Psychopathy: Being unable to form strong human attachments, these guys are obviously going to focus their goals on short term, rather than long term relationships. A more normal male will likely have more LTRs than the psychopath, and thus a smaller amount of sex partners.

Again, the study shows having the dark triad traits are helpful as a short term strategy. But are a big disadvantage in the long term - in other words, as soon as the girl figures out what the guy is really about.

This is pretty much consistent with what I've always thought: The bad boy does whatever he has to do to get into the girl's pants. And intercourse can often lead to an emotional attachment from the girl.

All good points. Two other factors are missing in the study, first dark triad guys may be are more likely to lie about how man women they slept with and exaggerate more, and secondly looks weren't factored in.

Let's assume that dark triad guys reported accurately their number of sex partners as being higher. But without the study further rating their visual attractiveness to women with say their photos, what could've have been a major causation or possible the real casuation of attraction wasn't factored in.

It's entirely possible that more attractive guys also exhibit dark traid traits more often than average or unattractive guys. For example, it's hard for an unattractive guy to behave like an a$$hole and not receive great resistance from women and society.

One thing we can conclude from this study is women are a poor judge of character and/or don't really care about character. Only that they respond sexually in the short term at least to aggressive action and possibly appearance. And that if dark triad traits can't keep a steady sexual partner then by necessity it requires the pursuit of more partners.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

For a man to drop all his convictions and principles just so he can get laid, just to please some pvssy, THAT to me is the biggest supplicating wuss act I can think of.

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bítchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

 

[zekko]

It's entirely possible that more attractive guys also exhibit dark traid traits more often than average or unattractive guys. For example, it's hard for an unattractive guy to behave like an a$$hole and not receive great resistance from women and society.

That's entirely possible. It's just like Lexington's example about Randy Moss. If Moss wasn't a great receiver, no one would have put up with his sh!t. But since he had value, this enabled him to indulge himself by acting like an @ss. But acting like an @ss did not make him a great receiver, being a great receiver enabled him to act like an @ss. As a pampered athlete, he never had to grow up.

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women

First off, Rollo, I don't appreciate you characterizing me as a hater, just because I don't buy into the idea that women really want jerks.

Moreover, nowhere did I say anything about "men who run game". I simply do not believe that running game is the equivalent of being an @sshole. Nor do I believe that running game requires you to be an @sshole. Most importantly, I do not believe that you have to be an @sshole to attract women. I have yet to see anything here or in my personal life to convince me otherwise.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Roissy loves jerk game, and will jump on anything to support the idea.

All right Roissy, heartiste or who ever is running that blog has no creditability in my view now. He's deleted several of my posts and replied to the few others he didn't delete calling me a troll and attacking ad hominenly. All I was doing was providing a barely dissenting discussion, not anything different than we do here all the time on SS, and he just wants to surpress any information that doesn't complete agree with his blogs. He's got the blinders on and is not objective at all.

I've been reading the blog for a while and just started posting replies yesterday anonymously, but still anyone with half a brain can tell a man with experience wth gaming tactics were writing my replies. He just wants to use his blog as a mouthpiece and have people agree with him. He's not looking for the truth, he has all the answers already.

Anyway, I lost any respect and credibility for him and that blog.

 

[Stagger Lee]

...

It rang true then and still does today. To understand the argument, you MUST define "nice" as INSECURE, DESPERATE, and DISINGENUOUS. And you must define "jerk" as ****Y, CONFIDENT, and SEXUAL. These are female-contrived definitions. Too many guys get caught up in the nuances of these words. They apply their own definitions and experiences. They're not thinking about how women see it. No, women don't want violence and terror and grade-A a$$hole behavior constantly in their lives. They want masculinity, strength, and a F-all attitude.

Ever been called a jerk by woman when it's obvious she likes you? It feels great. She's digging you. But if you've been called a jerk by woman who actually is seriously upset with you, you know that what she's feeling is not attraction at that moment. She actually finds you repulsive.

There is no need to try to find some universal definition for "nice" and "jerk" that everyone will agree on. Just keep in mind the way women see it. They want the jerk that makes them laugh, turns them on, and nails them good. Or, if it makes you feel better, they want the nice guy that does the same.

Absolutely, but when one advocates jerk game to other guys, by just calling it 'jerk' game one's probably led the men to imagine something more extreme than what they really need to do. If I told you a guy should act uncaring or disinterested, or talk to her like you were talking to a male friend but lead and escalate sexually, then I think we would have less erring into the 'overcompensating d!ck' extreme of the spectrum.

To say being a jerk attracts women or being uncaring (acting uninterested, non supplicating, etc) does is saying two different things and gives two different mental images or interpretations.

Roissy is pretty clearly painting the picture that negs and being mean cause attraction in itself. I don't really buy that. And when one person made a counter-argument in just the right way that didn't offend roissy's fragile ego, he concedes "OK caring a$$hole fails and uncaring a$$hole succeeds, case closed". He could've just dropped the 'a$$hole' part and simply said "caring fails and uncaring succeeds". But he is so ego-invested with the whole 'a$$hole' idea.

And when I say a$$hole or nice is almost irrelevant, or at best icing on the cake, outside of appearance because appearance is the cause of attraction, that really offends. It's comforting to believe that picking up is all about behaving like an a$$hole and that will cause success even if you are not very visually attractive. Let's just put it this way. Ask two actors to act like a jerk using the same basic script and one will attract women and the other will appear as an unattractive jerk (in the unattractive sense of the word). The difference is appearance and the script is meaningless. I'd go so far to say give the actor with good appearance a nicer guy script and the the actor with a not so good appearance the jerk script, and the former will still succeed and the latter will still fail worse. That is a hard pill for some to swallow.And the real problem here is we have debate on what the script should be to start with lol.