Comment by _yb2s | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _yb2s | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Forget the us vs them culture war perspective, and think about this- who are the people attracted to "incel" or "mens rights" stuff and why? These are mostly men - that grew up "people pleasing" and being unable to set boundaries, thinking this made them "good" or "nice guys" and therefore deserving of romantic and financial success, yet it didn't work out like that and they're upset about it.

The men's rights stuff tells them they've been sold a lie/raw deal by society, and that they can get power, success, etc. by rejecting that narrative that didn't work for them. Yes, this involves a lot of fear, misogyny, etc. but at it's core there is the message that it's your own fault, and you need to take responsibility: learn to set boundaries, work hard, prioritize and communicate your own needs, develop vulnerability and emotional intelligence, etc. Old self help books that really work are extremely popular in these communities, and these men support and coach each other in working hard to apply these lessons in their own lives. Those books predate "incel" or "mens rights" stuff and themselves have nothing to do with it.

I grew up with these same issues, and found advice that helped me because it had been popularized and made visible by these "men's rights" groups. I wholeheartedly reject the misogyny, narcissism, and fear based manipulation these groups use, but I also wholeheartedly accept the idea that most of my problems were caused by myself, and I can do the work to fix them by doing the internal emotional work, learning to set boundaries, etc.

> The men's rights stuff tells them they've been sold a lie/raw deal by society...

I think that's it in a nutshell. Selling a narrative of undeserved victimhood is very powerful. I think a lot of men stop at convenient victimhood and do not follow through and to learn how to be resilient, reliable, and genuinely put others' interests ahead of their own.

If you're being a "nice guy" just to get something, then you're not actually a "nice guy", you're just play acting in order to get what you want. People recognize that almost immediately, and do not trust people like that with relationships or responsibility. Peers will trust you when you accept that you cannot trick the world into trusting you, and you start building trust through actions.

Yes, a key part of No more Mr. Nice Guy is that "Nice Guys" operate on "Covert Contracts." They do things for other people with the (unstated/secret) expectation of something specific in return, especially, e.g. being nice or giving gifts and compliments to women, and expecting romantic interest, friendship, loyalty, etc. in return- and they get upset and act out when they don't get what they expected, which isn't really "nice" at all.

This is contrasted with clearly setting, communicating, and enforcing boundaries: e.g. I choose to only have relationships with other people that treat me with dignity and mutual respect. I will let people know if they are violating my boundaries, and if necessary, I will move on from the relationship.

I do take issue with your idea to "put others' interests ahead of their own." Often, that is actually part of the problem these "nice guys" have- they are afraid to put their own interests first, which leads them them silently tolerate abuse, etc. and just constantly seethe with resentment. We are each responsible for our own needs and interests, and it is childish to put others first at the expense of yourself, and then silently expect other people to somehow take care of your interests for you. Good leadership, for example involves a type of enlightened self interest: e.g. I am mentoring young people because it brings me joy to see them succeed, I can relate to them, and it makes the world I also live in better. This is because it's good for me, I would not mentor young people if I hated it and it made me miserable, just because I think they need it, and I am putting their needs first, nor would I do it for some covert/unstated reward or repayment. Life isn't a zero sum game- your own best interests will very often align with those of others.

> I do take issue with your idea to "put others' interests ahead of their own."

I don't believe that putting "others first at the expense of yourself, and then silently expect[ing] other people to somehow take care of your interests for you" is actually "put[ting] others' interests ahead of [your] own". That's still self interest, it just utilizes the Covert Contracts you mentioned.

I think good leadership is self sacrifice. Being able to adjust or set aside your expectations without resentment will not help you win a war or run a country, but it will help your marriage, friendships, and children. Once I learned to adjust my expectations for people, I let go of a lot of bitterness and I was able to focus energy elsewhere. This is more of a personal outlook for me--I'm not arguing with you, I just wanted to clarify my position.

I think we're actually in agreement, but these issues are hard to discuss clearly because the words and ideas surrounding them are pretty muddled together.

I would argue that the type of leadership you are talking about is still ultimately self interest- it is still putting your own ideals or goals first, and being willing to endure hardship or difficulty to accomplish them. Wanting your family, relationships, etc. - things you care deeply about- to thrive is hardly self sacrifice.

This is a philosophical argument as old as the hills... but it seems that often what one calls altruism, another calls self interest, and they can be talking about the same thing. For example, in Ayn Rands books she emphasizes "selfishness" as a virtue, and yet her "selfish heros" are usually people working on some hard technical problem that would mostly benefit other people, and her "altruistic villans" are doing some type of empty posturing to make themselves look good, to gain personal social status and power. So her concepts are pretty muddled as well- was Stalin really evil because he put others needs before his own? That seems like a pretty silly take for someone mass-murdering their political opponents while living in multiple palaces.

Ultimately, I don't find the dichotomy of selfishness vs altruism to be a very meaningful distinction- it seems like people can easily categorize anything into either category. Things I think are "good" usually involve taking seriously both your own and others needs, looking for good solutions with creativity and an open mind, and being willing to endure hardship to make things better.

It seems to me that people always miss the factor that ultimately determines the differences between self interest and altruism, which is intent. If an action is performed without thought for oneself, yet there is some result that aligns with self interest, that does not somehow nullify any aspect of altruism. Why? For one, people cannot predict the future. What may be perceived as good in one instant can quickly become horrible in another. Similarly, what is in one’s best interest is also subject to perception and changes over time. And finally, one is not always in control of the outcome. I would agree with you that for an act to be viewed as self interest vs altruism is a matter of opinion, when intent is unknown. However, whether or not altruism exists at all (because "it’s not altruism if they somehow benefit") is not - which I am not accusing you of making that argument, though it may be interpreted that way by some.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com