Question:

How true do you think this piece on nice guys/jerks is?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

This is a piece that I authored partially in response to another, similar question which posed a paragraph on nice guys and jerks, which I felt missed the point. Well, here goes:

First, even using the terms “nice guy” and “jerk” is using euphemisms and dysphemisms to imply a gender, a dichotomy, and a presumptive opinion, where none of these are necessarily valid (these people come in female as well as male, they aren’t the only two types of people in the world, and “nice guys” aren’t necessarily any better than “jerks”). So, to broaden the application, I’ll describe both of these types of people in detail, and introduce many applicable terms for both so as to dispel the opinion-laden language.

To understand either of these extreme types of people, it’s necessary to first understand the well-adjusted person which is neither of these. Well-adjusted, confident people can be described as kind, observant, friendly and helpful to most individuals, but (in accordance with the entire meaning of the term ‘justice’) are NOT friendly toward people who in some way or another don’t merit it. That is to say, they’re capable of making value judgments so as to avoid being walked on by people who would abuse their kindness. “Jerks” and “nice guys” are two variants of people who can not or will not apply part of this algorithm of behavior.

The first type of person is the “jerk.” As I’ve mentioned above, this term implies both a negative opinion and a male gender; other dysphemisms include “a**hole” (for males) and “b*tch” (for females). Euphemisms are a bit more complicated, but usually emphasize ‘assertiveness’ or ‘confidence’ in both genders. Basically, this is a sort of person who looks at the world like a battlefield, and is nasty and confrontational with basically everyone regardless of whether they’re kind to the ‘jerk’ or not. For them, friends are people who need to be bullied into usefulness, employees could always use a little humiliation to keep them in line, and SOs are people who either need to be intimidated into subordination or abandoned.

The second type of person is the “nice guy.” Again, this term implies an opinion (this time a positive one) and a male gender; euphemisms for both genders generally include “nice,” “sweet,” or “proper,” while dysphemisms typically emphasize timidity or lack of opinion or intellectual definition (‘wimp,’ ‘airhead,’ ‘coward,’ etc.). This sort of person often exhibits things like kindness, but generally out of fear, which can be of either direct threats, like job loss or physical harm, or emotional threats, like abandonment or failure to please. That is, the kindness of this sort of person is not out of strength of character, but rather out of fear of what will happen if they’re not kind. Generally, this sort of person can be identified if they’re rudely told to do something by someone with no authority over them (they will unquestioningly and often cheerfully obey), or if someone is otherwise openly rude and hostile to them (they will tend to pretend it’s not happening, and often seek to escape the situation rather than address it).

Both of these people are equally unappealing; one because they are incapable or unwilling to be a decent human being, and the other because they are incapable or unwilling to stand up to the former sort of person (and because the decency they do exhibit is out of fear rather than out of actual decency).

Both will try to convince you that the only types of people in the world are their types and the other types (the jerk/b*tch will tell you that it’s either them or one of the wimps/cowards, and the wimp/coward will tell you that the only ones who will stand up for anything are jerks/b*tches), pretending that the well-adjusted people who are kind to good people and who also stand up to nasty people don’t exist. Of course, such people do exist, and that’s precisely why the others would like to convince people of this false dichotomy - because such well-adjusted people are obviously more desirable than either of these types.

Comments/opinions? :)

 Tags:

   Report

7 ANSWERS


  1. Thank you, a very interesting and well written question.

    I agree with you,  the balanced personality of either male or female, is respectful and kind to others (nice), but can also defend himself/herself in a very assertive way if necessary, in other words is not a doormat (not so nice).

    People that are in the extreme of the personality pendulum are not balanced as they tend to become one dimensional, and a balanced person shows a big gamut and layers of expression which adapts according to the situation in their social surroundings.

    On the other hand, I read a very interesting paper (which source I have not with me right now) where the author stated that not always the most aggressive personalities are the most successful ones. The author wrote that in today's society it is the people that can adapt to others who are able to have success in the workplace and their relationships.


  2. Ah, this is the sort of topic that can produce endless debate without resolution.

    The only point I wish to add is that the terms you have mentioned, even taking into account the well-reasoned rationalizing of terminology that you have presented, are used in partisanship manner, and this is the all-important consideration, particularly on the battleground of gender issues.  For instance, it is a given that the term of "jerk" is usually rendered as a pejorative--can it be rendered any other way?--and considerations of the scope of the term are not generalized, but specific, even when the specific reference is not prominently evident.  

    Stated more plainly, when, in the battleground of gender miscommunication, the term "jerk" is fired off, the person doing the firing has a reference in mind related to their own experience; whether the object of the insult is actually worthy of the epithet is of no consequence, as they represent for that person all of the calumny suffered at the hands of the persecuting gender.  We see this time and again in the voluminous discourse that women have about "types" of men---an entire industry is founded on such notions, in fact, and any reading of women's magazines will show that these notions are perpetuated and emphasized, ready-packaged for the future generations to buy into.

    The term of "nice guy" is a bit vaguer, if simply because of the lack of clarity that attends those less-sharp emotions that have not their base in negativity.  A "nice guy" may be a palliative term, one of those things administered with a cordial pat on the head, unassuming, unthreatening, ill-defined, and ineffective.  It is one of the ironies in life that women have experienced much greater degree of emotions attached to those men they have placed in the "jerk" category, simply because they have allowed those "jerks" closer proximity to their lives; the "nice guy" does not stand a chance of getting so close.

    Just one of the ironies of gender interaction, I suppose.

    To summarize, however, both terms are no more than a convenience, and have no life outside the mind of the person using them to categorize the people they have had experience with in their lives.  While such categorization may be mollifying to the ego, it is not to be assumed that a person should feel the weight of a label imposed from without.

    Even a nice guy has the mettle to understand the unfairness of that.  ;)

    EDIT: Ugh!  Why do you bother posting a question when you just are going to let it go to a vote, which you obviously are doing?  Letting a question go to voting is the rudest thing a person can do.  It not only shows you do not care enough to pick a best answer, it is a high insult, as it is well-established that those who vote on questions really do not take time to read the answers very well, as they are usually low levels just trying to rack up points.  This is the reason why almost all questions that go to a vote, the first answer is always picked as best.

    I certainly won't waste my time answering any more of your questions.  What a waste of time, and for absolutely nothing; you probably never even read my answer.

  3. Hahaha I'm tripping a little bit because you called an answer on this board a "piece".

    Those terms are difficult to define with pinpoint accuracy because each are subjective; they mean something to different each person at different times even. You are not giving people enough credit because I would imagine that most already understand that most people are or capable of being a mix of the two. When someone refers to "nice" or "jerk" they are implying that the person falls on one side more than the other, in their own view.

  4. My God, do you sit up late at night with a Thesaurus and practice using different adjectives?

  5. I think you are overly sensitive to this topic. I don't think when someone discusses the desirability between "jerks" and "nice guys" that they put that much thought into it.

    What they mean is that men who tend to show little appreciation and are overly aggressive seem to win out when pitted against a guy who's more kind of heart. And all too often is the case.

    I don't really think your piece has much validity because attraction is exactly rational per se.

    There aren't only 2 types of guys, but if given those 2 options, i'd put my money on the "jerk" winning out.

  6. "Both of these people are equally unappealing; one because they are incapable or unwilling to be a decent human being, and the other because they are incapable or unwilling to stand up to the former sort of person (and because the decency they do exhibit is out of fear rather than out of actual decency)."

    -I disagree w/ this statement, there's nothing appealing about being a "jerk" but that's not to say that a jerk can't change into a nice guy because a nice guy can just as well morph into a jerk. Anyway, I prefer nice guys over the jerk anyday because the nice guy will last, the jerk has a use-by date.

  7. What is this pontificating nonsense?

    Women like jerks.  They are in denial about this, and will make up any excuse to deny it.  End of story.

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 7 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.