13 ms·

Nice guys finish first. Eventually.

117 points by noelsequeira 15y ago

denzil_correa 15y ago
I would like to add a twist to this. Bad guys do hog the limelight, in exceptional cases (Steve Jobs is an example). However, being a bad-ass doesn't guarantee success and you may not be able to look yourself in the eye. On the other hand, being nice doesn't guarantee success too. However, you can still walk around keeping your conscience high. It's not what works, it's what you want to be.
- noodle 15y ago
  To add my $0.02: it isn't "good" or "bad" that wins. Its skill, ability, responsibility, etc.. It just so happens that if you're an aggressive jerk, you're more inclined to aggressively oversell yourself, as opposed to the stereotypical "good guy" who tends to undersell but overdeliver or be more generally realistic.
contextfree 15y ago
I was hoping this was some kind of study with data and stuff, or at least multiple concrete examples.
_delirium 15y ago
So I'd like to agree with this, and it might even be true, but it's not a very convincing counterargument. Am I missing something, or is its counterargument to the study basically, "I disagree, because team-building and collaboration is important"?
- freshhawk 15y ago
  Don't forget puppy dogs and summer breezes and good feelings! Take that science!
- christphrdunder 15y ago
  A "recent study by professors from several leading business schools" is wrong because the author thinks "in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys." This is the echo chamber they speak of.
overgard 15y ago
I like the sentiment. A tangent thought: I think the nice/jerk dichotomy/model is somewhat misleading. It's really compressing two separate axis into one. I think a better way to think about it is this: you have a kind-unkind axis and a dominant-weak axis; and "nice" tends to be in the kind/weak sector while "jerk" tends to be dominant/unkind sector. You still have two other sectors though, and I think that's really where you're going to find your heroes/villains.
- dexen 15y ago
  `troll' would be the unkind/weak, and `leader' would be the kind/dominant, right?
  - adrianwaj 15y ago
    Rick Perry: cruel, dominant. Newt Gingrich: cruel, weak. Mitt Romney: kind, weak. Ron Paul: kind, dominant. (Actually, I'm probably trying to fit square pegs in round holes here. Ignore.)
nubela 15y ago
I think this is what David Hornik wants to be true. The article in no way states that it is.
pmuhar 15y ago
I never understood how bad boys/aggressive business people succeed. I always go out of my way to help people that are genuinely nice and caring, and not so much for the jerks.
- skore 15y ago
  I think they may just be a lot better at framing the options for the people they manipulate in favor of their desired outcome. Mostly out of necessity, because people really don't often like helping or working for jerks. The most successful bad boys include a factor through which it is also beneficial to the people they are playing or even better - a factor through which they think they are the ones pulling ahead aggressively.
- re_todd 15y ago
  The bad guys I've known were could be very charming when it mattered or to the right people. It took several months (sometimes a year) for people to compare notes and realize they were basically jerks. One of the nicest guys I've ever met I later found out verbally abused (and sometimes physically abused) his wife, often stole money from her purse to go get high, left his kids in a seedy part of town because he was too high to remember where they were, and spread many horrible, demonstrably false rumors when they separated. Maybe some of the people you helped because you thought they were nice, many years from now, you will realized they are sociopaths.
EricDeb 15y ago
Even if nice guys do "win-out" eventually, how exactly would this happen in a start-up? If a Jerk-Aggressive-Dominant team builds a great product and becomes the top of the pyramid by acting like assholes, when is it that they get replaced by nice guys? I just don't think business works like that.
- ramidarigaz 15y ago
  I think the Jerk-Aggressive-Dominant team ends up making a big PR goof causing customers to jump ship.
Shenglong 15y ago
Despite the early appeal of the jerks, however, in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys. I really hate this analogy: Once the girls have had their fun, and are old, they settle with those who can provide for them And, although it has no direct relation, it always reminds me of Buffet and "saving sex for old age"[1]. But even then, it's not even always true. I'd wager the majority of these women end up in a cycle of jerks. You just selectively hear about the ones who give up, and settle. This isn't a matter of fate - it's a matter of perception. [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/3073746/Buffett-on-Goldman-the-bailout-and-saving-sex-for-your-old-age.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/3073746/Buffett-on-Goldma...
- jasonjackson 15y ago
  And/or the jerks eventually settle down in their 40s.
  - kstenerud 15y ago
    I've not seen this in the jerks I know.
- dev_jim 15y ago
  But even then, it's not even always true. I'd wager the majority of these women end up in a cycle of jerks. You just selectively hear about the ones who give up, and settle. This isn't a matter of fate - it's a matter of perception. Women and men change their expectations as they get older. It's part of growing up. Both sexes start to look past what is exciting RIGHT NOW to what is important to building a lasting relationship. Anecdotally this has been the case for me. The women I personally am interested in dating now (@28) bear little resemblance to the women I wanted to date when I was fresh out of college (@23).
kubaf 15y ago
if you are aggressive type of person your goals are probably more... aggressive. nice guys tend to be more satisfied with what they achieved already. compare jobs - wozniak duo. (generalizing like that is not the best way of thinking about people - people are more complex that "nice/bad" dichotomy)
rkon 15y ago
> I'm convinced the professors have come to the wrong conclusion. That's usually the part where you begin citing evidence that has convinced you. Unfortunately, it's where this article ends. I'm convinced this article is wrong. See how that works? If you don't put any effort into backing up your statements, they can just as easily be rejected.
- scott_w 15y ago
  While I can't cite any studies, Richard Dawkins presents some of the theory in The Selfish Gene. While total "nice guys" tend to finish last in a population of "bad guys", a localised population of "fool me once guys" can, given time, push out the "bad guys", and become a dominant population. This works when the benefits of working together outweigh the benefits of screwing over the other guy. While a population of bad guys is busy screwing each other over, the fool me once guys are busy working well together, unless they get screwed over, in which case they can refuse to do business again. An outcome that makes it harder for bad guys to keep screwing people over.
  - forensic 15y ago
    So much faith. Which evolutionary strategy succeeds is entirely dependent on the environment. Capitalism and the modern metropolis is the perfect environment for sociopaths to thrive, and research on sociopathy shows it is increasing in the West. The simple fact of the matter is that when a sociopath is discovered, the discoverer will avoid the sociopath but WILL NOT WARN OTHERS due to fear of retaliation. Fear keeps the sheep in check, and allows sociopaths to move from one sucker to the next. Each sociopath may only get to exploit a given mark (Mark1) two, three, or five times, but then that sociopath moves on to the next mark, and a new sociopath takes advantage of Mark1. In this way sociopaths in our anonymous, private society run amok and their evolutionary strategy is highly successful. Sociopaths are found in large proportions among those who worked their way to wealth - ruthlessness and a willingness to exploit is highly lucrative in our private culture that has no accountability. Dr. Martha Stout in The Sociopath Next Door gives the example of a sociopath who lied and blackmailed her way into a position as a clinical psychologist in a mental hospital despite having no qualifications. Colleagues and patients became aware of the sociopath on multiple occasions, but when they would complain to the administration they hit a stonewall because the forward-looking sociopath had sexually blackmailed key individuals. The sociopath worked as a psychologist for 14 years before a wealthy and connected patient was exploited and harmed by her, upon which time the wealthy patient's father threatened the hospital with a public lawsuit if they did not pay him. The hospital administration paid a settlement to the wealthy client and fired the sociopath, but did not report the sociopath to ANYONE, including its own staff. The sociopath then simply went and worked at another hospital. Over and over again in our society the pattern of the sociopath is that when they are discovered they simply move on to the next sucker. This did not happen in traditional cultures. Dr. Martha Stout explains how in Inuit culture sociopaths would be ritualistically murdered by a group of men in the tribe. In 19th century America, if a sociopath scammed some people in a town, those people would capture and lynch the sociopath even if they did not engage in strictly illegal behaviour. This selection pressure prevented the proliferation of sociopaths, but now our society rewards sociopaths and has no protective mechanisms. More often than not, sociopaths use their lack of conscience as a business advantage and rise quickly in organizations through charm, blackmail, politics, and ruthlessness. We live in the age of the sociopath. Bad people are not punished but rather rewarded at every turn. A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths, and they got to where they are because the good people they fucked over along the way either did not speak up or were ignored and ridiculed when they did.
JesseAldridge 15y ago
The linked study is a lot more interesting than this article: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.html http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.h... Some choice excerpts: "Our findings show that people want respectable and admired group members to lead them at times of peace, but when 'the going gets tough' they want a dominant, power-seeking individual to lead the group," "...sharing one's resources with both in-group members and outsiders had the most dire net outcomes on a person's status. The researchers discovered that universal generosity decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance compared with those who shared resources only with members of their group."
- kstenerud 15y ago
  "Our findings show that people want respectable and admired group members to lead them at times of peace, but when 'the going gets tough' they want a dominant, power-seeking individual to lead the group," They want a stable leader during peacetime and a victorious leader (who will bring back stability by defeating the enemy) during wartime. "...sharing one's resources with both in-group members and outsiders had the most dire net outcomes on a person's status. The researchers discovered that universal generosity decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance compared with those who shared resources only with members of their group." Sharing with outsiders increases the power of outsiders at the cost of the power of the group. Historically, that leads to destabilization as the now-more-powerful outsiders could supplant the group, or the now weakened group could be attacked by an existing enemy.
- TWSS 15y ago
  This tracks with my anecdotal experiences working in startups for 15+ years. Namely, that companies need audacious, aggressive leaders in the early days of initial fundraising, customer acquisition, etc. But those domineering, borderline-sociopath leaders are rarely adept at maintaining and growing a stable, established company.
thewisedude 15y ago
Really? He is saying that Venture Capitalism will eventually reward the nice guys becuase of a somewhat similar analogy in school (the dating analogy)? He should have started the article with "I hope.." or "I feel".
- vidarh 15y ago
  It's important to keep in mind that success in venture capitalism is to a large extent driven by deal flow. You can be the perfect guy in every other respect and still never make it if you never get to see the good opportunities. If you either remain a total unknown, or get a reputation for being horribly unfair to founders, it will likely eventually come back to bite you. That doesn't mean you should be a pushover, though. In a way that means this article is really self-serving. Whether or not he's a nice guy, writing about how he wants to be nice is likely good for his deal flow.
kevinalexbrown 15y ago
Two things, one anecdotal, one scientific: (1) When I was in 6th grade, they had some "kid executives" thing where we got to spend a day shadowing a local "businessperson." I got to follow around a senior VP of Bank of America. Not exactly the bank with the best reputation. But while I was there, when I was away from the SVP, a junior level guy walk talking with me, and I must have asked something about needing to be a jerk to succeed in business, because he told me something I never forgot: "you know everyone says you need to be a jerk to succeed, but this guy is the clearest example that that's not true." Anecdotal, yeah, but it stuck with me even as I grew up (read: became slightly more cynical). I've since met far wealthier, or far more recognized individuals. Maybe hearing that once when I was young enough to embrace it encouraged me not to write off all powerful people because of the actions of a notorious few. (2) I think the study has some flaws. When I was an undergraduate, I worked in a psychology lab that did studies like this. They don't bring in a bunch of "powerful people" or anything like that. They have a bunch of other undergraduates play the Prisoner's Dilemma with 5 bucks. Here's the methods for one of the experiments[1]: Participants and Procedure. Sixty-six Stanford University students (62.9% female; age: M = 21.2, SD = 3.1) were recruited from a large subject-pool. They arrived at the laboratory in groups of 8-12 participants and were each seated in a private cubicle. Participants read the instructions, made their decisions and responded to the post-decision questionnaire using the computer. The Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma (IPD) game. Participants learned that they had been randomly assigned to a four-person group, and that their group was randomly yoked to another four-person group. They did not know who was in their group or in the other group and could not communicate with any of the other participants in their session. Each participant was endowed with 10 game chips and had to decide how to allocate them. Each chip that was kept paid $2 to the individual; each chip that was contributed to the group pool added $1 to each in- group member including the contributor; in addition, it subtracted $1 from each out-group member. Thus, the same action simultaneously benefitted in-group members and harmed out- group members.[sic] My problem with studies like this, while commendable for trying to experimentally control possible factors, is that the context is super important. An analogy might be measuring the speed of light in the same gas several times to control for external effects, but not realizing that the speed of light through a gas changes based on the gas. One such context, as the David Hornik pointed out, is a temporal one: people who screw everyone over once might seem aggressive and powerful, and are signalling that they're independent, whatever. People who screw everyone over for years might get left behind or ousted. To be fair, the authors of the study acknowledge (but do not address) the temporal issue in their conclusion. And model systems like the Prisoner's Dilemma are important in any field. But twitchy when lab results like this are applied willy nilly into complex social interactions. Nice guys, bad guys, both evolved under intense evolutionary pressure for a reason. [1] http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.html http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.h... (link to study on right)
moocow01 15y ago
Without having any sort of scientific measuring stick, it seems that when taking averages 'nice guys' (and gals) finish overwhelmingly ahead. I'm not sure what is a good way to measure this race and I find the concept of finishing ahead somewhat silly in the first place but here is my example anyways... If you've ever been to a high school reunion, you'll typically be somewhat shocked at what happened to the jocks/jerks/(insert high school term here) that were seemingly head of the pack back then. I find this phenomenon to also be true in the other phases of life as well. For example, Ive had to re-evaluate my career path after getting to know some executives that would surely satisfy the bad guy checkbox. Many of them have had qualities that may have been useful in getting them to where they are but in terms of general 'lifestyle' management I do not envy them one bit (family problems, addictions, etc etc.) As a note I am not saying all executives have huge problems - but the ones who were, for lack of a more friendly term, assholes have not had enviable lives when looked at from a holistic perspective in my experience. I dabble from time to time into listening to Buddhist instructors and a message Ive been able to take away from those is that cruelty to others is also directing cruelty toward yourself. I wish I had a great logical analysis to prove this but I do find it to be true through my experiences.
adambyrtek 15y ago
Maybe it's just me, but the title made me think that the linked article is about sex. (I'm not a native English speaker though.)
- meric 15y ago
  The title is a play on a phrase that is frequently used referring to sex, yes, and this article does it to attract your attention.
casca 15y ago
Many people think that they're the proverbial nice guy. In many cases, they're wrong. You're not a nice guy because you don't kill people or verbally abuse old people on the bus. You're not a nice guy because you managed to avoid being abusive on most occasions. Don't let them get away with not defining their terms because we all have a fuzzy feeling of who the nice guy is (me, not him).
kristofferR 15y ago
It's a shame that people still think it's impossible to be aggressive without being a jerk, both in business and social life. Sure, a lot of jerks are aggressive, but that's only a correlation, not a causation. "Nice" is not a positive thing. If someone calls you "nice" it's a sign you should change your personality. "Nice" is what you say about people you have nothing to say about: http://www.joelrunyon.com/two3/nice-people-dont-change-the-world http://www.joelrunyon.com/two3/nice-people-dont-change-the-w... To truly succeed you have to be aggressive. You must know what you truly want and have the courage to go get it. You must be confident in your vision and abilities. You can't worry what everyone thinks of you. You can't seek the approval of others. You must be able to express your thoughts and feelings without fearing to offend someone. If someone you hire sucks, you must be willing to fire them. Kindness is a real, positive, desirable trait. Niceness is just the ability to be inoffensive and anonymous. It's perfectly possible to be kind and aggressive at the same time. That's the perfect combination, the one you'll see in most successful entrepreneurs. Just look at PG for example.
- jasonjackson 15y ago
  Absolutely agree with this 100%. There's a lot of conflation between dominance and selfishness. These two traits can look very similar at a shallow level, but are completely othorgonal. Pure selfishness is when you act without concern for others to your own benefit. Dominance is the desire to win in competitions, demonstrate power and/or independence over others. I've definitely met many kind, bold, dominant people in the start-up world. These people can both simultaneously piss people off, and go wayyy out of their way to help you.
- gmac 15y ago
  I guess this is just semantics, but in my book 'aggressive' is by definition a bad thing. For the traits you cite I'd go with 'assertive' and/or 'self-assured'.
  - zerostar07 15y ago
    I think it's a good term, given that the opposite is passive. Why is it a bad thing by definition?
oz 15y ago
"Despite the early appeal of the jerks, however, in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys." There is a meme within the 'manosphere' that women spend their best years (youth) enjoying themselves with alpha males, and then settle with a beta provider when they realize that alpha males won't commit to them, while their looks are fading and their biological clocks are ticking. If given the opportunity, they will cheat on their beta husbands with an alpha lover. So yes, the nice guys end up with the girls, but only because the girls settle. With regards to leadership - Leadership will at times require tough decisions. People may have to be fired / laid off for example. Some people are not cut out for that - their delicate sensibilities couldn't bear the thought of firing someone. An 'asshole' would find it easier to make the necessary decision. "Nice guys don't finish last. It just takes a while for the true value of positive, collaborative leadership to shine through." It has become politically correct to emphasize collaboration and teamwork above individualism. I'm not arguing for either. I think that among us techies, who perhaps tend to be more intelligent and self-directed / motivated than average, 'strong' leadership may not be as necessary as among, for example, soldiers. War can't wait while every private gives their opinion to the Lieutenant.
- wisty 15y ago
  Isn't the stereo-typical Lieutenant is a nice guy, while the stereo-typical Sergeant is an alpha male?
loceng 15y ago
"the strongest leaders were best characterised by dominance" I think this too can be viewed as the strongest leaders are best characterized by being able to maintain control / manage a situation toward a required direction; It's of course easier to do this if you want to be domineering, so that would create a statistic that shows more 'strongest leaders' as those who are domineering, merely because it's the easier way to do something - but takes much less and skill and nuanced behaviour and understanding.
olavk 15y ago
It is easier to be perceived as nice if you are not in a position of power. When you are in a position of power where you have to make hard decision which have negative effects for somebody, some will think you're a bastard. For this reason powerful and successful people will be perceived as generally less nice.
klochner 15y ago
I encourage everyone to actually read the paper. The conclusion is that people want leaders and group members who put the interests of the group first (not a shocking conclusion): https://student-3k.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiadoc/WP/2011-E34.pdf https://student-3k.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiadoc/WP/2011-E34.pdf It was pretty badly misinterpreted by the "nice guys finish first" post, and we're heaping more layers of misinterpretation on top of that. For example, the study found that people who contributed to the group at the expense of outsiders (perceived as medium-dominance) fared better in leader elections than the more "dominant" individuals who kept all resources for themselves. The group-minded individuals also were less likely to be voted out of the group than the "pure-dominant" individuals.
- kstenerud 15y ago
  Which would make sense, since the led people want stability, and cannot count on stability with a leader who takes at their expense. Taking at the expense of outsiders, however, is not going to directly destabilize their lives.
ricefield 15y ago
False dichotomy, much?
BasDirks 15y ago
You can be nice and tough at the same time. In fact your niceness counts for little if you cannot also be tough when life demands it. As for women: I don't want someone who is easily impressed by what I am not, nor someone who cannot judge me. That's why I am happily in love.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
wseymour 15y ago
This isn't about being 'selfish' or 'nice'. This is a question of thinking about the long term versus the short term. Everybody wants to 'finish first' - that is to act selfishly, and it's not a bad thing. It's just a matter of where you place the finish line.
MarkMc 15y ago
To my mind Warren Buffett is the classic case of good-guy-finishing-first. Think of all the 'alpha' males in finance; investment bankers, traders, hedge fund managers and private equity partners. He's beaten them all, simply by doing what he loves and being a nice guy. For example, from Buffett's 1985 letter to shareholders [1]: "I won’t close down businesses of sub-normal profitability merely to add a fraction of a point to our corporate rate of return." I recommend reading the complete section in that letter headed 'Shutdown of Textile Business' - it shows just how painful it was for him to liquidate that business. [1] http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1985.html http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1985.html
- Drbble 15y ago
  Warren Buffet made his first significant money through research and basically anonymous buying and selling. He was an original quant. He isn't an executive of the sort that signs deals and negotiates and clawed his way to the top socially. By the time he was personally dealing with executives, he was already the richest most powerful one in the room.
davidhornik 15y ago
Great discussion. For those of you objecting to the lack of cited evidence for my point of view, please keep in mind that this was a short magazine piece, not a long form blog post. My point of view is certainly aspirational. But it also reflects my experience in the venture capital industry over the last decade.

117 points by noelsequeira 15y ago

I would like to add a twist to this. Bad guys do hog the limelight, in exceptional cases (Steve Jobs is an example). However, being a bad-ass doesn't guarantee success and you may not be able to look yourself in the eye. On the other hand, being nice doesn't guarantee success too. However, you can still walk around keeping your conscience high. It's not what works, it's what you want to be.

noodle 15y ago
To add my $0.02: it isn't "good" or "bad" that wins. Its skill, ability, responsibility, etc.. It just so happens that if you're an aggressive jerk, you're more inclined to aggressively oversell yourself, as opposed to the stereotypical "good guy" who tends to undersell but overdeliver or be more generally realistic.

contextfree 15y ago

I was hoping this was some kind of study with data and stuff, or at least multiple concrete examples.

_delirium 15y ago

So I'd like to agree with this, and it might even be true, but it's not a very convincing counterargument. Am I missing something, or is its counterargument to the study basically, "I disagree, because team-building and collaboration is important"?

freshhawk 15y ago
Don't forget puppy dogs and summer breezes and good feelings! Take that science!
christphrdunder 15y ago
A "recent study by professors from several leading business schools" is wrong because the author thinks "in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys." This is the echo chamber they speak of.

overgard 15y ago

I like the sentiment. A tangent thought: I think the nice/jerk dichotomy/model is somewhat misleading. It's really compressing two separate axis into one. I think a better way to think about it is this: you have a kind-unkind axis and a dominant-weak axis; and "nice" tends to be in the kind/weak sector while "jerk" tends to be dominant/unkind sector. You still have two other sectors though, and I think that's really where you're going to find your heroes/villains.

dexen 15y ago
`troll' would be the unkind/weak, and `leader' would be the kind/dominant, right?
- adrianwaj 15y ago
  Rick Perry: cruel, dominant. Newt Gingrich: cruel, weak. Mitt Romney: kind, weak. Ron Paul: kind, dominant. (Actually, I'm probably trying to fit square pegs in round holes here. Ignore.)

nubela 15y ago

I think this is what David Hornik wants to be true. The article in no way states that it is.

pmuhar 15y ago

I never understood how bad boys/aggressive business people succeed. I always go out of my way to help people that are genuinely nice and caring, and not so much for the jerks.

skore 15y ago
I think they may just be a lot better at framing the options for the people they manipulate in favor of their desired outcome. Mostly out of necessity, because people really don't often like helping or working for jerks. The most successful bad boys include a factor through which it is also beneficial to the people they are playing or even better - a factor through which they think they are the ones pulling ahead aggressively.
re_todd 15y ago
The bad guys I've known were could be very charming when it mattered or to the right people. It took several months (sometimes a year) for people to compare notes and realize they were basically jerks. One of the nicest guys I've ever met I later found out verbally abused (and sometimes physically abused) his wife, often stole money from her purse to go get high, left his kids in a seedy part of town because he was too high to remember where they were, and spread many horrible, demonstrably false rumors when they separated. Maybe some of the people you helped because you thought they were nice, many years from now, you will realized they are sociopaths.

EricDeb 15y ago

Even if nice guys do "win-out" eventually, how exactly would this happen in a start-up? If a Jerk-Aggressive-Dominant team builds a great product and becomes the top of the pyramid by acting like assholes, when is it that they get replaced by nice guys? I just don't think business works like that.

ramidarigaz 15y ago
I think the Jerk-Aggressive-Dominant team ends up making a big PR goof causing customers to jump ship.

Shenglong 15y ago

Despite the early appeal of the jerks, however, in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys. I really hate this analogy: Once the girls have had their fun, and are old, they settle with those who can provide for them And, although it has no direct relation, it always reminds me of Buffet and "saving sex for old age"[1]. But even then, it's not even always true. I'd wager the majority of these women end up in a cycle of jerks. You just selectively hear about the ones who give up, and settle. This isn't a matter of fate - it's a matter of perception. [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/3073746/Buffett-on-Goldman-the-bailout-and-saving-sex-for-your-old-age.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/3073746/Buffett-on-Goldma...

jasonjackson 15y ago
And/or the jerks eventually settle down in their 40s.
- kstenerud 15y ago
  I've not seen this in the jerks I know.
dev_jim 15y ago
But even then, it's not even always true. I'd wager the majority of these women end up in a cycle of jerks. You just selectively hear about the ones who give up, and settle. This isn't a matter of fate - it's a matter of perception. Women and men change their expectations as they get older. It's part of growing up. Both sexes start to look past what is exciting RIGHT NOW to what is important to building a lasting relationship. Anecdotally this has been the case for me. The women I personally am interested in dating now (@28) bear little resemblance to the women I wanted to date when I was fresh out of college (@23).

kubaf 15y ago

if you are aggressive type of person your goals are probably more... aggressive. nice guys tend to be more satisfied with what they achieved already. compare jobs - wozniak duo. (generalizing like that is not the best way of thinking about people - people are more complex that "nice/bad" dichotomy)

rkon 15y ago

> I'm convinced the professors have come to the wrong conclusion. That's usually the part where you begin citing evidence that has convinced you. Unfortunately, it's where this article ends. I'm convinced this article is wrong. See how that works? If you don't put any effort into backing up your statements, they can just as easily be rejected.

scott_w 15y ago
While I can't cite any studies, Richard Dawkins presents some of the theory in The Selfish Gene. While total "nice guys" tend to finish last in a population of "bad guys", a localised population of "fool me once guys" can, given time, push out the "bad guys", and become a dominant population. This works when the benefits of working together outweigh the benefits of screwing over the other guy. While a population of bad guys is busy screwing each other over, the fool me once guys are busy working well together, unless they get screwed over, in which case they can refuse to do business again. An outcome that makes it harder for bad guys to keep screwing people over.
- forensic 15y ago
  So much faith. Which evolutionary strategy succeeds is entirely dependent on the environment. Capitalism and the modern metropolis is the perfect environment for sociopaths to thrive, and research on sociopathy shows it is increasing in the West. The simple fact of the matter is that when a sociopath is discovered, the discoverer will avoid the sociopath but WILL NOT WARN OTHERS due to fear of retaliation. Fear keeps the sheep in check, and allows sociopaths to move from one sucker to the next. Each sociopath may only get to exploit a given mark (Mark1) two, three, or five times, but then that sociopath moves on to the next mark, and a new sociopath takes advantage of Mark1. In this way sociopaths in our anonymous, private society run amok and their evolutionary strategy is highly successful. Sociopaths are found in large proportions among those who worked their way to wealth - ruthlessness and a willingness to exploit is highly lucrative in our private culture that has no accountability. Dr. Martha Stout in The Sociopath Next Door gives the example of a sociopath who lied and blackmailed her way into a position as a clinical psychologist in a mental hospital despite having no qualifications. Colleagues and patients became aware of the sociopath on multiple occasions, but when they would complain to the administration they hit a stonewall because the forward-looking sociopath had sexually blackmailed key individuals. The sociopath worked as a psychologist for 14 years before a wealthy and connected patient was exploited and harmed by her, upon which time the wealthy patient's father threatened the hospital with a public lawsuit if they did not pay him. The hospital administration paid a settlement to the wealthy client and fired the sociopath, but did not report the sociopath to ANYONE, including its own staff. The sociopath then simply went and worked at another hospital. Over and over again in our society the pattern of the sociopath is that when they are discovered they simply move on to the next sucker. This did not happen in traditional cultures. Dr. Martha Stout explains how in Inuit culture sociopaths would be ritualistically murdered by a group of men in the tribe. In 19th century America, if a sociopath scammed some people in a town, those people would capture and lynch the sociopath even if they did not engage in strictly illegal behaviour. This selection pressure prevented the proliferation of sociopaths, but now our society rewards sociopaths and has no protective mechanisms. More often than not, sociopaths use their lack of conscience as a business advantage and rise quickly in organizations through charm, blackmail, politics, and ruthlessness. We live in the age of the sociopath. Bad people are not punished but rather rewarded at every turn. A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths, and they got to where they are because the good people they fucked over along the way either did not speak up or were ignored and ridiculed when they did.

JesseAldridge 15y ago

The linked study is a lot more interesting than this article: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.html http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.h... Some choice excerpts: "Our findings show that people want respectable and admired group members to lead them at times of peace, but when 'the going gets tough' they want a dominant, power-seeking individual to lead the group," "...sharing one's resources with both in-group members and outsiders had the most dire net outcomes on a person's status. The researchers discovered that universal generosity decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance compared with those who shared resources only with members of their group."

kstenerud 15y ago
"Our findings show that people want respectable and admired group members to lead them at times of peace, but when 'the going gets tough' they want a dominant, power-seeking individual to lead the group," They want a stable leader during peacetime and a victorious leader (who will bring back stability by defeating the enemy) during wartime. "...sharing one's resources with both in-group members and outsiders had the most dire net outcomes on a person's status. The researchers discovered that universal generosity decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance compared with those who shared resources only with members of their group." Sharing with outsiders increases the power of outsiders at the cost of the power of the group. Historically, that leads to destabilization as the now-more-powerful outsiders could supplant the group, or the now weakened group could be attacked by an existing enemy.
TWSS 15y ago
This tracks with my anecdotal experiences working in startups for 15+ years. Namely, that companies need audacious, aggressive leaders in the early days of initial fundraising, customer acquisition, etc. But those domineering, borderline-sociopath leaders are rarely adept at maintaining and growing a stable, established company.

thewisedude 15y ago

Really? He is saying that Venture Capitalism will eventually reward the nice guys becuase of a somewhat similar analogy in school (the dating analogy)? He should have started the article with "I hope.." or "I feel".

vidarh 15y ago
It's important to keep in mind that success in venture capitalism is to a large extent driven by deal flow. You can be the perfect guy in every other respect and still never make it if you never get to see the good opportunities. If you either remain a total unknown, or get a reputation for being horribly unfair to founders, it will likely eventually come back to bite you. That doesn't mean you should be a pushover, though. In a way that means this article is really self-serving. Whether or not he's a nice guy, writing about how he wants to be nice is likely good for his deal flow.

kevinalexbrown 15y ago

Two things, one anecdotal, one scientific: (1) When I was in 6th grade, they had some "kid executives" thing where we got to spend a day shadowing a local "businessperson." I got to follow around a senior VP of Bank of America. Not exactly the bank with the best reputation. But while I was there, when I was away from the SVP, a junior level guy walk talking with me, and I must have asked something about needing to be a jerk to succeed in business, because he told me something I never forgot: "you know everyone says you need to be a jerk to succeed, but this guy is the clearest example that that's not true." Anecdotal, yeah, but it stuck with me even as I grew up (read: became slightly more cynical). I've since met far wealthier, or far more recognized individuals. Maybe hearing that once when I was young enough to embrace it encouraged me not to write off all powerful people because of the actions of a notorious few. (2) I think the study has some flaws. When I was an undergraduate, I worked in a psychology lab that did studies like this. They don't bring in a bunch of "powerful people" or anything like that. They have a bunch of other undergraduates play the Prisoner's Dilemma with 5 bucks. Here's the methods for one of the experiments[1]: Participants and Procedure. Sixty-six Stanford University students (62.9% female; age: M = 21.2, SD = 3.1) were recruited from a large subject-pool. They arrived at the laboratory in groups of 8-12 participants and were each seated in a private cubicle. Participants read the instructions, made their decisions and responded to the post-decision questionnaire using the computer. The Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma (IPD) game. Participants learned that they had been randomly assigned to a four-person group, and that their group was randomly yoked to another four-person group. They did not know who was in their group or in the other group and could not communicate with any of the other participants in their session. Each participant was endowed with 10 game chips and had to decide how to allocate them. Each chip that was kept paid $2 to the individual; each chip that was contributed to the group pool added $1 to each in- group member including the contributor; in addition, it subtracted $1 from each out-group member. Thus, the same action simultaneously benefitted in-group members and harmed out- group members.[sic] My problem with studies like this, while commendable for trying to experimentally control possible factors, is that the context is super important. An analogy might be measuring the speed of light in the same gas several times to control for external effects, but not realizing that the speed of light through a gas changes based on the gas. One such context, as the David Hornik pointed out, is a temporal one: people who screw everyone over once might seem aggressive and powerful, and are signalling that they're independent, whatever. People who screw everyone over for years might get left behind or ousted. To be fair, the authors of the study acknowledge (but do not address) the temporal issue in their conclusion. And model systems like the Prisoner's Dilemma are important in any field. But twitchy when lab results like this are applied willy nilly into complex social interactions. Nice guys, bad guys, both evolved under intense evolutionary pressure for a reason. [1] http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.html http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/halevy_nice_2011.h... (link to study on right)

moocow01 15y ago

Without having any sort of scientific measuring stick, it seems that when taking averages 'nice guys' (and gals) finish overwhelmingly ahead. I'm not sure what is a good way to measure this race and I find the concept of finishing ahead somewhat silly in the first place but here is my example anyways... If you've ever been to a high school reunion, you'll typically be somewhat shocked at what happened to the jocks/jerks/(insert high school term here) that were seemingly head of the pack back then. I find this phenomenon to also be true in the other phases of life as well. For example, Ive had to re-evaluate my career path after getting to know some executives that would surely satisfy the bad guy checkbox. Many of them have had qualities that may have been useful in getting them to where they are but in terms of general 'lifestyle' management I do not envy them one bit (family problems, addictions, etc etc.) As a note I am not saying all executives have huge problems - but the ones who were, for lack of a more friendly term, assholes have not had enviable lives when looked at from a holistic perspective in my experience. I dabble from time to time into listening to Buddhist instructors and a message Ive been able to take away from those is that cruelty to others is also directing cruelty toward yourself. I wish I had a great logical analysis to prove this but I do find it to be true through my experiences.

adambyrtek 15y ago

Maybe it's just me, but the title made me think that the linked article is about sex. (I'm not a native English speaker though.)

meric 15y ago
The title is a play on a phrase that is frequently used referring to sex, yes, and this article does it to attract your attention.

casca 15y ago

Many people think that they're the proverbial nice guy. In many cases, they're wrong. You're not a nice guy because you don't kill people or verbally abuse old people on the bus. You're not a nice guy because you managed to avoid being abusive on most occasions. Don't let them get away with not defining their terms because we all have a fuzzy feeling of who the nice guy is (me, not him).

kristofferR 15y ago

It's a shame that people still think it's impossible to be aggressive without being a jerk, both in business and social life. Sure, a lot of jerks are aggressive, but that's only a correlation, not a causation. "Nice" is not a positive thing. If someone calls you "nice" it's a sign you should change your personality. "Nice" is what you say about people you have nothing to say about: http://www.joelrunyon.com/two3/nice-people-dont-change-the-world http://www.joelrunyon.com/two3/nice-people-dont-change-the-w... To truly succeed you have to be aggressive. You must know what you truly want and have the courage to go get it. You must be confident in your vision and abilities. You can't worry what everyone thinks of you. You can't seek the approval of others. You must be able to express your thoughts and feelings without fearing to offend someone. If someone you hire sucks, you must be willing to fire them. Kindness is a real, positive, desirable trait. Niceness is just the ability to be inoffensive and anonymous. It's perfectly possible to be kind and aggressive at the same time. That's the perfect combination, the one you'll see in most successful entrepreneurs. Just look at PG for example.

jasonjackson 15y ago
Absolutely agree with this 100%. There's a lot of conflation between dominance and selfishness. These two traits can look very similar at a shallow level, but are completely othorgonal. Pure selfishness is when you act without concern for others to your own benefit. Dominance is the desire to win in competitions, demonstrate power and/or independence over others. I've definitely met many kind, bold, dominant people in the start-up world. These people can both simultaneously piss people off, and go wayyy out of their way to help you.
gmac 15y ago
I guess this is just semantics, but in my book 'aggressive' is by definition a bad thing. For the traits you cite I'd go with 'assertive' and/or 'self-assured'.
- zerostar07 15y ago
  I think it's a good term, given that the opposite is passive. Why is it a bad thing by definition?

oz 15y ago

"Despite the early appeal of the jerks, however, in the end the girls realised that they were better off marrying the nice guys." There is a meme within the 'manosphere' that women spend their best years (youth) enjoying themselves with alpha males, and then settle with a beta provider when they realize that alpha males won't commit to them, while their looks are fading and their biological clocks are ticking. If given the opportunity, they will cheat on their beta husbands with an alpha lover. So yes, the nice guys end up with the girls, but only because the girls settle. With regards to leadership - Leadership will at times require tough decisions. People may have to be fired / laid off for example. Some people are not cut out for that - their delicate sensibilities couldn't bear the thought of firing someone. An 'asshole' would find it easier to make the necessary decision. "Nice guys don't finish last. It just takes a while for the true value of positive, collaborative leadership to shine through." It has become politically correct to emphasize collaboration and teamwork above individualism. I'm not arguing for either. I think that among us techies, who perhaps tend to be more intelligent and self-directed / motivated than average, 'strong' leadership may not be as necessary as among, for example, soldiers. War can't wait while every private gives their opinion to the Lieutenant.

wisty 15y ago
Isn't the stereo-typical Lieutenant is a nice guy, while the stereo-typical Sergeant is an alpha male?

loceng 15y ago

"the strongest leaders were best characterised by dominance" I think this too can be viewed as the strongest leaders are best characterized by being able to maintain control / manage a situation toward a required direction; It's of course easier to do this if you want to be domineering, so that would create a statistic that shows more 'strongest leaders' as those who are domineering, merely because it's the easier way to do something - but takes much less and skill and nuanced behaviour and understanding.

olavk 15y ago

It is easier to be perceived as nice if you are not in a position of power. When you are in a position of power where you have to make hard decision which have negative effects for somebody, some will think you're a bastard. For this reason powerful and successful people will be perceived as generally less nice.

klochner 15y ago

I encourage everyone to actually read the paper. The conclusion is that people want leaders and group members who put the interests of the group first (not a shocking conclusion): https://student-3k.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiadoc/WP/2011-E34.pdf https://student-3k.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiadoc/WP/2011-E34.pdf It was pretty badly misinterpreted by the "nice guys finish first" post, and we're heaping more layers of misinterpretation on top of that. For example, the study found that people who contributed to the group at the expense of outsiders (perceived as medium-dominance) fared better in leader elections than the more "dominant" individuals who kept all resources for themselves. The group-minded individuals also were less likely to be voted out of the group than the "pure-dominant" individuals.

kstenerud 15y ago
Which would make sense, since the led people want stability, and cannot count on stability with a leader who takes at their expense. Taking at the expense of outsiders, however, is not going to directly destabilize their lives.

ricefield 15y ago

False dichotomy, much?

BasDirks 15y ago

You can be nice and tough at the same time. In fact your niceness counts for little if you cannot also be tough when life demands it. As for women: I don't want someone who is easily impressed by what I am not, nor someone who cannot judge me. That's why I am happily in love.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

wseymour 15y ago

This isn't about being 'selfish' or 'nice'. This is a question of thinking about the long term versus the short term. Everybody wants to 'finish first' - that is to act selfishly, and it's not a bad thing. It's just a matter of where you place the finish line.

MarkMc 15y ago

To my mind Warren Buffett is the classic case of good-guy-finishing-first. Think of all the 'alpha' males in finance; investment bankers, traders, hedge fund managers and private equity partners. He's beaten them all, simply by doing what he loves and being a nice guy. For example, from Buffett's 1985 letter to shareholders [1]: "I won’t close down businesses of sub-normal profitability merely to add a fraction of a point to our corporate rate of return." I recommend reading the complete section in that letter headed 'Shutdown of Textile Business' - it shows just how painful it was for him to liquidate that business. [1] http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1985.html http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1985.html

Drbble 15y ago
Warren Buffet made his first significant money through research and basically anonymous buying and selling. He was an original quant. He isn't an executive of the sort that signs deals and negotiates and clawed his way to the top socially. By the time he was personally dealing with executives, he was already the richest most powerful one in the room.

davidhornik 15y ago

Great discussion. For those of you objecting to the lack of cited evidence for my point of view, please keep in mind that this was a short magazine piece, not a long form blog post. My point of view is certainly aspirational. But it also reflects my experience in the venture capital industry over the last decade.