niceness

[da]

A philosophical question for the weekend (yeah, I hear you shuddering. But I like thinking on the weekends!)

The other day I listened to a This American Life episode on The Allure of the Mean Friend. It included the following question:

"Does Niceness Pay? In which we conduct a little scientific experiment – on tape – with hidden microphones - about whether niceness pays. We wire two waitresses with hidden microphones. They're superfriendly to half their tables; and aloof to the other half. They examine their tips to see which generates more profits."

...The experiment has inconclusive results. On one day, aloofness paid; on the other, both aloofness and niceness come out the same. Their conclusion wasn't terribly useful at proving or disproving the hypothesis.

So, I'd like to know: is there truth to aloofness or meanness paying? I know that to a point, assertiveness pays. And I've occasionally watched friends get taken advantage of by being too nice. (I know I've gotten stomped on for being too nice).

I want to differentiate between "meanness" and "assertiveness". I think there isn't a single continuum:

(<---- mean ---- assertive --- passive ---- nice ---- >).

Thinking about it now, I prefer two sets, mean/nice, assertive/passive. I think you can be extremely nice, and still be assertive; though I'm not totally sure what that looks like all the time. But I do try to vary my own behaviour on the assertiveness/passiveness continuum while still staying at the nice end of the mean/nice continuum. But is it possible to be "very nice" while still being assertive?

The best overall strategy I've seen (for myself, and for others) involves being as nice and helpful as possible, except when prevented by self-interest... But there are arguments against flat-out niceness:

Morally, people sometimes need to be told things they don't want to hear. melted_snowball and I have talked fairly often about Quakers and an idea proposed by a mutual friend who says Quakers often have "a false testimony of niceness." That can take the form of not pushing an issue in order to preserve "peace". Also, being too nice can be a form of lying, trying to save somebody from a hard truth. It's a form of paternalism, and also laziness, and probably also fear.

It seems to me that being as-nice-as-possible implies valuing everyone else's time and opinions over your own. With no chance of being assertive at the same time.

The episode of TAL mentions how people are attracted to mean people; how, despite ourselves, we want to be manipulated, at least a little bit. I haven't thought it through all the way, but it seems that mean is less boring than nice; and we'd generally rather have interesting, than 100% nice.

So: is meanness a good interpersonal strategy?

Comments

[dcseain.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that being as-nice-as-possible implies valuing everyone else's time and opinions over your own. With no chance of being assertive at the same time.

I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and a group of us from my congregation gathered the other night to begin planning the Summer Solstice service. In the process of our chatting, we came around to how our first principle, "to affirm and promote the essential worth and dignity of every human being", at times causes us congregationally and individually to avoid confl1ict, however minor and/or helpful to social interaction the conflict may be.

Nice is good, but has its limits. And kind and/or peaceful need not always precisely equal nice. A friend of mine who grew up in Michigan one day said to me that "Southerners are two-faced." Being from the South, if its upper limits, myself, i asked him what he meant.

Well, if someone invites me into their house, invites me to sit down, but doesn't take my jacket, how am I supposed to know how long I should stay?

Five to fifteen tops, depending on tone of voice. And you may or may not actually take a seat,, I replied.

But you grew up in that culture; how am I supposed to know that?

I though for a few moments before I replied, You just finished a master's in international relations. The rules of diplomacy are not unlike the social rules in the South. Having grown up in a Southern culture while also going the embassy parties and the White House, the rules were basically the same.

See! I told you Southerners were duplicitous!

To which all i could do was smile and laugh. My point with that anecdote is that one can be polite, even nice, by the cultural rules, but still be nastily confrontational. Manners and politesse go a long way. (Judith Martin/Miss Manners is a personal hero.)