Charm Upgrade

Learn · Six "Nice Guy" failure modes

Kindness is not the problem

Lesson 1 of 6 in this module · about 7 minutes · Emotional skills

The idea

Studies of college women’s ratings do not support “nice guys finish last” 1; kindness is acting for her good, and approval-seeking is acting to get her approval. The first half is a research finding. The second half is this course’s practice principle, not a finding.

In one set of studies, college women rated prosocial men, who acted warmly and considerately, as more attractive and more desirable as dates 1. In a separate survey of university women, over half said they would prefer a nice guy to a bad boy as a date, and over half also agreed that nice guys have fewer sexual partners 1. So the stereotype exists as a belief, and the picture may differ for casual sex 1.

The label is Supported with caveats 1. The answers came from heterosexual college women rating men, mostly in the 1990s and 2000s, and none is a live dating outcome 1. They describe a tendency in ratings, not any one person’s preferences 1. “Nice” meant prosocial behavior, or whatever respondents took it to mean. It did not mean approval-seeking or being a pushover.

A second finding points the same way from further away. When people designed an ideal long-term partner or screened imaginary candidates, women and men alike treated kindness, with intelligence, as a necessity. They secured it before other traits 2. It is one paper of three studies of stated preferences, it shows nothing about whom people choose, and it is Plausible.

Findings on dominance are mixed. One set of studies found that displayed dominance raised men’s attractiveness 3. Others found that dominance alone did not, and that attraction depended on dominance combined with a prosocial orientation 3. These were ratings of hypothetical or presented people, with different definitions of dominance, and they depend on context 3. Status gained through skill (prestige) is separate from status gained through intimidation (dominance). In small groups, prestigious people were liked and dominant people were not 4. In one team’s written-scenario studies with college women, high-prestige partners were preferred, and dominance was favored only in athletic competition and for short-term ratings 4. The group study did not measure romantic attraction. Real behavior may differ from written scenarios 4. None of this tells you to become more dominant.

The nearest evidence on approval-seeking is indirect. In ratings of presented people, a prosocial orientation was not penalized, while low displayed dominance and low perceived self-esteem went with lower attractiveness ratings 5. So in those studies, kind and low-dominance were separable. This is Plausible, and no study measured approval-seeking, conflict avoidance or assertiveness directly 5. We cannot show that approval-seeking lowers appeal, only that it is a different way to behave from kindness.

Why it matters

Dropping kindness would answer a problem the rating studies did not find 1. The habit worth examining is a different one that can look like kindness. The next lessons look at it, each with an alternative that keeps your warmth.

What it looks like

Example

At a meetup, Dev, 36, says, “Nice guys finish last,” and others nod. You say, “Last at what? Which people were asked?” Leaving, you hold the door for Tessa, 31, say, “Good to meet you,” and walk on without checking her face. You did it because it was decent.

The same moment, handled the other way

Counterexample

Same door. You hold it for Tessa, then look at her face to see whether she is impressed, and say, “Did you notice I held that?” The act is the same, but the aim is her approval, not her good.

The one thing to remember

The rule

Keep your kindness, and notice when an act is aimed at her approval instead of her good.

A useful question is “What am I trying to get out of this?” Holding a door because it is decent is kindness. Offering a ride in the rain because you hope she will owe you a feeling is something else. Noticing that is not a failing.

Try it now

Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Label the claim.

Open the exercise set

In the real world (optional)

If you like, think of one kind thing you did this month. Ask yourself whether you would still have done it if nobody ever knew.

What this doesn’t tell you

Every finding here concerns ratings and stated preferences, mostly from college women, and none is a dating outcome 1 5. They do not tell you what any one person wants, and they cannot tell you whether a given act of yours is approval-seeking, because no study measured that.

Why do we believe this?

Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.

Well supported
A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
Supported with caveats
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
Plausible
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
Speculative
An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
Marketing claim
Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
  1. Supported with caveatsResearch on college women's ratings and stated preferences does not support the idea that nice men reliably finish last as dates: prosocial men were rated more attractive and desirable as dates in one set of studies, and over half of one survey sample preferred a nice guy to a bad boy as a date.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Contradicts a popular dating-advice premise for dating desirability. The same survey found over half of women also agreed that nice guys have fewer sexual partners, so the stereotype exists as a belief and may differ for casual sex. The Urbaniak and Kilmann study is listed as context only; its abstract was not seen and none of its details are relied on.

    What it does not show

    • Ratings and survey answers by college women; no live dating outcomes.
    • Heterosexual women rating men only; results do not describe any individual woman.
    • 'Nice' was manipulated as prosocial behaviour in Jensen-Campbell et al. and self-defined by respondents in Herold and Milhausen; neither is the same as approval-seeking or being a pushover.
    • 1990s-2000s university samples; Urbaniak and Kilmann (listed as context only) was not seen and is not relied on.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  2. PlausibleIn tasks where people design an ideal long-term partner or screen potential partners, kindness (with intelligence) was treated as a necessity by both sexes, secured before other traits.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Supports the lesson that kindness is a baseline requirement. The evidence seen is one paper (three studies); the second source's introduction reportedly summarises earlier surveys that rate kindness highly, but its abstract was not seen and those studies were not checked.

    What it does not show

    • Stated preferences in hypothetical partner-design and screening tasks, not observed dating behaviour; they do not show who people actually choose or are attracted to.
    • The abstract of the second source (Lukaszewski and Roney) was not obtained, so its sample and wording were not confirmed.
    • Does not say what people do when kindness conflicts with other traits in practice.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  3. Supported with caveatsFindings on dominance are mixed and context-dependent: one set of studies found displayed dominance raised men's attractiveness, while others found dominance alone did not, and that attraction depended on dominance combined with prosocial orientation.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Counters 'be dominant' advice. Sadalla et al. found a dominance advantage for male targets; Jensen-Campbell et al. and Snyder et al. did not find a standalone advantage. Dominant and kind are not opposites in these results.

    What it does not show

    • Experimental or vignette ratings with different definitions of dominance; Jensen-Campbell et al. and Snyder et al. used women raters.
    • Sadalla et al. is from 1987; the abstract reports the effect held across rater sex and was specific to dominance.
    • Effects concern ratings of hypothetical or presented targets and cannot be generalised to what any woman or man wants.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Sources

  4. Supported with caveatsStatus gained through skill and shared knowledge (prestige) and status gained through intimidation (dominance) are distinct: prestigious people were liked while dominant people were not, and in vignette studies women preferred high-prestige to high-dominance partners, favouring dominance only in athletic competition and for short-term ratings.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Gives lessons a way to separate confidence that invites others in (competence, openness) from intimidation. The group-hierarchy study did not measure attraction, and the mating-relevant result comes from one team's three vignette experiments.

    What it does not show

    • Cheng et al. studied small groups of previously unacquainted people, not romantic attraction.
    • Snyder et al. used written vignettes with college women, so behaviour in real settings may differ.
    • Prestige-versus-dominance labels are research constructs and real behaviour often blends them.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  5. PlausibleIn attraction ratings, kindness and low dominance are separable: prosocial orientation was not penalised, whereas low displayed dominance and low perceived self-esteem were associated with lower attractiveness ratings.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Narrowed from the original wording. Jensen-Campbell et al. found prosocial men rated attractive and desirable as dates; Ahmetoglu and Swami found low-dominance body language rated less sexually attractive; Zeigler-Hill and Myers found lower perceived self-esteem rated less desirable. Together this is indirect support for treating kind and low-assertive as different things. No source measures approval-seeking or conflict avoidance directly.

    What it does not show

    • Indirect: no study here measured approval-seeking, conflict avoidance or assertiveness as such; posture, perceived self-esteem and dominance are proxies.
    • Ratings of presented or hypothetical targets (a 1-minute video, descriptions) by mostly student samples, not dating outcomes; Ahmetoglu and Swami's effect is for one male confederate and 81 women.
    • Zeigler-Hill and Myers found the self-esteem trend did not consistently hold for female targets.
    • In one study of gay men's computer dates, a partner's social assertiveness did not affect liking or the wish to date again, so the pattern may not hold across groups or contexts.
    • Burger and Cosby (1999) is listed as context only; its abstract was not seen and no result of it is relied on.
    • Population tendencies in ratings; they say nothing about any individual's preferences.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

More practice

The rest of the set, Kindness is not the problem: three evidence checks: 3 items, about 3 minutes. Decide what the evidence supports, and how well. Open the exercise set.

Go further

Outside talks, videos and pages on the topics this lesson cites. Nothing from them loads until you follow a link, and a link is not an endorsement: read the note under each one.

  • Marni Kinrys: [Video] Raw Female Perspective On What Turns Women Off - Marni's Wing Girl Method

    Web page · leaves this site for winggirlmethod.com

    Free public page where Kinrys gives her perspective on behaviours that put people off; an attributable source for what the Wing Girl Method publicly says.

    Keep in mind. Single coach's perspective; do not generalise to what 'women' want. Site sells paid courses.

  • Bobby Rio: 5 "Nice Guy" Conversation Mistakes to AVOID

    Video · leaves this site for youtube.com

    Bobby Rio on conversation habits that undermine engagement, per the title; relevant to engaged versus merely polite behaviour and to conversational re-engagement.

    Keep in mind. Commercial dating coach; 'nice guy' framing is contested and the channel also carries manipulation-style content the app must not teach.