Why Do Nice Guys Always Get Screwed Over?

[Tank]

Never, ever, trust anybody on-line to the point you get seriously emotionally involved with them before you have met them in real life. I have, twice and in both cases it has been an absolute fucking emotional disaster. Some people escape on-line, if you're the escape route be prepared to be completely screwed over. I'm quite an altruistic/mentorish character which makes me vulnerable to people who look like they need help. In real life I am pretty good at telling when I was being taken advantage of. On-line I'm not. Now I am much more circumspect about who I get involved with on-line and to what degree, that is to say I don't! That's not to say that there are not good people on-line, they just seem to be few and far between. I just didn't realise how nasty, mean spirited, selfish and plain horrible some people can be. It's been an unfortunate eye opening experience. In particular be careful of people who are overly friendly, overly fast and perpetually seek compliments. Passive aggressive behaviour is also another warning sign. They can be unstable and emotionally needy individuals.

Don't get seriously emotionally involved with anyone you meet while drunk in a bar, kneeling in a church, shopping in the supermarket, stopping by the liquor store, eating at the Waffle House, appraising properties in a trailer park, ducking in a storm shelter, dodging bullets in combat, attending a family reunion, hanging out at the zoo after hours, patronizing a house of ill repute or happening upon the shantytown underneath the bridge that is more than 1000 feet from any school.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at or that you understood the point I was making, so forgive me if I'm reading this incorrectly. All the situations you describe require direct human interaction, in all its communicative richness. Non-verbal cues, voice intonation, instant non-considered reaction. One of the ways we can tell if people are lying to us is their speed of reaction to a question, slow reactions can be indicative of people having to think up a lie rather than simply recalling a memory. If a person is attempting to make up a story they look up and to the left, it's believed this is caused while they unconsciously access their creative centres. These cues and many others, are not available on-line. People can consider their responses without revealing the 'tells' that others would rely on to assess their honesty. So all the circumstances you have described would contain the 'tells' and thus would be better than an on-line interaction.

In fact I quite like your examples because they do highlight where relationships can be sparked spontaneously. One such happened to me. I was staying away a lot one year in one particular hotel, which can be a little lonely, particularly if one is quite gregarious as I am. Well there was another guest who appeared to be in a similar situation to me. I made eye contact, smiled and later want over to chat and in due course we used to have our meals together and spend some of the evenings chatting.

Now I was careful to say that there are good people on-line, because there are. It's just that so far my on-line propensity to spot then has been about 1:3 so I'm much more careful now than I was and would not entertain an emotional engagement with somebody I had not met face-to-face. That does not mean I would not like somebody on-line for their on-line persona, I'm just much more circumspect about taking people at 'face value' on-line because I haven't seen their face. All I am saying is be circumspect about people who behave on-line in a way that you would not expect in real life. In real life men generally approach women or get to know them in a neutral situation first. If one finds that situation reversed I would now be very suspicious and take things very carefully. I wouldn't dismiss the approach, I'd just be very, very wary of motivations to begin with.

[fester30]

I was just amusing myself with that paragraph of warnings.  However, to your point about delayed responses or looking up and to the left... human beings are very bad at detecting lies and liars.  Even with fancy machines, we aren't very good at it.  We're so bad at it, you're just about as likely to catch someone lying with words on a computer screen as you are with body language, facial movements, and verbal cues.

[Tank]

I was just amusing myself with that paragraph of warnings.  However, to your point about delayed responses or looking up and to the left... human beings are very bad at detecting lies and liars.  Even with fancy machines, we aren't very good at it.  We're so bad at it, you're just about as likely to catch someone lying with words on a computer screen as you are with body language, facial movements, and verbal cues.

I don't agree. You made a huge generalisation and that always sends off warning bells for me that you have not considered that different people have different abilities to detect liars. Some people will be good at it while some are bad. With decades of personal experience in negotiating situations and studying body language I am pretty damn good at it in real life. Which is why I think I was so naive on-line. I had become used to my own abilities to 'read people'. So please don't make sweeping generalisations as there will almost always (see how I didn't make a generalisation there   ) be an exception to confound the rule.

[fester30]

I don't agree. You made a huge generalisation and that always sends off warning bells for me that you have not considered that different people have different abilities to detect liars. Some people will be good at it while some are bad. With decades of personal experience in negotiating situations and studying body language I am pretty damn good at it in real life. Which is why I think I was so naive on-line. I had become used to my own abilities to 'read people'. So please don't make sweeping generalisations as there will almost always (see how I didn't make a generalisation there   ) be an exception to confound the rule.

Got me.  I did make a generalization there, didn't I?  Thanks for keeping me honest.  Let's see if I can find a better way to describe my opinion on the issue:

I don't feel that there is really a very sound empiracle method to determining the effectiveness of methods of lie-detection, with the possible exception of those brain scans that show certain parts of the brain lighting up when a memory is triggered, like a photo you show the suspect of the crime scene that only the perpetrator would recognize.  If that part of their brain lights up, then the suspect did see that part of the crime scene.  Even that (I believe it's called the fMRI) is a long way away from being immune to error.

Proponents of polygraphs will point to studies that show they catch more than 90% of liars.  However, according to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), there is not much evidence for scientific validity for lie detection with polygraphs.  Some studies the OTA cited showed false positives up to 75%.  It was this research that made me feel bad for all those guys that get on the Maury show and the polygraph examiner will say he's lying about whether he had an affair with 14 other women on 13 different occasions.  What if he was really telling the truth, and he just gets really nervous when the question he knows is the money question comes up?  What if the polygraph guy was wrong?  That guy's babymama will never believe him now.

You can say there are tell-tale signals of someone lying, but there may also be some confirmation bias there.  Perhaps you remember more often when you catch people then when you think someone is lying that isn't.  Perhaps it's the sort of people you commonly encounter.  If you are a detective working in a high crime area, it's possible the people you commonly interview are all hiding something, even if it isn't the subject of the line of questioning.  

It's very difficult to develop a controlled experiment testing lie detectors, both human and machine, because it's very difficult to exactly replicate the circumstances under which someone may have a reason to lie.  Someone could tell me to sit in a chair and lie about something, but that may not be the same level of anxiety that I may experience under actual interrogation for an actual crime.  There are also too many people who can beat lie detectors, machine or man.  

Perhaps you have special abilities due to your experience, and if so then that's great for you.  I would need a lot more than your say so before I'd accept your opinion of whether someone is lying in a court of law, however.  Especially when there are polygraph examiners who are very experienced at interrogation and dealing with potential liars, AND they have a machine at their disposal for measuring nervousness that you don't have, and there is no way one can say they will be accurate often enough to be viable for courts.

[Jolly Sapper]

So guys in college are expected to live the "college experience."  Where they get drunk, party, get arrested, get some action, fail some classes, work crappy summer jobs, barely pass some classes and eventually get enough passing grades to graduate.

Its no different for women these days.  

So maybe the "Im not interested in a 'relationship'" speech is just a heads up from the women they aren't wanting to lead you on into thinking that they want to immediately jump into an exclusive relationship.  This isn't a bad thing and it might not be worth while to jump to the conclusion that the women that you've gone out with don't like you.  Its just that they want to play the field a bit.  Look at it this way, they are being honest with you.  

Why not just take it easy, keep trying to find women that you like and go out on some fun dates.  Have a good time and not worry so much about trying to find an exclusive partner just yet.  

Now bear in mind that I have been with the same woman for eleven or more years now and we "hooked" up back in high school.  So my advice my not be as sagely and experienced as Whitney or Tanker

[fester30]

So guys in college are expected to live the "college experience."  Where they get drunk, party, get arrested, get some action, fail some classes, work crappy summer jobs, barely pass some classes and eventually get enough passing grades to graduate.

Its no different for women these days.  

So maybe the "Im not interested in a 'relationship'" speech is just a heads up from the women they aren't wanting to lead you on into thinking that they want to immediately jump into an exclusive relationship.  This isn't a bad thing and it might not be worth while to jump to the conclusion that the women that you've gone out with don't like you.  Its just that they want to play the field a bit.  Look at it this way, they are being honest with you.  

Why not just take it easy, keep trying to find women that you like and go out on some fun dates.  Have a good time and not worry so much about trying to find an exclusive partner just yet.  

Now bear in mind that I have been with the same woman for eleven or more years now and we "hooked" up back in high school.  So my advice my not be as sagely and experienced as Whitney or Tanker

Jolly... you hear the thumping too?  Yes, it often wakes me up when I'm sleeping.  I was taking a nap in my couch two days ago in Gravel Ridge (near Little Rock Air Force Base) when the thumping came to my door dressed as two very conservative Baptists.  I had a really great nap going too.  I didn't end up losing a half hour talking to them, though.  They were the kind who turn white with terror when encountered with an atheist and evacuate the area as quickly as they can.

[The Magic Pudding]

Never, ever, trust anybody on-line to the point you get seriously emotionally involved with them before you have met them in real life. I have, twice and in both cases it has been an absolute fucking emotional disaster. Some people escape on-line, if you're the escape route be prepared to be completely screwed over. I'm quite an altruistic/mentorish character which makes me vulnerable to people who look like they need help. In real life I am pretty good at telling when I was being taken advantage of. On-line I'm not. Now I am much more circumspect about who I get involved with on-line and to what degree, that is to say I don't! That's not to say that there are not good people on-line, they just seem to be few and far between. I just didn't realise how nasty, mean spirited, selfish and plain horrible some people can be. It's been an unfortunate eye opening experience. In particular be careful of people who are overly friendly, overly fast and perpetually seek compliments. Passive aggressive behaviour is also another warning sign. They can be unstable and emotionally needy individuals.

Well this post is disturbing, just because some people used you in the past doesn't mean others don't want to help.
To prove this I'm going to offer you the chance to get in on my latest business venture.
Ever get sick of removing and shaking the laser printer cartridge?
Well I've solved this problem with the robotic bouncing printer table.
If your printed page is looking pale just press a button and stand back, this wonderful table will jump up and down, from side to side and even does a somersault.  
I've already had expressions of interest from Dell, Canon, HP and Wallace & Gromit.
So don't delay, if you want to redeem your faith in humanity, make big bucks and attract shallow woman just let me know.

[Whitney]

when I suggested online dating I meant a quality site...whatever that may be these days; I've heard ok cupid is good; I think there is also one that only accepts atheists.

Then there are of course the proper precautions that you'd take if set up on a blind date...meet in a public space at least the first time etc.

[Jolly Sapper]

Mr. Fester I have found that living out in the middle of the woods with a heard of goats goes a long way to creating an uncomfortable environment for "Those That Thump."

I'm sure the albino pitbull charging the front gate doesn't help roll out any welcome mats either.

 

[Tank]

I don't agree. You made a huge generalisation and that always sends off warning bells for me that you have not considered that different people have different abilities to detect liars. Some people will be good at it while some are bad. With decades of personal experience in negotiating situations and studying body language I am pretty damn good at it in real life. Which is why I think I was so naive on-line. I had become used to my own abilities to 'read people'. So please don't make sweeping generalisations as there will almost always (see how I didn't make a generalisation there   ) be an exception to confound the rule.

Got me.  I did make a generalization there, didn't I?  Thanks for keeping me honest.  Let's see if I can find a better way to describe my opinion on the issue:

I don't feel that there is really a very sound empiracle method to determining the effectiveness of methods of lie-detection, with the possible exception of those brain scans that show certain parts of the brain lighting up when a memory is triggered, like a photo you show the suspect of the crime scene that only the perpetrator would recognize.  If that part of their brain lights up, then the suspect did see that part of the crime scene.  Even that (I believe it's called the fMRI) is a long way away from being immune to error.

Proponents of polygraphs will point to studies that show they catch more than 90% of liars.  However, according to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), there is not much evidence for scientific validity for lie detection with polygraphs.  Some studies the OTA cited showed false positives up to 75%.  It was this research that made me feel bad for all those guys that get on the Maury show and the polygraph examiner will say he's lying about whether he had an affair with 14 other women on 13 different occasions.  What if he was really telling the truth, and he just gets really nervous when the question he knows is the money question comes up?  What if the polygraph guy was wrong?  That guy's babymama will never believe him now.

You can say there are tell-tale signals of someone lying, but there may also be some confirmation bias there.  Perhaps you remember more often when you catch people then when you think someone is lying that isn't.  Perhaps it's the sort of people you commonly encounter.  If you are a detective working in a high crime area, it's possible the people you commonly interview are all hiding something, even if it isn't the subject of the line of questioning.  

It's very difficult to develop a controlled experiment testing lie detectors, both human and machine, because it's very difficult to exactly replicate the circumstances under which someone may have a reason to lie.  Someone could tell me to sit in a chair and lie about something, but that may not be the same level of anxiety that I may experience under actual interrogation for an actual crime.  There are also too many people who can beat lie detectors, machine or man.  

Perhaps you have special abilities due to your experience, and if so then that's great for you.  I would need a lot more than your say so before I'd accept your opinion of whether someone is lying in a court of law, however.  Especially when there are polygraph examiners who are very experienced at interrogation and dealing with potential liars, AND they have a machine at their disposal for measuring nervousness that you don't have, and there is no way one can say they will be accurate often enough to be viable for courts.

I pretty much agree with all of this. In real life I'm generally good at spotting dishonesty, but not perfect by any means! I did spend 8 years as a product manager at a company where I was perpetually bombarded by people trying to sell me products to put in our catalogue. Prior to that I had spent 4 years in sales on the other side of the table. Yes there would be elements of confirmation bias, but knowing about that issue allows one to guard against it most of the time. In addition recognising that somebody is dishonest isn't necessarily something you can see quickly, and you have to be with them for a while sometimes. I wouldn't say I have special abilities. What I do have is a good memory for trivial stuff, it's often errors in trivial recall that will reveal the fantasist. They'll have a good strong central story that they'll have down pat, but they'll forget the little stuff around the edges and that is one of the things that gives them away. It's not a science as much as an art or as you say simply being exposed to a lot of people who want to put a positive spin on what they say make one good at spotting the spin.

Of course the other issue is when one does not want to admit that one know one's being suckered because one wants to be in the situation one is in, however much one knows that it's probably bull shit. But that's another story, and that is the most dangerous issue.

The point you raise about lie detectors has another aspect. Scientists have been intimidated into not publishing research about the poor effectiveness of lie detectors. The manufacturers of lie detectors have threatened to sue the scientists.

[Tank]

Never, ever, trust anybody on-line to the point you get seriously emotionally involved with them before you have met them in real life. I have, twice and in both cases it has been an absolute fucking emotional disaster. Some people escape on-line, if you're the escape route be prepared to be completely screwed over. I'm quite an altruistic/mentorish character which makes me vulnerable to people who look like they need help. In real life I am pretty good at telling when I was being taken advantage of. On-line I'm not. Now I am much more circumspect about who I get involved with on-line and to what degree, that is to say I don't! That's not to say that there are not good people on-line, they just seem to be few and far between. I just didn't realise how nasty, mean spirited, selfish and plain horrible some people can be. It's been an unfortunate eye opening experience. In particular be careful of people who are overly friendly, overly fast and perpetually seek compliments. Passive aggressive behaviour is also another warning sign. They can be unstable and emotionally needy individuals.

Well this post is disturbing, just because some people used you in the past doesn't mean others don't want to help.
To prove this I'm going to offer you the chance to get in on my latest business venture.
Ever get sick of removing and shaking the laser printer cartridge?
Well I've solved this problem with the robotic bouncing printer table.
If your printed page is looking pale just press a button and stand back, this wonderful table will jump up and down, from side to side and even does a somersault.  
I've already had expressions of interest from Dell, Canon, HP and Wallace & Gromit.
So don't delay, if you want to redeem your faith in humanity, make big bucks and attract shallow woman just let me know.

 very good!

[fester30]

I pretty much agree with all of this. In real life I'm generally good at spotting dishonesty, but not perfect by any means! I did spend 8 years as a product manager at a company where I was perpetually bombarded by people trying to sell me products to put in our catalogue. Prior to that I had spent 4 years in sales on the other side of the table. Yes there would be elements of confirmation bias, but knowing about that issue allows one to guard against it most of the time. In addition recognising that somebody is dishonest isn't necessarily something you can see quickly, and you have to be with them for a while sometimes. I wouldn't say I have special abilities. What I do have is a good memory for trivial stuff, it's often errors in trivial recall that will reveal the fantasist. They'll have a good strong central story that they'll have down pat, but they'll forget the little stuff around the edges and that is one of the things that gives them away. It's not a science as much as an art or as you say simply being exposed to a lot of people who want to put a positive spin on what they say make one good at spotting the spin.

Of course the other issue is when one does not want to admit that one know one's being suckered because one wants to be in the situation one is in, however much one knows that it's probably bull shit. But that's another story, and that is the most dangerous issue.

The point you raise about lie detectors has another aspect. Scientists have been intimidated into not publishing research about the poor effectiveness of lie detectors. The manufacturers of lie detectors have threatened to sue the scientists.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment released a study on the polygraph back in 1983, conducted by scientists hired by the OTA, that showed the unreliability of polygraphs.  This doesn't stop certain government agencies like the FBI from using the machines.  Maybe they have more awesome machines now, but they're still attempting to measure nervousness.

I do get what you're saying, that there will always be certain types that lies seem like they're just written all over their face, especially after enough exposure to catch stories that don't match up.  It's why they tell us (I'm military) that if ever captured and interrogated, I should use half-truths, not all-out lies.  Half truths are easier to remember to keep the story consistent.  

Now to tie all of this tangent back to the original post (nice guys finishing last):
A study in Social Psychological and Personality Science showed that people who are more apt to trust others make the best lie detectors, ironically enough.

N.L. Carter, J. Mark Weber.  Not Pollyannas: Higher Generalized Trust Predicts Lie Detection Ability.  Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2010; 1(3): 274

Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation.  U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment.  November, 1983.

[Sireal]

"Nice" guys usually are assholes, especially if they are trying to be nice guys. Be honest with yourself  about who and what you are and you will be much more capable of finding what you Need as opposed to what you want. If its simply desire then "nice" has bugger all to do with it.

[TheJackel]

If you are funny, have the looks, have the money, and have a big penis... You are golden to have women all over you like white on rice.. Have none of those, and you are surely to be a social outcast. Those are the fundamental things women first look for. Regardless, it isn't love, it purely 100% conditional attraction at first, and love might sneak in later if you are lucky.. People don't date other people without first prejudging them..If you pass the judging process and continue to meet those expectations that must be filled, you will do just fine.  

[Whitney]

I was listening to something the other day about attraction in females.

If the female is ovulating she is more likely to be attracted to the strong, self confident manly man types (and this is the time they are most likely to cheat too).  But, for the rest of the month she is more likely to be attracted to the soft, friendly fatherly type.  AND...birth control pills can mess with what type of guy a woman will be attracted to.

So, women who want their relationships to last should go for a guy that is strong yet sensual, confident yet caring, and manly yet takes pride in caring for his children.  And I think most women would describe such a guy as their ideal mate....no one wants an asshole or a guy that is so nice that he must be hiding something.