Can You Be A Nice Person And Not Give A Shit What People Think About You?

you're a hopeless optimist Pete.

You probably are a hopeless optimist, but that's not quite what I meant. I was just saying that not giving a shit what people think about you is the road to sociopathy. In my book, being nice involves a degree of sociability. You can be introverted, but not on the grounds that other people are a waste of time and you always know best.

However 'nice' a person you or your friends think you are there's always bound to be someone who thinks you're an absolute cunt even if it's just someone you inadvertently bumped into on the tube that morning. So when you say Can You Be A Nice Person what exactly do you mean by Nice?

being a nice person involves modifying your behaviour for other people to a certain extent, don't it? from an early age, sesame street ingrained in me an understanding of the importance of co-op-er-ation.

one thing i would like to know: being a nice person - does it matter whether you do nice things because you simply want to do them, or because you want to be seen to be doing them? at the end of the day, the nice thing you've done is still a nice thing.

I'd like to be nice all the time, but I really don't think it's possible. Everyone has their dark days. And Nickie, doesn't your last point only matter to the person who the nice thing is done for? If they think it's nice and it makes them happy or better or whatever then that's the point, so yeah, I'm agreeing with you , I think, hmmm, I've confused myself, excuse me.

I feel that everyone ought to get along and believe all people deserve to be treated nicely (although sometimes they aren't always) I think that a body can be a nice person and not give two hoots about what some people think,especially if they are out only to do you harm. ( If you both try though both of the people in question can change if they choose to,( and become friends)

What Nickie is asking is the age old philosophical (and Time Out) question, does the moral value of an act reside in the intention or the outcome.

Of course it is not rational to do things for no reason, and since it is impossible to truly understand the effect of an action on anothers state of mind, being nice because you believe it will result in people being nice to you (egoistic point of view) as opposed to being nice to try and improve subject well being (altruism). Egoism is rational, altruism unfortunately is not. From a logical but no fun point of view.

Q to thread!

Emma in 'agreeing with Pete' shocker, I would say a hell of a lot of things people do to be 'nice' are only done to make them look better in other's people's eyes.

does the motive matter? is niceness innate or assumed?

so many questions, no answers, i feel like carrie bradshaw.

Or: are human beings every capable of complete altruism (ie, whenever they are being nice this is just to make themselves feel better)? I have often had this conversation with Tory acquaintances of mine and find myself unable to make a satisfactory case for altruism. Apparently William Hazlitt wrote an impressive essay on the subject, but I have never read it. (On topic: I don't think you can be a person and not give a shit what people think about you)

you can't understand other people's needs and deserts unless you know how to respect your own

'Giving a shit what people think of you' != 'Giving a shit if people think nice things about you'

The variety of human relationships is far wider than an 'I'm OK -You're OK' ideal would allow. For a random example, what parent would say, "I'm cool with my teenage son stealing my money to buy heroin, because he likes me better and we have less hassles that way?" Or, if you wrote a book and received a letter of fulsome endorsement from the Nazi Party or somebody, you would probably wonder where the hell you went wrong and make a note to make your intentions clearer next time, as opposed to saying, "Well, I'll take niceness where I find it"

Giving a shit what people think about you ≠ having ones actions determined by what makes people like you. It just means taking it into account not necessarily for the sake of camaraderie but because people not liking you might be a sign that you are doing something wrong. Like Cromwell's "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you are mistaken."

my problems the opposite - i try to be a fuckhead but end up caring too much.

is the value of a motive for doing something nice directly comparable to that of a motive for doing something mean? if you want to hurt someone but fail, is that not bad at all, whereas if you had succeeded it would be bad? if you want to do something nice but it doesn't work out right, is that as worthless as not trying at all? and does wanting to look good by doing something nice count as much as wanting to make someone else's life better by doing something nice? i think motive does have a part in it but i'm not sure what, i can only ask questions and not answer them, so i'll hush now.

Well. You can easily be a nice person and not mind what *certain* people think about you. People who make a point of trying to be nice to everyone are inviting misery on themselves, maybe secretly on purpose in some self-defeating way? Not that it's an excuse to be mean to all but a select few, but...the word "no" comes in handy sometimes. Learn it, love it, use it.

This post brought to you by The Armchair Psychologist.

actually, i went through a phase of being a nasty person and i cared more about what people thought of me then than when i am feeling nice.

Give as good as you get. Positively and negatively. But for myself, I *try* to be nice. Probably fail when I'm in my bill-collecting role, though!

neds post = good advice for oral sex as well.

That's one way to be nice.

For almost the entirety of our day-to-day lives, we act. We are either not ourselves, or hide those aspects of our personality which we believe are not presentable or palatable to others. And if your life involves mixing with several different groups of people (work colleagues, friends outside work, family) then you inevitably tailor your personality to what you think best suits the company which you keep at any specific time.

We harbour two sets of conflicting mindsets. We are happy because we can be civil to others and be of some practical or emotional use to them, relating to them as best we can. Equally we are unhappy, and usually angry, because we cannot be our "real" selves all the time. Consciousness that we are "acting" can lead the more susceptible of people to find a conduit for these "unpresentable" tendencies. In extreme cases this can take the form of murder (either mass or individual).

So a useful question is: can it be possible for one person to be "nice" on one side of their relationships, and a total bastard on the other? Two different groups of people, unconnected, view the individual in two completely different ways, as the individual dictates. And does this in itself qualify as "giving a shit" or "not giving a shit"?

The problem in sustaining this Jekyll and Hyde persona is of course when these two different groups start to overlap, even by one person, who will immediately see the duality, and one's cover is blown.

What do we do, then, if we "act"? Does even the perception (as it can only be a perception) of "our real selves" count as acting, because that is how we would like to see ourselves, rather than the way we actually are (egocentric, frightened, unknowing) - in other words, in the antechamber of self-understanding rather than at the epicentre?

but who is our real self? why is the 'hidden' self more real than the outer self. we are different with every single person (if only slightly), which one of those is the 'real' one?

why would the 'real self' be necessarily angry? or choose to be a bastard? is this the same for all people? or only some?

I don't think there's an "acting self" and a "real self." There are impulses and reactions I have that I want to act on, but don't to avoid trouble or be pleasing to others, and when enough of these impulses come it seems like double selves. But my mind is often split in decision between whether I should be pleasing or do the specific thing I want to do.

does anyone else find themselves indenitfying a little too much with cartman?

And the difficulty is that it's impossible to be "objective." Other people's perceptions of you are tainted by the fact that they are in fact perceptions. So you cope as best you can or analyse yourself deeper into your own electric chair of madness.

For example, if someone posted as a complete bastard on ILM and as a nice guy on ILE, and no one read both boards, you would be faced with two completely different "people" existing within the one person. Unless of course someone spots it. As the wise Mr Sinker did.

I would imagine it's hard to be completely different to different groups of people. I mean if you try hard to be a particular way, you will succeed. I have no doubt about that. And I think if you were acting two completely different ways you would be exposed eventually.

I think there's a disconnect between "extroverts" and "introverts" that cuts through this conversation. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that the UK is slightly more introvert-friendly than the USA (though not as introvert-friendly as Finland, but I digress). I mention this because there's often massive social pressure over here to maintain a smiley-face, "have a nice day" sort of extroversion that is temperamentally anathema to introverts. Or perhaps that's the introvert in me demonstrating my ignorance of extraversion. In any event, it was actually refreshing to go to Continental Europe where, to corrupt an American cliche, the customer is not the King, where there's an acceptance that ofttimes the customer is a fucking asshole who should be told to take his business elsewhere if he doesn't stop acting like an asshole.

At any rate, an introvert being non-communicative doesn't mean sociopathology. Sometimes quite the opposite -- the introvert may be paying very close attention to how he perceives others perceiving him. He just doesn't vocalize is, is all.

Unless of course someone spots it.

I sorta like the way Mr. Peace works. It's pleasing.

Being nice to other people and they respond positively = good.

Being nice to other people and they don't respond in any particular manner = oh well, I probably won't be so friendly or helpful in the future. I'd be slightly annoyed.

Being nice to other people and they respond negatively = they are obviously not worth much effort. I would personally be offended, but I'd get over it.

I gotta stop being so contractual about niceness!

For example, if someone posted as a complete bastard on ILM and as a nice guy on ILE, and no one read both boards, you would be faced with two completely different "people" existing within the one person. Unless of course someone spots it. As the wise Mr Sinker did.

well, in fairness, i find it pretty unlikely that mark s was the only one to spot that!

so, if you are nice, people respond to you as a 'nice' person, if you act as 'a bastard', people think of you as 'a bastard'. and the revelation is, um, what exactly?