

Nice Guys Never Win (Neither Do Mean Girls) - mikeleeorg
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/08/16/nice-guys-never-win-neither-do-mean-girls/

======
run4yourlives
_Rather than a raving psychopath, a disagreeable person is “more likely than
people high in trait agreeableness to behave disagreeably in certain
situations by, for instance, aggressively advocating for their position during
conflicts (van de Vliert & Euwema, 2004).”_

In other words, confidence and decisiveness is viewed as an attractive trait
in males.

Nothing new here really.

~~~
Jun8
True, but if you generalize to managers in corporations you get some
interesting insight, which is to my surprise doesn't seem to be known or
practiced by some managers.

Some managers in large corporations where many different project ideas and
proposals compete, are in the mindset of "the good ideas will eventually win
over the other ones". Experience (mine at least) have proven time and time
again otherwise, the truth is more like the squeaky wheel gets gets the
grease: i.e. people who aggressively push their ideas and use political
maneuvering almost always (i) have their project funded and (ii) get promoted.

------
pyoung
A valid point that was brought up in the discussion on the blog:

"I’m surprised no one has asked how the studies accounted for survivorship
bias. One could easily imagine that while a certain number of, ahem,
disagreeable men, stand out and increase their earning, it seems likely that
this cohort is also terminated in greater numbers."

------
theaeolist
Alternative title: successful men are seen as less agreeable.

~~~
__rkaup__
Much better. This has more to do with income than "seduction" theory or
whatever.

------
jpdoctor
Bad research, lousy generalizations, and crappy conclusions.

> The hypotheses were supported across four studies.

I wonder which study Warren Buffet, that disagreeable guy, fell into?

~~~
corin_
Regardless of opinion on the quality of the research, how does one person
prove anything. What's that quote, "the plural of anecdote isn't data"?

~~~
jpdoctor
> how does one person prove anything.

When the article includes the statement "Nice guys do not necessarily finish
last, but they do finish a distant second in terms of earnings", it is a sign
of either:

1\. Imprecise writing, or 2\. Wrong conclusions.

If their conclusions are wrong, then the article is a waste of bits. If their
writing is imprecise, then just how imprecise are the generalizing statements
that cannot be disproved with an obvious counterexample?

In either case, the article looks like all noise and no signal to me.

~~~
corin_
_If_ their conclusion is correct (and I have no idea if it is or isn't), the
quite obviously that statement is a generalisation, and a perfectly fine use
of one too. It quite clearly means "as a general trend", not "in absolutely
every case". Did you honestly read that and think "aha, I can think of
somebody who doesn't fit that statement, they're clearly wrong"?

------
pasbesoin
Cited study .doc file in Google Docs viewer:

[http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freakonomi...](http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freakonomics.com%2Fmedia%2FAOM_Beth_Nice%2520v11%2520%282%29.doc)

