
Why It Doesn't Pay to Be a People Pleaser - alwaysmetara
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_it_doesnt_pay_to_be_a_people_pleaser
======
avindroth
Pleasing people most definitely pays. That is how the world works; you give
people what they want, and you get paid. Supply and demand.

Preachers of self-reliance seem to confuse "not letting other people affect
you" and "not caring about other people".

Self-reliance and people-pleasing are two separate axes on a Cartesian plane.
You can be both self-reliant and people-pleasing.

Being self-reliant, but not people-pleasing is trivial. If you isolate
yourself, there is nobody to rely on!

In the same vein, it's easy to be moral and idealistic when alone. The real
test is with real people, and whether you are still able to keep those ideals.

Wield both: self-reliance and people-pleasing. Then you will be a force to be
reckoned with.

EDIT: Talking about truth and white lie as a dichotomy is childish. They are
tools in a toolbox. If you feel guilty because you lied, then you are a slave
to the principle of honesty. If you are thinking about which (truth or white
lie) is better for the relationship, then you are a master in command of both
principles.

~~~
benatkin
The author defines people pleasing:

> People pleasing, in my extensive personal experience, is a process of
> guessing what other people want, or what will make them think favorably of
> us, and then acting accordingly.

People pleasing isn't caring about other people. It's being selfish and
manipulative in interactions with other people (often without realizing it).
Quite the opposite.

~~~
avindroth
Okay. Let's take an example from the article.

 _Be transparent, honest, and authentic. Do not ever waiver from this; white
lies and false smiles quickly snowball into a life lived out of alignment._

Let's say John is this guy who is "transparent, honest, and authentic, and
never waivering."

And say Jack, John's friend, is addicted to playing Overwatch.

John comes by and says, "Jack, you shouldn't play Overwatch. You are wasting
your time and energy."

Jack responds, "I know, but just this one match."

John comes back a week later and says, "Jack, I am really fucking frustrated
you are still playing that shitty game. I want you to quit right this fucking
moment." The article advised to never hide your emotions, so I am following
that mantra.

How is Jack going to feel after that? Is he going to stop playing video games?
Have parents yelling stopped children from playing Minecraft?

No. Why? The world really isn't that simple. Just saying "Be honest all the
time" is the worst advice you can give. The principle is nice and impressive
(because you always keep it!) but in reality, John is either a loner or a
hypocrite.

Consider Steve, one who wields both self-reliance and people-pleasing,
visiting Jack who is still addicted to Overwatch. Steve knows Overwatch is
killing Jack's life, and deeply concerned for him. But he does the not lazy
thing and waits. Instead of admonishing Jack, Steve becomes interested in
Jack. Steve asks Jack how this game works, which hero he is playing, etc.

Then Jack opens up to Steve, which, in due time, can allow Steve to change
Jack's mind.

If you want to have the feeling that you changed people's minds, be honest all
the time. But if you actually want to change people's minds, then don't be
honest all the time. Utilize white lies.

In that sense, people who are always honest are incredibly selfish.

In the quotation far above, I would just add two more words. _To myself._ Be
transparent, honest, and authentic to yourself.

Being honest to others always sounds cool, but is in reality excruciating
lazy. So lazy that I wouldn't want a friend like that, ever. I want a friend
who is more wise and less automatic about his choice between truths and lies.

~~~
hinkley
> "Jack, I am really fucking frustrated you are still playing that shitty
> game."

That is not being authentic, and that's the problem. In our heads we know what
we want, but we ask for something else.

Why do you want your friend to get off the computer. To be off the computer?
No. You miss your friend and you want him to hang out with you. You are
worried that he is missing out on life by living in the game and you're both
going to pay for it later.

Just ask, man.

~~~
tremon
Moreover, by phrasing it like that ("I'm getting frustrated"), you are
imposing your demands on your friend without even informing about their state
of mind. Not acknowledging them is not the way to keep friends close.

~~~
hinkley
Yes, and what's worse is that the reason you're upset is not even that you
miss your friend, but fear that your friend has decided that a game is more
important than you are, and so you are demanding that he prove that he isn't
rejecting you by making a gesture.

------
CPLX
There's a lot of truth here, and I generally agree with the sentiment, and can
think of close friends of mine who are unusually good at this and are
unusually successful and well liked.

As a prescriptive piece of advice though, it has a semi-fatal flaw. It is
based on the concept of what you "really" feel and what you "really" think.
Which of course isn't how the human mind works at all. Some days we think our
job is the best thing in the world and we're grateful for it, some days we
think it's the one thing holding us back from glory. Sometimes we feel
connected to a person, sometimes resentful of the same person.

What do we do if our rational brain says that our boss is totally being a
reasonable person but our lizard brain wants to choke him because he just told
to do something all over again. Must we not speak the white lie that it's "no
problem"?

What if one finds their emotions are all over the place, and just not evenly
regulated, and you have unexplained and somewhat destructive impulses to say
tactless and hurtful things to people? Should we go ahead and do that because
it's a more "transparent, honest, authentic" version of ourselves? Or should
we aim to be more stable, and do our best to "fake it" until it becomes second
nature?

Here's a secret nobody tells you: The internal conflict and struggles in life
you encounter are almost never of the bad/good variety. Such problems create
failures of will rather than failures of reasoning, since choosing between
being purely cruel and being kind requires little insight.

The conflicts that vex us are are between two positive things we value, like
balancing giving and sharing and being a team player with independence and
growth and looking out for ones self, or balancing being responsible and
consistent with being adaptable and curious.

Or in this case, balancing being authentic and honest with being focused,
professional, and pleasant to be around.

You'll never reduce the tradeoff between those values down to simple rules of
thumb, they will always be complex, outcomes will always be uncertain, and
scenarios will never present themselves again in precisely the same way.

You'll have to mostly make it up as you go along, forever. Get a helmet.

------
11thEarlOfMar
That it were so simple...

There is utility in people pleasing that does not end with self-satisfaction.
There are costs, sometimes immediate, to conveying your thoughts and feelings
directly. Examples from the workplace:

Your colleague is a bit chatty and annoying, so the last thing you want to do
is start a conversation about how bad your weekend was. It takes more mental
energy to deal with them than not, so smile and say 'My weekend was great!'.

More seriously, it is necessary for your boss to want to keep you around and
letting your emotions hang out on topics not related to work may get them
wondering about your focus and productivity. This is particularly important if
you're supporting a family, and in practical terms, you really have to be
judicious about being true to yourself vs. keeping your job. Not that it's
that precipitous, but over time, you'll establish an image.

From the boss's perspective, people respond well to confidence, and letting
your team know you're true feelings needs to be thoughtfully considered in
each case. Showing lack of confidence in the right places can elicit helpful
ideas and volunteers. In the wrong place, it can really kill your team.

So for me, it's a trade off. I know when I'm being less than truthful, and it
is deliberate and purposeful in each case.

~~~
Jtsummers
I took the article to be about the more extreme side of people-pleasing. It's
one thing to do this as a one-off. Or with people you have to interact with in
limited/confined contexts (your boss). But it's another to extend it to your
entire life.

Have you ever met the person that, as soon as you say you went skiing _once_ ,
starts saying how much they love skiing? Then later you see them do the same
thing, but this time it's about traveling, with someone else. And later, you
invite them to your ski trip (could be months or years), and they say, "I
don't like skiing."? They were gushing about it when you met, but it was a
complete lie. They may have even repeated it a few more times, but one day
they forgot.

That's the extreme people-pleaser. They're never honest with other people, and
consequently none of their relationships are real. They're all predicated on
falsehoods (what they like, what they don't like, what they're interested in,
etc.). So every time they go out they have to remember what lies they told
this group, and oh shit now two groups are meeting and they have two
conflicting lies.

What you're talking about is not this. False bravado or confidence is
sometimes what you have to do to make it through. But make it a perpetual
thing, in all situations, it either becomes true, or it wears you out.

------
divbit
> Live with total integrity. Be transparent, honest, and authentic. Do not
> ever waiver from this; white lies and false smiles quickly snowball into a
> life lived out of alignment.

Words to live by

~~~
w1ntermute
Not at all. If you don't understand how to employ false smiles as needed, you
won't get very far in life. This was one of the biggest mistakes I made when I
was young. Once I learned how to stop being totally honest and how to be
friendly to even those I didn't like, a lot of opportunities opened up that I
would have never been exposed to otherwise.

Simple example: I maintain friendships with people I don't genuinely like
primarily because they have wide social circles. Through those people, I've
met individuals who I do genuinely like.

~~~
runeks

        > If you don't understand how to employ false smiles as needed, you won't get very far in life.
    

How do we measure how far we've come in life? Relative to what is this
distance measured?

~~~
avindroth
This question is only asked by those who cannot measure how far they have
come.

We all have our subjective distances. But if you are a human being, some
combinations of the following will be that distance:

1\. Sustenance (food, water, housing, money)

2\. Community (belonging, love)

3, Self-expression

4\. Self-transcendence (altruism)

This is a gross simplification of Maslow, but give me some slack. If you
question every person saying "you won't get very far in life" with "how do you
measure getting very far", you are not only annoying the other person, but
also yourself. Spend that time trying to measure how far you have come.

~~~
runeks

        > Spend that time trying to measure how far you have come.
    

Why? Who is the intended recipient of this information, once I have formulated
it into words? Myself? I don't enjoy repeating things to myself I already
know.

Formulating into words how far you've come can only happen while you know how
far you've come. And while you're in the state of knowing how far you've come,
you don't need to repeat to yourself how far this is. You know.

------
tener
Perhaps a better title would be "Why It Doesn't Pay to Hide Your Emotions".

Anyway, I'm hearing the whole stance of "everything is good, I'm so happy" is
a cultural thing, very common in the US but not so in the rest of the world
(Europe especially). I wonder to what extent this is true and how does it
affect people's well being.

------
ArkyBeagle
I'll say this - a life lived in service to other people feels more worthwhile
to me. Perhaps one of the services is being honest, even brusque at points.
Just not very often.

Actually solving problems for other people is mostly about framing the
question underlying the problem. If they're not interested, then you're done
with that problem.

"Service to other people" is not some grand/altruistic thing; it's simply a
prioritization mechanism that helps remove some of your ego from the process.

Service does not mean being servile.

~~~
kross
I would pose that "service to others" if reflected upon, is exactly ego. You
can feel good being of service to others, and you can feel diminished by not
being of service to others. When you lose the good feeling, you want to do
more, to reobtain that good feeling.

"I am one who strives to live in service to others" (I am parahrasing) but if
this is true, it is more clearly ego a.k.a. identification with form.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
While I can see your point, this isn't about either egoism nor egotism. It's
more of a heuristic to ... create utility and a way to stay engaged.

I'm not 100% sure I can read ego as "identification with form". That's a bit
Zen for me.

------
thanatropism
The trick, of course, is being _authentically_ interested in others. By all
means don't be full of shit; don't suck up; live your truth. But man, being an
authentic misanthrope (like being an authentic alcoholic or an authentic
anything else negative) does not lead to the best possible results.

------
spiderfarmer
Maybe Dutch directness is the reason why The Netherlands is consistently in
the top 10 of the Happiness Index.

[http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/expat-
page/articles/...](http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/expat-
page/articles/perks-of-dutch-directness)

~~~
melvinmt
What people don't tell you is that directness also has a cost. The Dutch
directness of "GTFO my country" what minorities are confronted with daily is
not quite contributing to any minority's happiness (it's a big reason why I
moved to the US).

~~~
spiderfarmer
We used to be much more relaxed, welcoming and tolerant. I blame the
polarizing politicians.

------
HerpDerpLerp
Hmm well I don't want to hear what a nightmare my colleagues lives are.

I ask "How was the weekend" you say "Fine". I don't care that your house
burned down.

Yep I am a brit!

~~~
wbl
Why would you ask if you don't want to hear the answer?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why would you ask if you don't want to hear the answer?

For lots of people the "How are you?" "Fine." exchange is a ritualized
interaction which has become detached from the literal meanings of the words.
Like the fact that even non-religious people use a contraction of "God Be With
Ye" when parting.

------
sevenless
The problem is that most of us live in a society where we have to lie - or at
least, ignore some obvious and unspeakable truths - in order to keep our jobs
and income.

------
doomtop
Previously and somewhat relevant: Why Team Happiness Can Be the Wrong Thing to
Aim for
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11902973](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11902973))

------
red_blobs
Our friend group has a 'people pleaser' and it's fine, most of the time.
However, it has become a nightmare (and nearly destroyed our group) because
when there is a person that needs to be kicked out of our group for
lying/being manipulating/terrible behavior, this person defends them to the
end and treats us like the bad guy.

Passive aggression also accompanies 'people pleaser', because the person
generally doesn't ever want to tell you what they really want or feel. It's
extremely frustrating to deal with a person that behaves like this.

~~~
teddyh
That’s Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil:
[http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html](http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html)

------
Vokrel
It doesn't pay to please all people all of the time.

It pays to please some people some of the time.

As with a number of other tools and strategies, you have to leverage it at the
right moment, the right rhythm. If you don't have an intuitionistic idea of
the ratio between truth and small lies that are necessary to functioning.
People don't talk to exchange truth about the world, they talk mostly to
repeat signals at a constant rhythm which sends a larger signal of
"confidence" or "competency" or "trustworthiness" or even "this person is safe
and stable to be around".

Yeah, there's a cognitive cost to anticipating other minds unless you're
blessed with some capacity that is never stressed. There's also a cognitive
cost to maintaining executive function without being swallowed by groupthink.

>people pleasing is selfish and manipulative

Your entire edifice of actions is the selfish and manipulative desires of your
morality to instantiate itself in real space.

------
3chelon
Interesting. Slightly left-field here, but people with autistic spectrum
disorders are often considered to be prone to depression, often because of
social anxiety, but this would suggest the opposite is also true, as ASD
sufferers generally tend to care less what other people think of them.

From personal experience, as someone whose family and friends reckon is firmly
"on the spectrum", I tend to be naturally open and honest in a work
environment, showing my emotions, being honest about problems and not
(consciously at any rate) trying to please anyone, and I think I'm pretty
happy most of the time. And on those few times that I have made social
mistakes, for instance saying something out of place in a new job, I become
very tense and totally incapable of focusing, which makes me glad that I don't
care most of the time.

------
miesman
"white lies and false smiles quickly snowball into a life lived out of
alignment"

True story - My dental hygienist is annoying. She complains about her life
while she was cleaning my teeth. She only works Wed and so when I rescheduled
this time I said I was booked on Wed so I need someone else.

So I told a white lie to protect her feelings. Like it or not we are social
creatures. Some people don't have the iron ego of the original author and can
be hurt by "honest" remarks. Yes I get that it offends certain peoples
sensibilities but it costs nothing to be nice to people.

------
kej
This reminds me of the 1922 article Why I Quit Being So Accommodating [1] with
previous HN discussion [2].

[1] [https://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/1922-why-i-
quit-b...](https://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/1922-why-i-quit-being-
so-accommodating/)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4969041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4969041)

------
initram
The author writes:

> Research shows that people who are given instructions for how to lie less in
> their day-to-day lives are actually able to lie less, and when they do,
> their physical health improves.

Perhaps you could, you know, link to such a study for those of us interested?
OR maybe point out the author so we can look it up ourselves? Searching for
"instructions on how to lie less" produces results like "Instructions for
filling out IRS Form 1040." Great.

------
nnain
Happiness Index is such a broad topic and everyone's needs so different that
it's difficult to say with absoluteness that this is the way. Some people have
a panache for social work, some have criminal tendencies, some like to please,
some don't care. You can see success in happiness in each of these segments. I
still concur with the general idea the authour is trying to convey.

------
reedlaw
I can think of a few problems with this philosophy right off the bat. It
doesn't give us much incentive to act politely. Also the first point reminds
me of Sense and Sensibility when Marianne doesn't want to share her sadness
with Mrs. Jennings not because she's a people pleaser but because Mrs.
Jennings is not tender or sympathetic--all she wants is a supply of gossip.

~~~
kross
Honesty is not exclusive of gentleness and kindness.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
There's an old saying: be kind so you can be truthful; be gentle so you can be
honest

------
Mz
The author is a woman. I posit that this is a gendered issue. Women who are
people pleasers tend to get treated like doormats. Men who are pleasant seem
far more able to also stand up for themselves and it seems to be a completely
different dynamic socially.

~~~
kross
I disagree, I think it is a human tendency because it is often the path of
least resistance (short term, but long term can accumulate and be not worth
the alternative).

So while culturally it might have higher numbers in women, the numbers in men
are high enough to sell books like "No More Mr. Nice Guy.". Good book by the
way.

~~~
Mz
So you agree it impacts women more but deny that it is a gendered issue.
Gotcha.

~~~
belorn
You stated that the _negative effect_ is higher for a woman than a man, thus
claiming it to be a gender issue.

kross comment stated that the negative effect is the exact same for a woman or
a man, thus disagreeing with your statement. It also states that the amount of
women being "pleasers" are higher for _cultural reasons_.

You could claim that the culture that causes more women to be "pleasers" is an
gender issue, in which you two might be in an agreement on that point if you
two are also in an agreement on the definition of gender issues.

------
sidcool
>It’s that pleasing others is not the same as helping others.

Good point.

------
cft
It's amazing that this is what is now publicly funded "science" or "research".
It would make a good moralistic story for 12 year olds in the 19th century,
but now people like her get PhDs in this (likely publicly funded), from the
same institution that awards PhDs in algebraic geometry or string theory!

[https://www.christinecarter.com/about/dr-christine-carter-
bi...](https://www.christinecarter.com/about/dr-christine-carter-bio/)

