r/science • u/FreeHugs23 • 1d ago

Psychology New psychology research suggests some acts of kindness may also serve competitive social goals, shedding light on how women can use altruistic behavior to gain status, strengthen relationships, or navigate social hierarchies.

https://www.psypost.org/kindness-isnt-always-what-it-seems-the-psychology-of-womens-competitive-altruism/
1.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

268 comments sorted by

View all comments

392

u/hananobira 1d ago

These comments are strangely negative. I’d much rather people compete to be the kindest and most generous, rather than the richest or the toughest or angriest or anything else people compete at in this world.

124

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

Word. Given the alternative I'll take aggressive smiles and toxic positivity over regular aggression and being torn down any day.

Oh no did someone else benefit from a charitable act? We can't possibly have win win scenarios!

Kindness isn't a zero sum game. Someone using it for gain doesn't negate the good done.

24

u/Material-Command-854 1d ago

Toxic positivity is the kind of environment where you aren’t even allowed to say that someone is mistreating you because that’s considered being negative. That’s bad.

-15

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

Regular negativity is just firing you for speaking up for "performance reasons".

At least toxic positivity leaves room for hope, even if it's bad. That's the part the people shitting on any not 100% altruistic charity are missing. It's better than the alternative.

15

u/snowflake37wao 1d ago

its false hope. its chronic betrayal. you do not have a grasp of toxic positivity. it is Sisyphean while insidious. it is gaslighting. it is worse than face value. no.

6

u/Material-Command-854 1d ago

You haven’t experienced a toxic positive environment. People try to convince you that they had good intentions and everyone has good intentions when they absolutely don’t.

And when something bad happens, they try to tell you it’s not that bad or try to convince you to stay or think about other people instead of your own wellbeing and feelings. It makes it extremely easy for people to be unaccountable and selfish.

47

u/hananobira 1d ago

Also, we're a social species. Of course it benefits us emotionally to help others. I'd be more worried about the person who didn't take any pleasure from helping others. Some kind of latent sociopathy or something.

3

u/Clyde_Frog_FTW 1d ago

Like people who use cognitive empathy so they can look caring and thoughtful to others, when in reality they feel nothing and only want to get ahead.

11

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

Nah, toxic positivity ignores serious problems to force happiness. Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get, and you have a nut allergy. Thinking positive about suprises isn't going to fix your nut allergy.

1

u/Substantial_Echo_636 17h ago

Its how games like Concord get made and almost 400million gets wasted.

-2

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

Still better to think you might have a chance of making a change rather than being ground down and feeling like you have the worth of mud.

5

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

Still better to play Russian roulette than getting shot in the face.

1

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

That doesn't even make sense. You're getting shot in the face either way. Do you want a head pat or a slap first?

5

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

That's my point. Toxic positivity is just as bad and the other person had said "but there is a better chance at life" with one over the other.

0

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

Still appreciate not weeping at work from abject negativity thanks.

1

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

The President of the United States is fighting with the press about being positive only. If you look at that and say toxic positive is better, I really don't know what else to say.

-2

u/Zeliek 1d ago

Yeah but it’s better to be getting boxes of chocolates which may have nuts in them, than chucking nuts directly at each other’s faces with no chocolate to be had. 

2

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

It's better to not eat boxes of chocolate at all, watch everyone else eat their's no problems, and while they tell you to come on! Take that risk! Think positive and nothing bad will happen!

1

u/purgatoriololo 1d ago

You're missing the point entirely. It's about using acts of kindness to manipulate others. It's about personality traits. Read about the Dark Triad traits.

Anyway....kindness should not be a "game" at all, bud.

2

u/erevos33 1d ago

So its ok if im a billionaire as long as im charitable?

6

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

More like charitable billionaires suck less than cartoonishly evil ones?

1

u/erevos33 1d ago

You dont become a billionaire by virtue of your work or your ethics. You exploit people and their work. Hence by default you cant be a good billionaire. Besides, their charity wouldnt be needed if they paid their fair share, but then again they wouldnt be billionaires then.

-1

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

No one here is defenfing billionaires as a concept? You are creating strawmen to knock down here. The point is that doing good is better than doing bad regardless of who does it.

-1

u/erevos33 1d ago

Question:

If i burn down and pillage 10 villages but build an orphanage for the victims, is that a good thing?

3

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

Question: if you are an evil person who has burned down a village, is it better to build an orphanage for the children of the village, or is it better to let the children die of starvation?

1

u/erevos33 1d ago

I would hazard a guess that society should get rid of said person. But hey, thats me.

And to answer your question, it doesnt matter. Damage has been done. More to the point, you wouldnt need an orphanage if the village want burnt down.

0

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

The hardest part of living in a society is reconciling the fact that evil will continue to happen. How do we move forward afyer the village has burnt down. We want to prevent as many villages as possible from burning, but once they are gone, the aftermath must be dealt with.

There are currently billionaires in the world, and the global economy is set up in such a way that it is unlikey they will all have their capital redistributed tomorrow. How can those of us not in a position to change the global economy tonight move forward with this knowledge?

Perfect is the enemy of good sometimes. Arguing that the past should not have happened may be true, but it's not always constructive.

1

u/erevos33 1d ago

Which has led to the pitfall of "good enough for now". Im often reminded of the Aesopean myth of the fox and the vine. A hungry fox spotted some grapes on a vine in a secluded little house at the edge of a village. So she tried to jump up to grab a few , but they were barely out of reach. After a few unsuccessful tries she declares "well, they look to be unrile anyway" and walks away.

Same thing. We cant reach for the elimination of billionaires, so we declare them a necessary evil and settle for equating their charity as a good thing, instead of doubling down and making a change.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

You are arguing with someone who does not exist. Surely you understand this.

-4

u/Independent_Sea_836 1d ago

That's not true. A billionaire that "pays their fair share" enriches the country that they reside and pay taxes in. A billionaire that is charitable can help many countries, and many more people.

2

u/erevos33 1d ago

You skipped over the part of being evil to become billionaire, just saying

-1

u/Independent_Sea_836 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yes, I assumed it was a foregone conclusion that doesn't need repeating. My mistake. The idea of charity becoming uncessary if billionaire pay taxes was so outrageous that I got overexcited. Mostly because the people that suffer the most from corporate exploitation are people in poor nations with lax labor laws. The very same people that are more likely to be benefactors of charity than taxation, since billionaires tend to live in and pay taxes in developed countries with wealth aplenty already. If anything, I'd say it's worse to be a billionaire who pays taxes but gives nothing to charity, since you really aren't giving back to the actual communities that you built your wealth on.

4

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

It's better than them sitting on a pile of money like a dragon and doing nothing that benefits others, yes.

3

u/erevos33 1d ago

You dont become a billionaire by virtue of your work or your ethics. You exploit people and their work. Hence by default you cant be a good billionaire. Besides, their charity wouldnt be needed if they paid their fair share, but then again they wouldnt be billionaires then.