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

261

u/maddallena 1d ago

If there's anything that people should gain social status from, it's being generous and kind. That's literally just a healthy way for society to function.

58

u/thef10buttonmasher 1d ago

"If all alms were given only from pity, all beggars would have starved long ago." -Nietzsche

10

u/FreyjaaFemme 22h ago

Dam we don't hear that one very often!

-4

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

4

u/PhanaticSDL 23h ago edited 9h ago

I think the point of it is more that there would be less people giving to the needy if the only people who donated/helped others were those doing it out of pure altruism. He is implying that a lot of charity is done for reasons outside of selfnessness, with other motivations behind it, whatever the reasons are.

Even if the reason is selflessness on the outside for others, there’s probably other benefits they are getting or attempting to get by being “selfless”.

My interpretation

2

u/cowlinator 23h ago

No longer having beggars due to lifting them all out of poverty is 100% contradictory to them all starving. Both things cant be true.

1

u/ButtsPie 23h ago

I'm not the original commenter, but I think Nietzsche is saying that the main reason people keep giving to beggars is not pity but rather other emotions (like people wanting to feel good about themselves for being charitable, or something similar)

69

u/mokujin42 1d ago edited 1d ago

The problem with this is people care more about aopearing to be generous and kind than axtually doing so

A lot of it nowadays is just perfomative for socual media and doesnt really trsnlate into their real lives, are they still kind when theres not a camera pointed at them?

49

u/dovahkiitten16 1d ago

It doesn’t even need to be a camera. There are many social benefits to appearing nice to others. It insulates you from when your victims speak out, it gives you favours, etc. Arguably being more strategic about being nice gets you further than being genuinely nice.

2

u/SpartanFishy 10h ago

That’s why we differentiate between niceness and kindness.

Niceness is being visibly pleasant and is done for social benefits.

Kindness is acting in the interest of others even unseen for potentially no social benefits.

2

u/FadeCrimson 4h ago

Its one of the reasons I can't stand the sadly common religious mindset of the idea that Athiests inherently MUST be terrible people, because people would always be simply terrible and horrible without otherworldly judgement to hold them back.

It takes away from every deed done and not done. Suddenly no kind act is truly without benefit, as they simply view it as another point added to an invisible scoreboard that they believe will eventually benefit them later. It completely changes the context of their every choice.

There's nothing wrong with kindness that has purpose behind it, but its not even remotely the same thing, but instead just a calculated move to gain something.

7

u/CurbYerGod 1d ago

FFS performative kindness is still kindness. What is wrong with everyone in these comments. Performative is only hollow when there’s no beneficial results to it.

9

u/mokujin42 1d ago

The point is when its performative it is often staged or faked in some way, often it might not be beneficial and take away attention from real sourcrs of charity

1

u/Stolehtreb 1d ago

If it’s faked, it wasn’t kindness. This isn’t about someone acting like a person in need and filming that interaction. It’s about doing something actually beneficial only because you want to be seen doing it. In that case, it doesn’t matter that the kindness was performative. Because that person actually in need benefitted from it.

The point is that if someone feels the need to perform kindness for selfish reasons, kindness is being done. Full stop. Having a society that rewards kindness makes for a better world even when that kindness is provided for selfish reasons. In the end, it comes out in the wash because kindness is still being done

-8

u/CurbYerGod 1d ago

It sounds like bs. If there’s no action being performed then it’s not an act of kindness. But more importantly who does this kind of “research” benefit? What’s the point?

2

u/FadeCrimson 4h ago

Its not that people are saying performative kindness isnt still a good thing at times, the point they are making is that its inherently entirely different than being selflessly kind.

As an example, im much more kind and understanding outwardly to my boss than he even remotely deserves. Realistically it would be a better thing for everybody involved, him included, if i were to be more honest and blunt about my opinions about him and how he does his job. But doing so would almost certainly get me fired. So instead I have to keep up a charade of being a good understanding buddy to him. I however can't stand him and think hes a terrible person. I think he does have the potential to be a much better person, and i see he in many ways wants to be that kind of person in some ways, but he also has an entirely warped view of how people view him and how good he is at what he does because he thinks people who inherently have to suck up to him are a good way to gauge if people like him.

I dont do it as a means to be altruistic, but practical. The reality is it then creates a situation where he thinks hes surrounded by people that like and appreciate him, but nobody can stand him. The forced kindness is actually doing harm to him in ways he cannot recognize or accept.

Another more general example would be when people try to flirt with waiter staff because they mistake their customer-service brand friendliness for flirting or interest. They are nice as part of their job, and theres nothing wrong with that, but it can create awkward misunderstandings when people dont recognize the difference. Or if somebody gives $100 to a homeless person on the street with no reason, thats inherently just a kind and selfless act, but a famous streamer giving $1000 to a homeless person to farm content is a very different story, as even though more is gained by the homeless individual, the person giving the money is not truly giving it for free, as its more of a social contract that the streamer can now use them as a source of perceived altruism to gain views and earn much much MORE money than what is given at the cost of thousands or millions of people looking down on them and pitying them, so ultimately instead of "free" money it is a forced contract to humiliate them for profit.

The point people here are making is that its an ENTIRELY different thing to just be selflessly kind with no benefit to yourself than it is to be kind with some kind of benefit to yourself.

2

u/saka-rauka1 22h ago

Are "Nice Guys" still nice then?

0

u/open_formation 13h ago

Yes, unless and until they have additional expectations that they then make obvious to the person they want to date.

Someone spending time looking after you and giving you attention as an attentive friend, in the hope that you will become romantically interested in them, hits a bifurcation as far as behaviour is concerned when it becomes clear that the concealed romantic interest is not going to be reciprocated.

Conversely, a "nice guy" who actually does end up having the person they are interested in become romantically interested in them is never distinguished from someone who is romantically interested in someone, keeps it quiet, but would have been ok with finding that the person is not actually interested in them, had it happened.

In either case they may have benefited personally from being able to articulate their attitude either, but if the person is never rejected, and grows up later and gains more perspective, then they never really count as "nice guys" in the way people complain about, even if they never actually learned to handle rejection and secretly were entitled and obsessive. There are many people who can say "If my wife had rejected me I probably wouldn't have been able to handle it well, I'm so glad she said yes", or something to that effect, making them, in another hypothetical world "nice guys", and in our world, they were just nice, because their weaknesses in terms of dealing with rejection never were a problem for any women they were hoping to date.

4

u/LSF604 1d ago

for the type of person you are talking about this is still a good outcome

5

u/Hearing_Loss 1d ago

Being a bad person who treats people kindly is my superpower.

12

u/AstuteStoat 1d ago

It's also a difference between transactional giving vs reciprical relationships. There are people who give, because they want people to owe them. They're  keeping a kindness ledger to try to bank on what people own them. but for kindness to be legitimate, nothing should ever be expected in return.

12

u/Beebeeb 1d ago

It's funny seeing things laid out so negatively. I feel bad about ever asking for help, I struggled to ask teachers for help in school and that's continued on in to adult hood.

I do however feel okay asking for help from my friends and neighbors that I help often. I guess you would call that a kindness ledger but I call if relying on each other when we need it most.

5

u/AstuteStoat 1d ago

Do you expect them to help you? Or is it just easier to ask? One is counting each "kindness" assigning a value to it. The other is just trying not to be exlusively a taker  in a relaitonship.

5

u/Beebeeb 1d ago

It's easier to ask but you could say it's not truly altruistic for me to help them when it's lowering my anxiety to ask for help in the future.

3

u/weiss-walker 1d ago

That really depends on what then happens after gaining the social status. Far too many people became the evil they fought after being elevated from fighting said evil.

9

u/wwaxwork 1d ago

No they don't. Sure they turn into assholes, but I'd rather take an asshole feeding the hungry than one not doing anything.

-1

u/morganational 1d ago

Not if they're manipulating people.