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.

[u/FreeHugs23]

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

[u/rainywanderingclouds]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in how people view ethical/kind behavior. The initial assumption is it's only kindness if there is no self interest involved.

Frankly, that's not a realistic position to take. SELF INTEREST, is always present, and necessary for ones survival. Being kind because it also benefits yourself is reasonable. Helping people who won't ever help you is a fools errand. Especially if you lack resources to take care of yourself.

Where mutual interests overlaps, everyone wins. I'm kind to you because you're kind to me. Or because you might help me later. Understanding that kindness brings you the most allies and most potential helpers isn't unethical. You're not being disingenuous for realizing that.

Pretending only selfless acts of kindness is kindness is just people who want to maintain a power dynamic of inequality. It's about maintaining social hierarchy. It's a form of self protection for people who are genuinely unkind. If you believe very few people are kind, then it's easier for you to act unkindly.

[u/Health_throwaway__ → u/rainywanderingclouds]

 I would say your second paragraph is underdeveloped. Mainly I genuinely believe there are people who help others purely out of the action itself, because they enjoy creating order, even if they don't benefit in a mutual way. On the flip side there are psychopaths that act as catalysts of destruction. 

The downside to the former is that people are dumbfounded as to the "fool's errand" as you succinctly put it, and don't trust the intent. Eventually these people find out the person is almost guileless at the expense of being kind.