Talk:Reciprocal altruism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User space[edit]

This article hasn't been touched in a year, two of the sections have "(under construction)" marked on them, and it's probably off-mission. Also, a lot of the internal links to it are titled "Nice Guy," or redirects from Nice guy, and I don't think the relevant section at the bottom of the article sufficiently covers the concept (and I'm not all the way sure we should be covering the pathetic antics of bitter, lonely men beyond articles about various MRA beliefs- but that's not why I'm here today).

I'm suggesting that, failing some immediate work done on the article (I'd work on it myself, but I know little about the subject), it be moved to an interested editor's user space. As it stands, it shouldn't be in mainspace.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You could ask User:sen but he's not around much these days. User:EVDebs added some economics stuff, how about him? SophieWilder 18:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about the last point[edit]

Wouldn't the guys who are doing that be, essentially, taking a "strong" position without realizing it? Or am I missing something? Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Are nice guys "commitment sluts"?[edit]

bsutansalt writes, "To borrow from a related thread, relationships are, broadly speaking, a trade. The man provides emotional intimacy, the woman provides physical intimacy. A slut is not respected because she provides physical intimacy without requiring emotional intimacy in return. She has sold herself cheap and in doing so devalues women's primary asset: their sexuality/fertility (this is why most slut shaming is done by women). A 'nice-guy' provides emotional intimacy and/or other benefits to a woman without requiring physical intimacy in return. He has sold himself cheap, and likewise is not respected."

If a woman says, "I won't have sex with you unless we're in a relationship," then that's deemed to be okay and even virtuous; she's not being a bitch by saying that. In fact, she's respected for not letting herself be used by a guy who just wants sex.

But if a guy says, "I'm not going to go out of my way to do nice things for you (help you move your sofa, watch rom-coms with you, etc.) unless we're in a relationship," then he's deemed to be an asshole. It doesn't matter that he's just trying to respect himself by not letting a girl use him for emotional support and other benefits, without giving him the sex he wants in return.

Who is actually being the asshole in these scenarios? If a "slutty" girl lets a guy have sex with her, in hopes that he'll get addicted to her body and decide he wants a relationship with her, but actually the guy just uses her for sex before going off and fucking other chicks, then he's an asshole, and she's the victim, because he dashed her hopes. But if a "nice" guy does a lot of favors for a girl, in hopes that she'll get addicted to his personality and decide she wants a relationship with them, but actually she just uses him for the favors and goes and fucks other guys, then he's an asshole, and once again she's a victim, because he dashed her hopes of having a friend who would do stuff for her without expecting anything in return.

Is this a double standard? L's Ideology (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no, there's no double standard, if a guy does the latter and gets turned down, then he can fucking move on, just like the woman who doesn't want sex can. You have to construct a really shitty world-view where you think you're entitled to the relationship to be the oh-so-frequently-mocked "nice guy."
It's not unreasonable to want someone who wants the same things as you, and buddy, you need to get the hell away from the manosphere because it's poisoning your ability to treat relationships between people as relationships between people. The red pill attitude of "You're getting X from me so you owe me Y" is a symptom of genuinely broken people. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but these girls who get treated by "players" (i.e. used for sex, without getting a relationship) the way nice guys get treated by the girls who friendzone them (i.e. used for favors, without getting a relationship), don't really move on. They complain bitterly about having been used, mistreated, etc. It's seen all the time on Facebook, where girls say that the reason they get with the wrong guys is that the wrong guys say all the right things. These girls are not considered controlling or abusive when they have trouble letting go of these guys after the guys are done using them.
Having said that, I think what's much more common than girls friendzoning guys (and being content to have this guy around doing stuff for them, who wants to bang them), is that girls will just dismiss a guy from their lives entirely after LJBF'ing him. I have seen girls act in a manipulative way, and lead a guy on; e.g. there was a chick who told me outright, "If you drive me to the airport, I'll give you five blowjobs" and then she didn't actually do it, but that was more blatant than friendzoning, which is more implicit.
Actually, what both guys and girls will do sometimes is emotionally fuck someone over, by saying "I'm your friend" and then accepting favors from the person, without reciprocating. An example being, they might ask for help when they're out of a job, and then not help you (and even vanish from your life entirely) when you're out of a job, before showing back up when you have money again. I would almost call that "acquaintancezoning". L's Ideology (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Highway Code[edit]

On one level are not 'common courtesy' and The Highway Code (and its equivalents) forms of reciprocal altruism (whether or not codified)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. The people who support reciprocal altruism as a concept say most altruism fits it. Here's a general form you can use to test whether something fits the bill "If everyone in the world did X the world would be a better place, therefor I should do X". Fill in any X. If the statement holds, it is a reciprocal altruistic concept. The exceptions are harder to find. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Partly to note that reciprocal altruism can exist in small doses/in places where it is not immediately obvious.
And is there common ground with Benthams 'Felicific calculus' (which is not a stone cat)? Anna Livia (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I suppose it could be argued to be a Utilitarian ethic, like you're saying. But honestly, it works just as well as a is-should bridge for a virtue ethics system, and I've always thought of those as deontological. I dunno. Depends. What's your goal in connecting the concepts? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice guy: being nice for the sake of being a decent human being vs. being nice for the sake of wanting something[edit]

A distinction should be made between motives for being nice. I try to be nice for the sake of being a decent human being not because I demand relationships. As for incels, they pretend to be nice for the sake of demanding a relationship. Major distinction there. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)