Rambly thoughts on niceness

[sqbr]

I've been meaning to post some coherent thoughts on niceness for a while but I think I need to post some incoherent ones first to get my thoughts in order :)

So: I'm a "nice" person, in that I'm friendly, and polite, and non-threatening, and passive (and that's what I'm going to mean by "nice" in this post. I realise that's not the only definition). I used to feel rather smug about this, and wish other people were more like me(*). But the older I get the more I realise that not only is this "niceness" harmful to me (as I get all repressed and ignored) but it can also be harmful to those around me, and stems largely from entirely selfish motivations.

Disclaimers like whoa, I'm definitely just stream-of-consciousnessing here. And have a headache :)

EDIT: This is a bunch of thoughts about the flaws of niceness, mainly as it relates to me and my behaviour. Niceness has a lot of benefits too, I just didn't go into them. Also people make some good points in the comments.

I do not deal well with conflict. If I'm afraid, or angry, or embarrassed, my brain shuts down and I freak out, either I freeze and can't think of what to say, or I burst into tears, or say something really really stupid. Often all three.

Now I've been working on this and don't freak out as much as I used to, but the main coping technique I've developed over the past 3 decades or so is to be really good at avoiding conflict. If everyone likes me, and I never say or do anything aggressive or uncomfortable, and only ever ask for things in a passive indirect way, noone will ever get angry at me, or decide to pick on me, or whatever. This is accentuated by the way women are in general socialised to be "nice", and coming from a "nice" emotionally repressed, passive aggressive family.

And this works. But it means I end up keeping silent on things that upset me, and not disagreeing with people who I know won't take it well, and overall not getting what I want and being emotionally repressed. This led to Much Badness with my ex boyfriend taking advantage of my "niceness" and since then (1998! I am so old) I've been working towards expressing my anger with people, and overall saying what I think and what I want.

Now some of my primary values are honesty, truth, non-hypocrisy etc. I've always felt that if everyone is calm and logical and polite then it's much easier to get to the truth and avoid all the confusing emotional crap and intimidation that goes along with conflict and rudeness.

But, again around 1998, I started meeting guys(**) in unisfa who in a lot of ways had similar values to me, but felt that politeness meant lying about what you really feel, and that the best way to get to the truth was to avoid all the polite fictions and speak the honest unvarnished truth. (This is probably a gross misrepresentation of their ideals. It's just the impression I got ten years ago!)

Of course it doesn't work that way for me: once people start yelling at me, I can't think, so there's no way for me to express my opinion. But it occurred to me: what if they (or other people) couldn't express themselves as well in my sort of argument? What makes mine inherently better?

And as time's gone on I've seen a lot of examples of calm, "rational" people passive aggressively silencing their critics/opponents by insisting on a "polite" discourse which subtly favours their POV. One of the big ones is to act as if some horrible, hurtful, but "politely" expressed opinion deserves a calm rational, carefully cited refutation, and that anyone who gets angry about it is being rude, and that that rudeness is a much more serious offense. Once someone has been "rude" you can then throw your hands in the air and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as aggressive and overemotional. And a lot of the time of course the definition of "rudeness" is applied inconsistently, and really means "anyone who tells me I am wrong, or gives the impression of having been made angry by my words".

Once you start limiting the boundaries of "acceptable" debate, it's not too hard to use it as an excuse for excluding people you don't like. It's also an excuse to derail a conversation by being a concern troll. One of the common arguments is "You shouldn't do anything that hurts other people's feelings" while completely ignoring (or glossing over) the fact that these "hurtful" actions are in self defense in response to earlier hurtful actions.

Passive aggression is still aggression, it's just sneakier and easier to deny.

Little white lies done for politeness's sake are still lies. If I'm "nice" to someone to their face but complain about them behind their back, that's actually not very "nice".

And if someone is treating someone else like crap in front of me, but I don't call them on it to avoid conflict? Then I am complicit. If I call them on it but am nice to them later? Well, I may still be being complicit (I'm still thinking about that one)

On the other hand, I do NOT like the free-for-all 4-chan-esque approach of everyone being as aggressive and offensive as they like. Not just because it doesn't suit me personally, but because, like overly narrow "politeness", it asymmetrically silences those with less power in the conversation and supports the status quo. Aggression has much more effect if you have more power behind it (ie you're big guy vs a little guy, or a man vs a woman, or a white person vs a black person, etc) and so I still think that too much of it is harmful.

I guess, in short: do not mistake "niceness" for moral superiority.

And that's the end of my incoherent ramble :)

Some links (many of these grew from discussions of racism, but I've seen the same techniques in everything from shipping wars to my grandma bullying my mum about who pays for dinner)

• The five geek fallacies EVERY GEEK NEEDS TO READ THIS.
  
• No More Mr. Nice Guy how "nice guys" actually aren't that nice
  
• How to Not Sound Racist (if you don't listen very hard) 5 techniques white people use to mask their racism, I found it very compelling.
  
• cofax7: links, and some meta on rhetoric "Anger is often a more effective tactic than courtesy in getting people to challenge their assumptions"
  
• I am not the moderator About "nice" white people coming into discussions of racism and thinking they can be the "objective voice of reason".
  
• Why can't we all be nice in which I rant about the "tone" argument, has more links at the bottom
  

(*)A lot of people assume my "nice" demeanor indicates a humble spirit, but apart from a few typical geek issues with self esteem I am egotistical as heck :D
(**)And again we hit the different ways men and women are socialised. Obviously it's not always that simple, my dad is a lot like me for example. But I think the female dominatedness of fanfic fandom is one reason the whole "tone" thing can get really out of hand.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

(I'm going to start with a disclaimer because I'm stressed out by some very harsh RL stuff at the mo and also probably heading for a crash - this may not make sense.)

I can equate with some of this, but sort of coming from the other direction. It has taken me a long time to realise that I can't cope with emotional situations, but the way I can't cope is not to try to be nice and avoid them, but to fight. I get a huge adrenaline surge, my brain seems to go into overdrive and I move into a mode where I tend to mock, intimidate, and generally beat people with my tongue and my brain until they are quivering. Afterwards, I tend to feel bad about this :(

So in the past few years I have come to accept that I am not safe in an emotional situation, I need to walk away. And I have spent some effort learning how to do that. I don't always get it right of course, sometimes I leave it too long and cause hurt, frequently to people I actually like and admire, which sucks. :( But I am getting better.

The trouble is this means there are lots of conversations/arguments where I can't join in, because they are taking place in an emotional way. But I still may be very interested in or even strongly invested in the topic, and have lots that I would like to say and discuss if only I could do it in a non-emotional fashion.

So I have become invested in finding or creating safe spaces where I can have those important conversations in a non-emotional fashion. Hence I highly value niceness, and actively seek it out. It's a skill I really want to learn. It makes me sad seeing you rate it as a weakness - being able to control your emotions is a really, really valuable skill. I envy you.

[alias_sqbr]

Your comment made sense, but I'm pretty sleepy today so my reply may not :)

It does sound like you're coming at this from the opposite direction, which I imagine gives a very different perspective.

This post was all about the downsides of niceness and none of it's upsides, since I started from a position of thinking niceness was always the best way of dealing with things under all circumstances, and I've slowly realised it's not. Which is not to say it's always bad, just that it has costs as well as benefits and it's important to be aware of them.

If (as for me, and from the sounds of things, you) niceness is almost always the best option then that's ok, but we have to be aware of the limitations that places on us and the fact that others work differently.

I still work best in low-conflict "nice" discussions, and that's ok. The point is that people who don't want to or can't talk that way (in a given context) are not necessarily in the wrong, I should just avoid engaging with them. And if I can't avoid it and am forced into a confrontation then that doesn't necessarily make the person who forced me into it bad, and there are some situations in my own life where, as much as I dislike confrontation, it really is the only way to deal with things.

For example, my ex boyfriend turned any disagreement into an emotional confrontation (he didn't get angry so much as twist things so that I came off as irrationally angry at him. He was such a prat) So I had two chocies: avoid confrontation and be "nice", or say how I felt and have a huge argument.

So I was "nice" for two years, went a little mad from all the repressed emotion, and then I dumped him, and then we had a three month long horrible nasty argument, and I am still venting all the bitterness I built up, over ten years later. And as horrible as that argument was it had to happen, and I came out of it stronger (if bitter)

Being emotionally repressed isn't better or worse than being unable to control your emotions, it's the flipside of the continuum whose happy medium is being able to express your emotions but not be controlled by them. I see it as a useful bandaid to my neuroses but not a perfect solution, and I'm trying to work towards a more balanced behaviour pattern where I'm mostly "nice" (since I like being that way) but am able to be "not nice" when the situation demands it, and don't freak out when people are "not nice" to me.

It's like having a fear of heights(*): on the whole you can just avoid going up towers etc and that's all well and good, but sometimes there's stuff in high places you can't avoid dealing with.

(*)Which I also have :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Oh I see. I misunderstood. I have often see people (especially women) say that they want to stop being nice, which I find deeply alarming, firstly because being nice is something I like in other people, secondly because there is usually an associated implication that they see 'nice' as somehow 'feminine' and that gives the further implication they see the feminine aspect as weak, and thirdly because people who want to learn how to fight need to learn how to deal with all the things associated with fights, not just how to put their fists up - the ex-nice people often don't realise this and can be a vicious menace to society as a result.

Anyway, it sounds as if that isn't you, so that is a relief :)

I definitely agree that there are some people who think an argument has more value depending on the strength of the emotional content. My own observation is that they may not be as uninfluenced by their emotions as they think they are, and that they might have done better to keep a cool head had they been able. But if you want 'fire' then tapping into anger or a similar strong emotion is a very good way to do it. I am reminded of the conversation between Buffy and Kendra on just this topic in season 2, and I would say they both had a point - emotions make you sloppy, but they can also make you determined.

I also think this is a particular problem for women. Because if you are going to deal with conflicts then while managing your emotions is useful, it is far more useful to not have the emotions in the first place. This, I believe, is the evolutionary reason why males don't experience as much emotion, especially in conflict situations. Men have evolved to fight in a ritualised fashion that limits their own vulnerability while keeping the battle well away from their women and children - hence all the rules of combat, aggressive posturing that can force the opposition to back down without actually engaging etc., and respect but not empathy for their opponent. Women, by contrast, if they have to fight at all, will be a last line of defence, and they are then battling for their own and their offspring's survival. As such they need every ounce of aggression and lack of sympathy or respect that they can muster to push the battle to the crunch point. And indeed studies have shown that women are far more aggressive in battle situations - for example they are less likely to take prisoners or stop and help wounded comrades. There are of course interesting exceptions to these sweeping statements involving people who cross the gender boundaries, and anybody who is highly trained will respond according to their training, but as a general rule I believe it holds.

All of which becomes a problem when the 'battle' isn't a real fight at all but just an internet argument without the social restraints of community to rein us all in. :( The males are going around posturing and not empathising, while the women are leaping for the jugular whenever they feel attacked. The wonder is not that kerfuffles escalate, but that any of us have a shred of emotional sanity left to keep going ;)

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. I'm not 100% sure I agree that men and women argue that way (based purely on intuition and experience) but I realise it's a generalisation. Anyway, I do agree that being anti-nice all the time is as bad if not worse than being nice all the time, and I'm definitely not advocating it :)

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

There's more than one self-declared "white ally" I'd like to understand that they're not being an ally when they're sounding and/or behaving like a concern troll.

Thank you for helping me put that into words.

[alias_sqbr]

I'm still coming to terms with the fact that no matter how good my intentions or how much better I think my approach is it's just not my place to say. Only giving POC a chance to speak when they agree with white people isn't actually giving them a voice.

Anyway, glad my rambles were helpful :)

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

politeness meant lying about what you really feel

hey it's me

[alias_sqbr]

But you're not a guy I met in the late 90s!

Although..I didn't know you back then. Maybe you were not, in fact, the young teenage girl I would assume you would have been, but a 20 something guy, and then there was some sort of accident in the physics lab which turned you into a 12 year old girl and you were forced to create a new life for yourself...

Oh, wait, I get what you mean now, never mind.

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

=p

[sanguinity]

Slightly more on topic, now (but not THAT much more)...

I understand "nice", "polite", "kind", and "respectful" to be different things, even though they get used more or less interchangeably.

"Nice" is something like wanting to be liked, and wanting everyone's emotions to be quite and smooth.

"Polite" is... something like the Geneva Conventions. A formal code of acceptable conduct, which has nothing to do with being nice to people. As Miss Manners points out over and over again, one can be polite and cruel, polite and aggressive, polite and ruthless, etc. There is no requirement to be kind, or put people at their ease, or any other such thing. There is a strong emphasis on leaving people room to save face, so it tends to act as a choke on how fast hostilities can increase, or how damaging hostilities can get, but it was never intended to prevent hostilities.

"Kind" is caring about how the other person feels and trying to not let/make them feel bad.

"Respect" is.... er... respect. (Crap. The verbalization was almost working!)

Anyway, of all the the above ways to treat people, "respect" is pretty awesome, "polite" has a lot to be said for it (there is a basic level of respect built in, if you learn the code well), "kind" isn't bad (although it can slide into condescension RIGHT quick if you're not careful to keep "respect" at hand, too), and "nice" is... Pretty damn shallow. Of all the goals you might have in your interactions with other people, "wanting to be liked" is far less important, in my mind, than "treating people with respect." That's just basic ethics there.

In terms of ally-work, "nice" tends to turn into "wanting to be liked by everyone, including the people who hold -ist beliefs AND the people who are victims of those beliefs," which is a frickin' DISASTER. I think that the better someone gets at letting go of the goal of "nice" in favor of "respect" (with or without liking), the better one gets at being an ally, and the better able one is to own one's privileges.

I also believe that aiming for respect, with or without liking, is way more likely to put you in a place where a lot of people like you than "nice" does. But to make it work, you do have to first be willing to not be liked.

[alias_sqbr]

*nods to everything*

terms of ally-work, "nice" tends to turn into "wanting to be liked by everyone, including the people who hold -ist beliefs AND the people who are victims of those beliefs," which is a frickin' DISASTER

YES. And I have a problem with this with sexists etc too, my niceness runs deep.

Niceness is phatic

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

One big problem I have with "niceness" -- as you put it -- is that it involves an awful lot of framing and preparing any sort of topic for discussion, and that imposes a not inconsiderable additional burden of speaking and listening on the discussion's participants, while communicating very little. It is phatic speech emphasising sociability over information transfer.

I think that this problem is evident in the way that you express yourself on this blog. You often commence with several disclaimers, continue with constant qualifications, and conclude with apology and self-deprecation. You have to write those words, and we have to read them.

I wouldn't get hung up about it, as to a large extent it's a beneficial practice. You have tended to write about sensitive subjects of late, which deserve extra care. But perhaps it can be taken too far. It can make your arguments less compelling by clouding them in pusillanimousness, needlessly weakening the authority of what could perhaps be condensed to more striking propositions.

My challenge: write your next post on race / gender / class without any framing niceness. That would include avoiding any mention that you're not being nice for once, or any reference to this post.

*wishes I'd gotten around to making that teal dear icon*

[alias_sqbr]

*googles phatic*

The thing is, both my overwordiness and "niceness" are both coping mechanisms to deal with other flaws, namely the fact that I'm really bad at telling the difference between what's obvious to other people and what's only obvious to me, and the fact that I deal really badly with conflict. (nb this is an oversimplification)

If I write succinct posts (and I have tried this) people will misunderstand me, and I'll spend significantly more words clarifying than I would have if I'd just been a bit wordier in the first place, and the conversation will be spent figuring out what I meant to say rather than actually discussing it. If I'm not "nice" people will get angry and I will Freak The Hell Out. I'm not sure my post gets across just how much conflict freaks me out.

So I'm working on the way I deal with communication and conflict, and then every now and then trying out being a bit more succinct and curt etc and seeing what happens (as well as coming up with stuff like the disclaimers post which at least gets it out of the way), but the solution is not to rip the bandaid off without making sure the wound is healed. *resists the urge to soften that statement*

Also, for the last few months I've been trying to get a grip on life with my new, much stupider brain. My current level of "normal" is what I used to consider "Too stupid and tactless to be allowed on the internet", and it's caused me quite a few misunderstandings (not so much on my lj as elsewhere) which makes me extra cautious.

And hey, at least I use cut tags :P

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

here via metafandom.

But it means I end up keeping silent on things that upset me, and not disagreeing with people who I know won't take it well, and overall not getting what I want and being emotionally repressed.

I've been realizing the same thing about myself and completely agree with your post.

[alias_sqbr]

Thanks!

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I find a lot of niceness is politeness, is strategies to prevent confusion, is conflict avoidance, rather than being about truly caring about the other or actually being 'nice'. I am far less 'nice' to many of my close friends, because there is less possibility of getting things confused, of us getting the wrong impression about the other, etc -- we already know each others real position, we already trust in how the other feels about things, we don't have to put in disclaimery language to cover our arse as much. But then some of 'niceness' really is about being 'nice', It is hard to tell which is which, because we just don't think about it as much.

The boundaries of what is acceptable debate can, and should, vary by forum. I don't think it is OK for someone to say 'that is not acceptable debate', but I do think it is ok for someone to say 'that is not acceptable debate *here*', presuming it is their forum and they are not abusing their position to win a specific argument, and providing there is consistency etc. The problem with sprawling internet/LJ debates is many things are both sort of half private/half public space with no set rules about what is acceptable (or rules that are not obvious). People follow a thread from one forum to another, and don't realise that perhaps the rules have changed, and come charging angrily into a place with a quite set culture and idea of acceptable discourse, or into spaces that people think of as quite personal, and an inevitable explosion of anger (usually on both sides) follows. On the other hand, you also have people applying said rules inconsistently (or consistently unfairly, to suppress a particular POV that they dislike), and the same sort of explosion happens, and it is hard to tell the two apart -- or perhaps they do, in fact, overlap for different POVs. There are still no universally recognised universal rules of politeness for internet discussion, and even if there were, polite rules followed by obnoxious people are almost as bad in practice.

I've been reminded of certain academic discourses I have seen, where the rules of politeness for that forum are followed religiously -- lots of polite roundabout discussion, very formal and constrained -- but the actual content is mostly seething resentment expressed through very formally expressed attempts to find fatal flaws in the others arguments. Rules of discourse can have very little to do with being nice.

Every geek should read the five geek fallacies, yes. Our culture is dysfunctional. Probably not more than any other sub-culture, but it is important to recognise consistent problems.

The Nice Guy thing is important, though I read it more as a discourse about gender relations and roles than about community debate. But it does make the point very clearly that for many people, a certain level of 'niceness' is just a strategy, and doesn't involve actually thinking about the other person whatsoever (and can, in fact, be used as a controlling, manipulative, argument that displays no actual care at all). I worry a bit about the Nice Guy thing, actually -- it is very much the sort of person I do not wish to be, or be mistaken for, but I know just not wanting to be doesn't mean I won't (and everyone can fall into the dark side when stressed to hell),

[alias_sqbr]

Very sleepy today but: very well put. I agree with the "people expect the rules of discourse to stay the same everywhere" thing as well.

I am far less 'nice' to many of my close friends, because there is less possibility of getting things confused, of us getting the wrong impression about the other, etc

Me too (I have an incredibly mean sense of humour, which not a lot of people see. Poor old Cam gets the worst of it :)). And on the other hand, I'm particularly polite to the kind of people who I know will react unpleasantly to being contradicted and I can't be bothered arguing with, and then they think I like them :/