Nice guy vs Real man?

[xMichellex]

I found this so interesting, it's a psychological study based around the males that dub themselves "nice guys" and dub others as "bad boys". I wanted to share with you after seeing a few threads about "bad boys" a little while back. Here is the study;

1.) THE NICE GUY: Any man who exhibits any combination of the following behaviours,

a.) Low self-esteem; doesn't value himself highly. Might be out of past failures or other deep-rooted emotional issues
b.) Constantly seeks approval/validation/attention from others, usually out of a low amount of self-worth (See a.)
c.) Insecure; doesn't feel that a high quality person should like him (See a.) so is constantly fearful that he will lose them
d.) Controlling/possessive/domineering/clingy/suffocating behaviour; over-calling etc..(See c.)
e.) Idealizes potential mates (overlooks flaws AKA "Puts them on a pedestal") as well as relationships (invests large amounts of emotion/time/energy/money into relationships early on)
f.) Doesn't take responsibility for his actions
g.) Claims he's victimised; attributes his own flaws and shortcomings to external circumstances and/or other people (See f.)
h.) Self-conscious/nervous around attractive women; Cares what others think, doesn't want anyone to disapprove of him (See b.)
i.) Strong amounts of jealousy (See d.); makes people feel guilty when they enjoy time WITHOUT him
j.) Kisses up/tries to be totally agreeable/submissive to try and "score points" with a woman
k.) Doesn't lead; he's submissive, always wants to make sure EVERYTHING he's doing is OK with her; overly apologetic
l.) Doesn't draw boundries; gives women whatever they want in return for love/sex/approval; accepts second-class behaviour for the possible reward of the aforementioned. Doesn't say "No" very often; doesn't want to cause any "waves" (See h.)
m.) Poor/weak body language; little or no eye contact, leans forward out of nervousness, fast/jerky movements, nervous ticks/fidgety habits, hands in pockets, bad posture/doesn't stand up straight
n.) Is easily emotionally destabilized; gets worked up over meaningless things
o.) Common use of self deprecating humour to get approval/pity/empathy (See b.)
p.) Feels guilt for his natural sexual desires, maybe even LOOKING at a woman
q.) Whines/complains; usually to get pity/empathy
r.) Favours short-sighted/instant gratification thinking

The "nice guy" is the personification of attributes in a man that women ultimately DO NOT feel attraction for.

Women around the globe, despite different backgrounds and upbringing, generally respond the same way to this type of man.

Nice-guys almost always act victimised and attribute their lack of success to outside factors they claim are out of their control. They think it's not their fault (I.E "SHE'S IMMATURE FOR LIKING BAD BOYS" "SHE DOESN'T RECOGNISE GOOD GUYS WHEN SHE SEES THEM" "SHE HAS ISSUES" Sound familiar?) Many nice-guys harbour a (secret) belief that they're better than other men ("I bought her 20 roses on the 2nd date" "I waited in the rain for her for 3 hours" "I lent her money when she went over her credit card limit"). However, the reality is that if you're doing something NICE to get something in return, you are being MANIPULATIVE. Nice guys will go through their entire lives living in a continual state of self-deception; convinced they are "Good guys" and that they are better than others.

*I will continue the study in the next post, don't post any responses yet!

 

[xMichellex]

*Continued from above:

The fact of the matter is that "nice-guys" do not have traits that make them appealing/attractive to the opposite sex.

They lack practically everything that most women want. And that man is...

2.) THE REAL MAN: Any man who exhibits any combination of the following behaviours;

a.) Has a HIGH amount of self-esteem; values himself
b.) Doesn't need any outside approval or attention from ANYONE to be happy
c.) Not self-conscious; doesn't care what others thinks of him
d.) Is not insecure or nervous (especially around desirable women) and he sub-communicates this in every little way
e.) Self-confident; NEVER arrogant or insecure, POSSIBLY slightly cocky. May tease women in a friendly way
f.) Does not let outside events/other peoples opinions (See c.) emotionally destabilize him; is always in control of his emotions
g.) Takes full responsibility for all of his actions
h.) Never whines or complains to get approval or empathy; always accepts the world for exactly what it is
i.) Judges people based on character and personality NOT outward appearance/material items
j.) Can be brutally honest (while still being respectful) with everyone (including himself) and is not afraid to put someone in their place when they are out of line; isn't afraid to speak his mind
k.) Isn't afraid to draw boundaries
l.) Mature..in every sense of the word
m.) Has a PURPOSE in life that he never betrays and pro-actively/ambitiously works towards
n.) Goal-orientated thinker, favours long-term gratification over short (See l.)
o.) Isn't afraid to lead and take control of a situation; doesn't have any hesitancy moving forward
p.) Never feels ashamed for his sexual desires and needs; always sexually confident
q.) Is always "himself", and is content with whatever that is (See a.)
r.) Doesn't tolerate disrespect to himself, his property, his time
s.) Doesn't let women use their sexual power to get anything (whether it be money or self-respect) from him
t.) Loyal
u.) Compassionate
v.) Independent
w.) Is perfectly happy and fulfilled being single; sure, he'd like to find am attractive/beautiful/intelligent woman to spend time with but he doesn't NEED it
x.) Comfortable in the presence of high-status and/or sophisticated people
y.) Doesn't experience jealousy; is perfectly fine when a woman exercises her independence and encourages it, enjoys it when others shine
z.) Strong/confident/powerful body language (Stands up straight, doesn't break eye contact, doesn't have any nervous ticks, doesn't have quick/jerky movements, leans back out of self-confidence and lack of nervousness)
a1.) Doesn't feel the need to compensate for himself through gifts, expensive restaurants (Doing either of these things from a place of confidence and high-value in on the other hand OK)

The real man is the polar opposite of the "nice guy". He is the manifestation of traits that women universally and naturally feel the emotion of attraction for.

*ok that complets the study. Feel free to discuss this here. Myself, I found it interesting as so often I hear "nice guys" (as in the type illustratted above) complaining that women only like "bad boys", yet never justify what these "bad boys" do that is so bad.

 

[Severus Snape]

I'm curious as to where you got this study from. It certainly seems interesting, as there are some things which "nice" guys generally think and do (from my observations.) The study seems to be a bit over-generalized for my taste, though, with absolute word-choices such as "never" and "always." Studies generally tend to use probability terms such as "often" or "almost never," because absolutes are better avoided, but anyway, that's beside the point.

Like I said, there are some things I would consider true in the nature of both "nice" boys and "real" men according to this study. However, sometimes, the "nice" boys really do wonder why women go out with the so-called "bad" boys--who are not by anyone's definition real men. This is more often seen among the younger specimens, although not strictly limited to them. The "bad" boys of which some nice guys speak are the ones who have more than one girlfriend, verbally, physically or emotionally abuse their girlfriend, etc. We've all seen examples of this play out in real life--so I will not expand on that.

It does bring to light, however, that some "nice" guys are secretly jealous of confident men (who are not bad boys), which is of course true in some cases. However, there are some other cases where the "nice" guy shows legitimate confusion over why a girl would choose to go out with a "bad" guy.

While I don't agree that most women like bad boys, I do see enough of this behaviour to at least justify some of the "nice" guy's sentiments. It is not, however, enough to excuse his own manipulative behaviour--like the study above said, a true gift is given without anything expected in return, etc.

I always find studies to be interesting and insightful to a degree, however, I think people are psychologically more complex than that. In that, the behaviour must have a psychological point of origin, or some sort of trigger, for it to occur. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic?

 

[xMichellex]

Yes I agree about it being generalized, I found it interesting despite that though and kind of overlooked it and just paid attention to the overall message, but yes you're right it is, and words like "most" would be better. I think the fact it states that these type of men can be any combination makes me feel they don't have to fit the descriptions exactly, and not have all the traits listed makes me let that one go, it's more - to me - about which category someone would generally fall into but that is not necessarily what it's meant to be. I think it originally comes from a self-improvement/recognisation programme but I am not one hundred percent, so I will get back to you on that, all I have is a photocopied sheet and I cannot make out the reference, if that is what is printed at the bottom. I found the middle section the most interesting - the bit about "nice guys" complaining about "bad boys" - as I've encountered this a lot, then discovered they're less than nice in other ways, just in more subtle ways than someone who is outright abusive ie they're more likely to be quietly manipulative. I'll see if I can find more on this in the next few days, like the origins and any follow ups or anything. Thanks for contributing!

 

[MJ~And~Me]

I am a Guy so i didnt read it all:rofl:

 

[spoonie]

Hmm....well I certainly found this interesting. As has already been said here it does seem kind of generalised but I guess seeing that you've said this

I think the fact it states that these type of men can be any combination makes me feel they don't have to fit the descriptions exactly, and not have all the traits listed makes me let that one go, it's more - to me - about which category someone would generally fall into

I can see where you're coming from.

From a personal point of view (and I'm not sure if this is necessarily what you're asking for in terms of discussion, sorry) I would say I know people from either "category" (the examples above) as you've said "any combination" would make them fall into the category.

There are things I both agree and disagree with in this study. On one hand for example I would definitely say my boyfriend would fall into the "real man category" and I don't think this should (regardless of this study - I'm talking about what the study claims the "nice guys" interpret people like him as) cause him to be labelled by "nice guys" as a "bad boy". I do not think that confidence = a bad person, but I think sometimes people do label someone with confidence, or who is honest/prepared to tell someone when they're being out of order as a bad person, which is unfair.

On the other hand there are friends of mine who spring to mind when reading some of the traits of the "nice guys" but again I do not think this makes them bad people either as lack of confidence doesn't make someone a bad person either surely? Is the study suggesting people who fall into this category are all manipulative? It's not terribly clear.

 

[xMichellex]

Aah but do you see spoonie? In the study it says that women are more attracted to the "real man" traits - you mention your boyfriend and therefore the person you are attracted to as falling more into this category! The friends you mention who fall into the "nice guy" category are that; just friends yes? You are not attracted to their traits! So maybe there is truth in the study! As for the confidence thing you talked about, yes I agree with you that confidence does not make someone a bad person, you are quite right, yet I think the study suggests that the "nice guy" would resent a man with confidence and label him a "bad guy" or full of himself etc quite unfoundedly. Again I see your point on lack of confidence not making somebody a bad person but at the same time I see a stereotype formed around this. Often people will assume someone who lacks confidence as being a nice person, purely on that basis. If he's seen as shy and lacking confidence it is easy to automatically assume he's "nice" whereas he might be quietly a very bitter hate-filled person, particularly, as illustrated in the study, towards those with confidence, the ones he calls "bad boys". Do you see what I mean?

 

[xMichellex]

Also in terms of manipulation, well say both guys were thinking the exact same thing but where the "real man" is confident enough to be completely honest and speak aloud (and often be labelled as "bad" for it) the guy who lacks confidence will often not be honest at all but possibly bottle up his thoughts and if others perhaps get annoyed with the guy with confidence for what he said, the guy without will likely agree with them to get "points" which is subtle manipulation. And also these "nice guys" as illustrated in the study often only do something nice for personal gain which is manipulation also.

 

[xMichellex]

Deleted - double post

 

[Sophielo]

I dont any guy is as black and white as this study shows-most guys are a mix of the both.

 

[xMichellex]

Yes it is true to a degree Sophielo but it is unlikely that someone is divided completely down the middle, they will likely have more traits from one category and less in the other therefore making them lean more towards the one category. But anyway even if we got rid of the categories, the thing I find most interesting is the middle section about "nice guys" having this almost complex or hang up about "bad boys" etc and view themselves as "nice" when perhaps the truth is they're not so nice as they are accusing others of being bad for no real reason. Perhaps these "bad boys" are nothing more than generally happy and confident guys who the "nice guys" feel secretly jealous of. I know it's not all black and white but it's interesting and enjoyable to discuss a different way of viewing these stereotypes.

 

[spoonie]

Aah but do you see spoonie? In the study it says that women are more attracted to the "real man" traits - you mention your boyfriend and therefore the person you are attracted to as falling more into this category! The friends you mention who fall into the "nice guy" category are that; just friends yes? You are not attracted to their traits! So maybe there is truth in the study!

Hmm ok guess I see your point. Not sure if it was necessarily those traits or confidence that attracted me to him but I guess I'll have to give you that as I don't really have an answer lol.

 

[xMichellex]

^I think it could be you know, subconsciously? Whether you were actively looking for those traits or not it is entirely possible that his traits attracted you in a psychological way.

 

[analogue]

Now here's a real man

 

[thrillerchild]

1.) THE NICE GUY: Any man who exhibits any combination of the following behaviours,

a.) Low self-esteem; doesn't value himself highly. Might be out of past failures or other deep-rooted emotional issues
b.) Constantly seeks approval/validation/attention from others, usually out of a low amount of self-worth (See a.)
c.) Insecure; doesn't feel that a high quality person should like him (See a.) so is constantly fearful that he will lose them
d.) Controlling/possessive/domineering/clingy/suffocating behaviour; over-calling etc..(See c.)
e.) Idealizes potential mates (overlooks flaws AKA "Puts them on a pedestal") as well as relationships (invests large amounts of emotion/time/energy/money into relationships early on)
f.) Doesn't take responsibility for his actions
g.) Claims he's victimised; attributes his own flaws and shortcomings to external circumstances and/or other people (See f.)
h.) Self-conscious/nervous around attractive women; Cares what others think, doesn't want anyone to disapprove of him (See b.)
i.) Strong amounts of jealousy (See d.); makes people feel guilty when they enjoy time WITHOUT him
j.) Kisses up/tries to be totally agreeable/submissive to try and "score points" with a woman
k.) Doesn't lead; he's submissive, always wants to make sure EVERYTHING he's doing is OK with her; overly apologetic
l.) Doesn't draw boundries; gives women whatever they want in return for love/sex/approval; accepts second-class behaviour for the possible reward of the aforementioned. Doesn't say "No" very often; doesn't want to cause any "waves" (See h.)
m.) Poor/weak body language; little or no eye contact, leans forward out of nervousness, fast/jerky movements, nervous ticks/fidgety habits, hands in pockets, bad posture/doesn't stand up straight
n.) Is easily emotionally destabilized; gets worked up over meaningless things
o.) Common use of self deprecating humour to get approval/pity/empathy (See b.)
p.) Feels guilt for his natural sexual desires, maybe even LOOKING at a woman
q.) Whines/complains; usually to get pity/empathy
r.) Favours short-sighted/instant gratification thinking

The "nice guy" is the personification of attributes in a man that women ultimately DO NOT feel attraction for.

Women around the globe, despite different backgrounds and upbringing, generally respond the same way to this type of man.

Nice-guys almost always act victimised and attribute their lack of success to outside factors they claim are out of their control. They think it's not their fault (I.E "SHE'S IMMATURE FOR LIKING BAD BOYS" "SHE DOESN'T RECOGNISE GOOD GUYS WHEN SHE SEES THEM" "SHE HAS ISSUES" Sound familiar?) Many nice-guys harbour a (secret) belief that they're better than other men ("I bought her 20 roses on the 2nd date" "I waited in the rain for her for 3 hours" "I lent her money when she went over her credit card limit"). However, the reality is that if you're doing something NICE to get something in return, you are being MANIPULATIVE. Nice guys will go through their entire lives living in a continual state of self-deception; convinced they are "Good guys" and that they are better than others.

*I will continue the study in the next post, don't post any responses yet!

2.) THE REAL MAN: Any man who exhibits any combination of the following behaviours;

a.) Has a HIGH amount of self-esteem; values himself
b.) Doesn't need any outside approval or attention from ANYONE to be happy
c.) Not self-conscious; doesn't care what others thinks of him
d.) Is not insecure or nervous (especially around desirable women) and he sub-communicates this in every little way
e.) Self-confident; NEVER arrogant or insecure, POSSIBLY slightly cocky. May tease women in a friendly way
f.) Does not let outside events/other peoples opinions (See c.) emotionally destabilize him; is always in control of his emotions
g.) Takes full responsibility for all of his actions
h.) Never whines or complains to get approval or empathy; always accepts the world for exactly what it is
i.) Judges people based on character and personality NOT outward appearance/material items
j.) Can be brutally honest (while still being respectful) with everyone (including himself) and is not afraid to put someone in their place when they are out of line; isn't afraid to speak his mind
k.) Isn't afraid to draw boundaries
l.) Mature..in every sense of the word
m.) Has a PURPOSE in life that he never betrays and pro-actively/ambitiously works towards
n.) Goal-orientated thinker, favours long-term gratification over short (See l.)
o.) Isn't afraid to lead and take control of a situation; doesn't have any hesitancy moving forward
p.) Never feels ashamed for his sexual desires and needs; always sexually confident
q.) Is always "himself", and is content with whatever that is (See a.)
r.) Doesn't tolerate disrespect to himself, his property, his time
s.) Doesn't let women use their sexual power to get anything (whether it be money or self-respect) from him
t.) Loyal
u.) Compassionate
v.) Independent
w.) Is perfectly happy and fulfilled being single; sure, he'd like to find am attractive/beautiful/intelligent woman to spend time with but he doesn't NEED it
x.) Comfortable in the presence of high-status and/or sophisticated people
y.) Doesn't experience jealousy; is perfectly fine when a woman exercises her independence and encourages it, enjoys it when others shine
z.) Strong/confident/powerful body language (Stands up straight, doesn't break eye contact, doesn't have any nervous ticks, doesn't have quick/jerky movements, leans back out of self-confidence and lack of nervousness)
a1.) Doesn't feel the need to compensate for himself through gifts, expensive restaurants (Doing either of these things from a place of confidence and high-value in on the other hand OK)

The real man is the polar opposite of the "nice guy". He is the manifestation of traits that women universally and naturally feel the emotion of attraction for.

*ok that complets the study. Feel free to discuss this here. Myself, I found it interesting as so often I hear "nice guys" (as in the type illustratted above) complaining that women only like "bad boys", yet never justify what these "bad boys" do that is so bad.

So where do I fit into this generalisation?

 

[MattyJam]

I actually find the results of this so-called study to be quite offensive.

Who even carried out this study? They are making sweeping generalisations about half of the worlds population. The very notion that every man will fit into one of two groups is absurd.

Idiots who wrote such a thing.

 

[Severus Snape]

Now here's a real man

Hell yeah!
I love that show.

 

[xMichellex]

I have spoken to the prof who handed out the sheet and he told me he is uncertain of it's exact origins but the reason it is generalised is to leave it open to discussion (or assignments). One thing he did say that often emerges in this discussion is that guys will often try their best to emphasize what they perceive to be their traits on the "real man" side and downplay those on the "nice guy" side. I am sorry it offended you MattyJam, the purpose is to discuss, not offend. To answer your question thrillerchild, was that a self assessment that you posted? One thing the prof pointed out is that whilst a self assessment is insightful in some ways, often an outside assessment will give different results. It is always interesting to compare how you feel you present yourself with how others see you. I am not trying to say you are one way or another by the way, this was just part of the discussion on this today. Although I see now that you were one of the people who posted in one of the previous threads saying you had an issue with "nice guys finishing last" so I am hoping you didn't take offense to this thread. It is just for discussion guys sorry for those it upset.

 

[Severus Snape]

I actually find the results of this so-called study to be quite offensive.

Who even carried out this study? They are making sweeping generalisations about half of the worlds population. The very notion that every man will fit into one of two groups is absurd.

Idiots who wrote such a thing.

I agree that it is pretty generalized, however, it is a study. It's supposed to be general. If it was tailored to look at each analysand's specific circumstances/traits/etc. then I suspect that they would have never finished the study.

Moreover, I am sure Michelle did not mean to offend anyone here when she posted this study. It's just a generalized study of unknown origin, meant to start discussion. It has as of yet no known credentials, and it appears to make archetypes of "nice" guys, "bad" boys, and "real" men. While generic, it is not uncommon to encounter these sort of things in studies, for practicality and time purposes.

In short, it should not offend you, so don't let it.

I have spoken to the prof who handed out the sheet and he told me he is uncertain of it's exact origins but the reason it is generalised is to leave it open to discussion (or assignments). One thing he did say that often emerges in this discussion is that guys will often try their best to emphasize what they perceive to be their traits on the "real man" side and downplay those on the "nice guy" side. I am sorry it offended you MattyJam, the purpose is to discuss, not offend.

I would be wary of a professor who didn't cite his sources, and even more so of a study which didn't cite its sources. I'm not criticizing your prof. specifically, but just my general manner of being needs those citations, to see who conducted the study, when, where, why, and how. The details of it are of crucial importance, and I would think that anyone who thought the results of the study were worth keeping would have records of at least its origin. It's only proper research--otherwise, it's the study according to... (???) As you can see, that's neither professional nor reliable. Has anyone in your class challenged the study based on the above-stated terms (or any others which I failed to mention?)

As for potential offence--I am sure you did not mean to offend anyone by posting this study, so there is really no need to apologize. The intention was not a deliberate attempt to offend. You simply found something of interest, and shared it with us. Thank you, it is very much appreciated.

To answer your question thrillerchild, was that a self assessment that you posted? One thing the prof pointed out is that whilst a self assessment is insightful in some ways, often an outside assessment will give different results. It is always interesting to compare how you feel you present yourself with how others see you. I am not trying to say you are one way or another by the way, this was just part of the discussion on this today.

It all depends on one's ability to be honest with oneself. If one can honestly assess oneself without bias (difficult for many, though not entirely impossible), then this insight may prove to be the best one. Other people's perceptions are certainly insightful, however, I personally consider them to be of secondary importance. They are important only because they allow us to assess how others perceive us--thus, to analyze our "outside selves," or "the face we choose to show the world." However, I think it is fair to say that most people have things which they prefer to keep hidden from others, in varying degrees--depending upon how extroverted one is, how developed one's capacity for meaningful social interaction is, and how private one is. That largely determines the degree to which the real self is shown, and the frequency of this occurring. Thus, the degree to which an outside assessment is accurate depends largely on how well the person conducting that assessment knows the person. Even then, the assessment risks being biased, depending upon the feelings the person being assessed conjures in the mind of the conductor.

I am of the opinion that the best and most accurate assessments are honest self-assessments. No one but you knows everything there is to know about yourself--all your secrets, your experiences, your minds' true thoughts. You can put an act for the outside world, you can deceive anyone from complete strangers to your friends and family--but at the end of the day, you can never truly deceive yourself. So, the insight a self-assessment of this sort would provide is really of tremendous importance--but the catch is that this only works if one is honest, and willing to shatter idealized perceptions of oneself and one's own nature.

 

[Krshna28]

I actually find the results of this so-called study to be quite offensive.

Who even carried out this study? They are making sweeping generalisations about half of the worlds population. The very notion that every man will fit into one of two groups is absurd.

Idiots who wrote such a thing.

It's funny............that if a guy tried writing a similar generalisation for women............he'll be called sexist!!!!

 

[xMichellex]

Thanks Bloodnofsky for that contribution. That is a good point about the prof not knowing the exact origins although I have a feeling there is a reason he is keeping this quiet for the time being. I suppose all will be revealed! I like your points on self assessment especially about being honest with yourself. The prof pointed out that often the males who looked at this would try (perhaps subconsciously) to find as many traits as possible in what they see as the more favourable category. I agree that it would be great to have someone/some people who knew the person really well do their own 'assessment' but like you said they would probably try their hardest to save the persons feelings. If perhaps a group all assessed each other and there was no way of knowing who had 'generalized' who this might prove more honest but again I suspect they would still hold back to a degree. I am surprised that somebody here felt the need to go to such lengths as to highlight specific points and yet then called it a generalization. Most people do not bother to highlight and just say they see themselves/others leaning more towards one category (like spoonie did) fully aware of it's generalization but I appreciate thrillerchilds form of analysis. Whether thrillerchilds self assessment is the best or not is hard to say as he highlighted points that indicated that is how he saw himself making it unclear if the ones he didn't highlight were how he didn't see himself. This was especially hard when he highlighted certain sentences from certain points which makes it harder to understand whether he agrees with the points or just the bits he picks out. I also notice he highlighted that he doesn't need attention from others to be happy and also sees himself Independent but left blank that he would be happy being single which I think would be crucial to both the previous points (I.E; happy without a partner to give attention to them and independent from a partner), hence the point you made about honest self assessment. I am not saying thrillerchild is not honest but like you said it can be hard to assess oneself without any bias (this is by no means a criticism by the way). I feel a self assessment (the way thrillerchild did I am not talking about the more generalized assessment) can be accurate although perhaps only with the promise to keep the results confidential. I cannot see the entire male population of this forum posting completely honest results especially as ones online persona can be very different to their character is real life. Thanks for understanding the point of this thread and for your interesting contributions.

 

[Severus Snape]

Thanks Bloodnofsky for that contribution. That is a good point about the prof not knowing the exact origins although I have a feeling there is a reason he is keeping this quiet for the time being. I suppose all will be revealed! I like your points on self assessment especially about being honest with yourself. The prof pointed out that often the males who looked at this would try (perhaps subconsciously) to find as many traits as possible in what they see as the more favourable category. I agree that it would be great to have someone/some people who knew the person really well do their own 'assessment' but like you said they would probably try their hardest to save the persons feelings. If perhaps a group all assessed each other and there was no way of knowing who had 'generalized' who this might prove more honest but again I suspect they would still hold back to a degree. I am surprised that somebody here felt the need to go to such lengths as to highlight specific points and yet then called it a generalization. Most people do not bother to highlight and just say they see themselves/others leaning more towards one category (like spoonie did) fully aware of it's generalization but I appreciate thrillerchilds form of analysis. Whether thrillerchilds self assessment is the best or not is hard to say as he highlighted points that indicated that is how he saw himself making it unclear if the ones he didn't highlight were how he didn't see himself. This was especially hard when he highlighted certain sentences from certain points which makes it harder to understand whether he agrees with the points or just the bits he picks out. I also notice he highlighted that he doesn't need attention from others to be happy and also sees himself Independent but left blank that he would be happy being single which I think would be crucial to both the previous points (I.E; happy without a partner to give attention to them and independent from a partner), hence the point you made about honest self assessment. I am not saying thrillerchild is not honest but like you said it can be hard to assess oneself without any bias (this is by no means a criticism by the way). I feel a self assessment (the way thrillerchild did I am not talking about the more generalized assessment) can be accurate although perhaps only with the promise to keep the results confidential. I cannot see the entire male population of this forum posting completely honest results especially as ones online persona can be very different to their character is real life. Thanks for understanding the point of this thread and for your interesting contributions.

No problem, although we must give Thrillerchild props for having the guts to post his self-assessment for all of us to see, in detailed fashion. I can't say most people would have the guts to do that, especially on a public forum like this one. As to the degree of honesty of that assessment, I suppose only Thrillerchild knows for sure, and perhaps that is the way things should stay. There's no reason why we have to know.

Perhaps your professor will reveal the study's origins in time, or perhaps he was telling the truth when he said he was unsure. I figure we'll find out in time. Keep us posted.

 

[xMichellex]

Yes that is right I do not mean to sound like I am being unkind towards thrillerchild for posting, I was just surprised at the detail and I picked up on the few points that sort of contradicted another and felt I wanted to point them out. Sometimes I should curb my enthusiasm maybe in case of causing offense. I will definitely let you know whether the prof reveals the origins or not.

 

[Severus Snape]

Yes that is right I do not mean to sound like I am being unkind towards thrillerchild for posting, I was just surprised at the detail and I picked up on the few points that sort of contradicted another and felt I wanted to point them out. Sometimes I should curb my enthusiasm maybe in case of causing offense. I will definitely let you know whether the prof reveals the origins or not.

I know. I noticed them too. Still, like I said, perhaps we should leave it at that. It would be Thrillerchild's decision to discuss in more detail. I await your professor's answer, in the meantime.