Nice Guys Finish First
by: Nancy Vedder-Shults on December 10th, 2009 | 9 Comments »
“Nice guys finish last.” That’s what we believe in this country. Without that assumption, advertisers couldn’t sell their latest energy drink and “Turn Boys into Monsters” as Derrick Kikuchi told us yesterday. Because of this notion, boys are besieged with images from marketers and the media that they have to compete rather than cooperate, go for the selfish power play rather than take part in the team, and become a macho man rather than a pansy. It’s every man for himself, these commercials say. If you don’t look out for number one, you’ll lose.
Well, it turns out that we’ve got it all backwards in this patriarchal, heterosexist, individualistic, might-makes-right society. And I have to add, “Thank goodness!” Because as a woman, many people assume that I throw like a sissy before anyone even tosses me the ball.
Scientific evidence has been accumulating over the last twenty years that shows what should have been common sense before now — that instead of being hard-wired to be selfish, human beings have evolved to be compassionate and collaborative. The social scientists fostering this research call their new understanding “survival of the kindest” to distinguish it from the social Darwinism of the past. They’re showing that we’ve been successful as a species precisely because of our altruism, nurturance, and compassion.
I think many of us have known this or at least suspected it for years. We’re a social species. That means we live together, we work together, we play together, we eat together. Actually this last item differentiates us even from other social animals, since we’re the only species that eats with each other. Even the great apes eat separately. As social animals, we’ve got to get along.
Dacher Keltner, one of these new social scientists and co-director of UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center — a West Coast magnet for research on compassion, altruism, gratitude, awe, and positive parenting — tells us that
“Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others…Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct.”
I think women knew that already. Until recently, it’s been women who’ve been socialized into the role of nurturer, of caring for others rather than for the self. We’ve been expected to be altruistic and compassionate, while men have been socialized to be independent, competitive, and to look out for number one. Women have known that the world needs cooperation in a very real sense, because we’ve been the ones caring for the children, the frail, the sick, and the elderly, all of whom need our help.
But Keltner’s team hasn’t just been theorizing about this topic. It’s been identifying the regions in the brain that help us with these tasks. One of their recent studies shows that many humans are genetically predisposed to be empathetic. The chemical most directly involved in this process is oxytocin. Some call this hormone the “cuddle hormone,” others the “love hormone.” Its job is to promote social interaction, nurturing, and romantic love, among other functions. It’s been known for quite a while that there are receptors in the brain for oxytocin. But recently, two women who are part of Keltner’s team — Laura Saslow, a graduate student at UC Berkeley and Sarina Rodrigues at Oregon State — discovered that people who have a particular variation of the gene for this receptor can read other people’s emotions better and tend to be more empathetic.
Another physiological component of the science of sympathy is the vagus nerve, which regulates the body’s heart rate and breathing. A series of experiments at UC Berkeley demonstrated that although people were separated by a barrier, they could communicate caring emotions solely by touching each other through a hole in that barrier. As soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately. Keltner concluded:
Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch.
On the social side of this question, UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer has discovered that the more generous we are, the greater the status and influence we gain. These findings suggest that those who act solely in their own self-interest tend to be shunned, disrepected, or even hated. He added,
Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish.
With all this evidence to demonstrate that true humanity is compassionate and cooperative, let’s stop socializing our boys to grow up dysfunctional — individualistic, greedy, hypercompetitive, and selfish. Raise your boy to become a Mensch instead!
P.S. Without my scientist husband Mark Shults, I wouldn’t have read the article that this post is based on. And more importantly, I wouldn’t have understood the science well enough to write about it.



Thanks much for the post/response. It’s comforting to know that we have a “cuddle hormone” inside us that can be passed along and triggered through touch. Are we evolved into compassionate and collaborative beings? Not quite completely convinced on that one yet. The popularity of “The Apprentice” and many reality shows and our purient interest in the affairs of Tiger Woods seem to put our concept of entertainment only one step away from the Coliseum in ancient Rome. And yet, even a rotten egg must contain some good in order for it to still be identifiable as an egg. Same is true for rotten human behavior… the difference being that I honestly believe we, as rotten behaving as we can be, are wonderfully capable of being transformed into something better. Nice to know we may have built-in genetic support to help us along the way.
As always with your wonderful posts, I continue to muse over what you have said, but right now, I can’t seem to get the song that Professor Montgomery Weirdo sings as he’s creating Milton the Monster out of my mind:
“And now for the tincture of tenderness – but I must add only a touch.
For without that touch of tenderness… It might destroy me! Oops, too much.”
Very cool. Thank you! I want to talk up Joan Roughgarden in this context too. She is a biology professor at Stanford who has laid out a serious challenge to the whole concept of the “selfish gene” in the form of a book, “The Genial Gene,” that ends with a table of twenty-six assumptions or hypotheses that can be resolved, as to their truth or falsity, by field and experimental research. In my review of her book in Tikkun, which I called DarWin-Win, I wrote:
“Other books have objected to selfish gene theory because it appears to be an ideology, and one fully in line with modern capitalism and competitive individualism. But this is the first book I have read that attacks the whole ideology of selfish Darwinism on a broad scale from the perspective of purely biological research. As a Christian and transgender woman, Roughgarden has plenty of ideological reasons to oppose selfish gene theory and a worldview based on binary male/female conflict and traditional sex roles. But the beauty of this book is that she has pursued in a strictly scientific manner whatever skepticism her own life experience has taught her to hold about mainstream scientific ideologies. Here she is concerned solely with what is scientifically testable and true.
“The very idea that there is truth in these postmodern times, when even physicists seem to have got beyond the hope of it, is a breath of intellectual oxygen. Roughgarden writes:
“‘As often stated in this book the issue before us is not whether a biological nature predicated on selfishness, deception, and genetic hierarchy is appealing or repugnant compared with a biological nature predicated on teamwork, honesty, and generic equality. The issue is which of these views of biological nature is true.’
“And when she adds, “I believe I have shown that the overwhelming weight of data and theory reveal that the selfish-gene picture does not truly and accurately describe biological nature,” I applaud both her conclusion and her courage in saying it so forcefully, for she is stirring up a storm that will rage for at least a generation.”
The review is at http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/sept_oct_09_darwin
My husband and I are advocates for equality. We object to discrmination based on color, financial status, age — against the young and old equally. Thank you for this.
I call the quandary regarding the ‘compassionate’ as to ‘selfish’ primate the ’13 year old problem.’ For our species to survive and learn how to be peacful it takes experience and learning in a culture that is at peace, or knows how to achieve peace. After 13 years of age, it is too late. This speculative number is based on the simple concept that without this term of experience an individual 13 year old will not know how to achieve the concept. Peace does not include the world. It includes only how to achieve domestic tranquility. One has to experience and learn how to get along with a spouse and children. There is no gene for this. Let me give a simple example. Pilots are trained to takeoff and land with the minimum amount of discomfort to the passengers. After years of taking off and landing a pilot may forget how to respond in an emergency. That is rapid and extremely uncomfortable maneuvers are necessary for survival. This is the lesson learned of the landing in the Hudson river not too long ago. Peace requires constant vigilance. This simply means that peace includes how to deal with danger of any kind effectively.
Thank you all for your great comments. I will respond to them tomorrow when I’m not so exhausted. My choir performed two Christmas concerts today (one at 3 p.m. and one at 7:30 p.m.), and we sing complex music, so I’m done in. It was worth it. We made truly beautiful music.
This is a fascinating area of research, and the exploration of the topic that you have provided here is bright and illuminating, as well as hopeful.This blog ahs been on my mind all week, and i have some thoughts about the topic and the area of rsearch itself, as well as the limits to application of social psychology in general.
First of all, the field itself is rife with social darwinism,as most of our culture is. That means that the results are often viewed as, rather than explorative and theoretically powerful for further study and thought, actually “sold to us” as fact. In this case the concerns that i ahve are threefold.
First, if we are to avoid dichotomizing, why do we consider “either” competition OR “cooperation” to be superior? Why do we align one with the other, how have we come to gender bowdlerize the findings as if all females were cooperative rather than comepttitive, and that cooperation is always a good thing, an antithesis to compettition and individual well being?
It seems to me that we can make a very serious case for the abuses of cooperation–for some forms of cooperation go well beyond good feelings and empathy, to become mobbing up, social fad-ding, social chauvinisms based upon the cooperation of groups in ascendance to violate the rights of those at the nadir of social standing, ie the poor, etc.
Cooperation when it is the Blue Wall of Silence in blue collar culture that is empathic for one’s”brother-sister” as perceived by the empathist, to the point that even when a rugged individualist steps up and reveals wrongdoing and harm by the cooperative conforming group, it is the individual with the greater empathy (for those oppressed exploited or harmed in other serious ways by the group) who suffers ostracization and “hate” as you put it.
In any instance where there are mobs, the same principle is extant, yet it is the individual with the priinciples to take on the group that research has shown can actually prevent mob violence.
therefore as always it seems to me that the coextant impetus of cooperation and compeition are equally ehalthy when neither is abused. for example, males and sports prior to social darwinism were a phenomenal way of developing cooperation.so much so that even though individual achivements were acknowledged and rewqarded, a “hot dog” was deplored and principles of good sportsship were carried into the private sector in postive ways such as the fair playing field and honor that invloved not cheating.
when i was in gradutae school at the college from which i received my MPA, the entire class except for 3 of us (two of whom were socially protected because of their community status) “cooperated on their coursework to the point that their learning experience and the quality of the education that i am still paying for, were compromised terribly…although i worked a full time job and a part-time job for most of my entire college career which encompassed a fellowship and ivy league graduate program as well as the MPA, i managed to do my own work. i received the full benefit of a fine education adn it equipped me to be effective in my work. but my grades were compromised by teh incessant cheating of people who were only in school for the piece of paper, not to learn: they handed out papers and exam answers throughout the two years, and ostracized me because i would not participate in their cheating… and this si a group that will go on, clearly, to cheat in their field, which can barely stand any more corruption and turf and ego driven adminsitrators, far removed from empathy…yet rewarded by society and their peers.
the second point is the whole idea of social research, especially when ideologically driven to the point that its claims are based more on POV and the purview of competing theories, than on actualizing learning that can carry us forward theoretically, acknowledging the limitations of science in these areas.
how can statistical significance explain the complex and profound sums of human experience and evolution? i wish we would be humbler about our studies and more inclined to recognize that when it ccomes to actualizing positive results, we can find a whole plethora of ways to do so and each research is only a small aprt of the whole, not an exhaustive prescription.
finally reductionism abounds when we discuss gene theory. wspecially since in the brain, change is a precursor to chemical interaction…brians can produce all kinds of receptors, lose them and devlop more according to the experience of the human who houses them.
the criminal justice research in recent years, focusing on criminal genes and geens for viollecne instead of recognizing that violence is enculturated, and learned…is very frightening.it ios like Nazi science.and looking at sterilization of individuals carrying specific genes that scientists have associated with violence (despite the fact that thses same geens in a rich individual may rpesuppose to gambling on the stock market or bungee jumping) seem to me to be abhorrent.
anyway this is just some of the food for thought that i came up with here. i wish we would acknowledge the dual roles of nature and nurture, and also the importance of compeition and cooperation.
insofar as the premises of the article in terms of raising children adn an assault on boys, i completely agree with Nancy.
i do think that to change the culrute we must also object to the cultural phenomena which our money funds, like video games that allow children to be rapists, (very poular in japan) and the rampant unobstructed materialism that determines the value of children to society as well as their social values.
Whew, Aminah — You really came up with a lot of interesting points. I couldn’t agree more with your ideas about dichotomizing. Unfortunately, I think it’s built into our language, and that makes it extremely difficult to talk about anything without “taking sides.” That’s why I try to talk about these things within a given context. I guess I would say that I push for cooperation when and where competition has been overvalued, and that’s in many places in our individualistic, patriarchal culture. But I agree with you that cooperation can be overdone — just look at the bill of goods that women in North America were sold before the women’s movement, i.e. our socialization to be other-oriented to our own detriment.
Where we part company, I think, is “the gender bowdlerization of findings as if all females were cooperative rather than competitive.” I haven’t found this kind of overgeneralization in my reading of contemporary sociology/psychology. However, I think the findings do indicate that women TEND to more cooperative in this culture than men do, specifically because they have been raised that way. Why do you think that the second wave of the women’s movement instituted workshops and classes on assertiveness training for women? The problem is that as a culture we haven’t done the complementary thing for men — training to be more cooperative. I think the reason for this is two-fold: 1) men are socialized to be more competitive, even to the point of selfishness (“Turning Boys into Monsters”), and 2) because masculinity is still the standard of humanity, i.e. in a patriarchal culture, it’s better to be a man than a woman, and it’s better to be masculine than feminine. So it’s okay for women to become more competitive, but less okay for men to become cooperative and nurturant (isn’t that becoming a sissy?)
Of course, all of us human beings have the capability of being cooperative and/or competitive. These are human characteristics. Even your example of sports seems to speak to this — men played (and still play) team sports for the fostering of the team, i.e. cooperation. So even in our patriarchal culture we have places where one can compete by cooperating. I guess if I lived in Japan or in other much more collaborative/communal cultures, I would be pushing for more competition. Just to give you a sense of the difference between our two societies, here’s what we say about the individual: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Here’s what the Japanese say: “The nail that stands up will be pounded down.” So for me, it’s all about context.
Your final point, Aminah, about recognizing both nature and nurture is one that I’ve thought about a lot. My husband, a “Renaissance scientist” (i.e. he reads about every kind of science he can) and I, a second wave feminist Ph.D. in Humanities, spent years arguing and talking about which was more powerful in its effects on human beings…until one day, we realized that, of course, it was both. In fact, the more we as a society actually learn about how human beings “operate,” the more we realize that neither one of them is independent of the other. For example, in China 70% of the population has perfect pitch — because their language uses pitch to communicate, while here it’s very rare. According to the Wikipedia “Some scientists currently believe absolute pitch may have an underlying genetic basis and are trying to locate genetic correlates; while evidence suggesting a genetic locus has recently arisen, most believe that the acquisition of absolute pitch requires early training during a critical period of development, regardless of whether or not a genetic predisposition toward development exists.” So it looks like it’s the chicken and the egg.
As a result, I agree with you 100% that the new “science” of inborn criminality is scary, to say the least. I think we need a great deal more humility when it comes to science, as you say, because making decisions on something that can always be overturned in further testing is not the way to go.
Derrick –
As I responded to Aminah above, I agree with both of that we humans have a wide range of behavioral responses between competition and cooperation (as well as both at the same time). In this hypercompetitive culture, I’m happy to see scientific research that underscores our abilties in the cooperative direction.
Dave –
Thanks for the citation of Joan Roughgarden. I’ll pass it on to Mark. As I was writing this blog post, he reminded me of Matt Ridley’s _The Origins of Virtue _. There have been a number of people who have been writing about this change in evolutionary thinking for at least the last 20 years. (From here on in I’m writing what Mark suggested in response to your post) _The Moral Animal_ by Robert Wright is another book Mark enjoyed. Mark doesn’t know what Richard Dawkins’ current position on the “selfish gene” concept is, but says that after all he’s a scientist, so it might have changed. If he’s a good scientist, he accepts good evidence. Mark says he has difficulty when a scientist (like Roughgarden) talks about science in terms of truth, specifically her desire to prove which of these two perspective is true (“selfish” or “altruistic” genes), when probably neither view will prevail exclusively. It sounds a bit like the nature/nurture debate, which those of our generation have spent an inordinate amount of time debating, now only to discover that it’s both/and. Mark says always keep in mind that getting one’s genes into the next generation is all that ultimately matters, and there is no end to the diversity of methods of getting the job done, from the bizarre to the beautiful.
Beth –
I believe we here at Tikkun Daily all agree with you and your husband in your objections to discrimination and your advocacy for equality. Right on!
Peter –
You appear to be talking about two different situations — learning to be peaceful in one’s dealings with a spouse and children as opposed to being vigilant in dealing with danger. It seems to me that these two involve very different parts of our human repertoire. When we have to deal with danger, we go into fight or flight mode, adrenaline kicks in, and we make decisions very rapidly in order to survive. When we’re dealing with our nearest and dearest, we have time not to just react, but even when necessary to walk away in order to NOT to react, thereby preserving the peace and talking when we’re calm again. Keeping the peace in a domestic setting seems to involve many different (mostly learned) behaviors, from conflict resolution, to support, to loving touch, to dispassionate talk, etc.