I think that many folks have the improper tools to be an "us" instead of a "me, me me". I know that I've had some advantages and disadvantages in that area when it comes to those tools. We learn how to interact from our parents, from society, from each other. I personally believe that people are not innately nice in general. Sure, there are folks who are born with very little meanness hormones or genes or whatever, sure. But, for the most part, we have to learn to be nice...or mean. We have to learn to be expressive or dumb. These are things we can learn and we can change. To be sure, it is easier to learn about being a "me, me, me" rather than an "us", especially in the United States where many (most?) of us have so much wealth and so much access to material things that we become obsessed with our relationship through things and not through being an "us". I find that men have more of a problem with this than women but that women also have problems relating on an "us" level too sometimes.

So, I think it would be safe to say that most folks in this forum might agree that being nice/kind takes consideration and tact, and that those are certainly major character traits of a nice or decent person.

Kim, do you have a helpful formula or ratio for "nice" vs. "jerk" moments so I can figure out whether a guy falls on the nice side or the jerk side?

There was something I read once for jobs that might work for guys. Simple tic marks. The person made tic marks on days they looked forward to going to work vs days they dreaded going to work. I'd add in a few more categories, for after work.

Days you looked forward to going to work and had a good day
Days you looked forward to going to work and had a bad day
Days you dreaded and ended up having a good day
Days you dreaded and ended up having a bad day

Maybe just change the "day" to date? There have been plenty of experiences in all categories for me. I'd like it to be in the positive realm.

And those telling of feelings is so important. It might be awkward, it doesn't have to be a smooth presentation of "The reasons I don't like you". LOL! I know one way that seemed to work well was the "dream of the future" exchange. Where the less interested party reveals their own dreams of the future. And it may not involve the other person. I've been one both sides there.

When I look into MY crystal ball...er...I don't have one of those. When I look into the bottom of my coffee cup, I don't see anyone there. I mean like a person sharing my life. I just see me. In a forest. With the animals. Planting flowers and maybe growing tomatoes. I don't see anyone else there.

And when a guy I was smitten with did his future, it was certainly not the thing for me, and I was definitely not a part of it. It wasn't particularly nice, but it was honest. Realistically, it wouldn't have worked to well, no matter how much I rationalized and lived in denial. I don't like being led on. I don't think anyone does. And I think it's important that we are honest, even if it's awkward or painful.

Every human being has their jerk moments. It is a syllogism that the reality that we, as beings, occupy causes us to not be able to make the right decision all the time; 100 percent of the time is not possible. Why? Because we are not ants; our social heirarchy, our cultural interactions, our upbringing, and all our experiences are all so different, so subject to seeming randomness that tt is an impossibility to always be right...because social ideals are just that, they are ideals, not really possible in reality, no matter how much we want them to be attainable, they really are not.

In some religious beliefs, this is encompassed by the idea of original sin. In others, it is encompassed by the fact that human beings are attached to the material plane. There are other such spiritual beliefs as well. But, what they always have in common is that it is never possible to always, everytime, be correct. Each human being will always make a mistake at some point. No one is perfect.

Now that I've said that, well, where does that put us? It puts us all in an equal place of sorts...at least, it puts us in a condition in which we know we cannot always be perfect. But, what does that mean? It means that we sometimes need to forgive one another. We sometimes have to cover for one another. And sometimes, we have to do that not really understanding whether that is going to lead to the right results.

One thing though. And that is that decent folks do that with tact and consideration for others, not just themselves.

But what of tough love? There are some people, some personalities, that do not respond well to kindness and consideration. They use and abuse the nice and tactful people. What is worse, they also train people who would be inclined to be nice and tactful to use inappropriate tools when it comes to communication. They reinforce me-ism at the expense of us-ism as an emotional tool. They manipulate for themselves but not for everyone else. The worst of the manipulator manipulate not for anyone but only themselves.

I pose this negative because it sheds some light on the positive in that a decent person will actually be thinking of others when they act, not just saying that they are "doing it for you" when they are really not.

Of course, there are some folks who believe they are being helpful, tell themselves they are being helpful, yet, in fact, they are not.

So, I see that there are several categories of folks:

Nice, decent, kind people who want others to be happy, sometimes even at their own expense; altruists (of a sort; some of them have serious self-esteem issues)
Nice, decent, kind people who want others and themselves to be happy and actually do that (genuinely nice folks)
People who are trying to be nice, decent, kind but are struggling and working to do that and making some progress in that direction (look around)
Those who say they are nice, decent, kind but are not really working on it (hmm...)
Those who say they are attempting to be nice, decent, kind but really aren't (uh huh)
And the rest of humanity (most of us are not archtypes; most of us are much more complex than that)

I meant 'relate', not necessarily discuss.