No More Mr. Nice Guy

Product Information

By focusing on the relationship instead of their partner, recovery Nice Guys are able to use their partner to get in touch with their childhood experiences of abandonment, neglect, abuse, and smothering. In essence, psychology as a field spends more time giving men fish (often poisonous fish at that), rather than teaching them to fish. Pretty consistently, some 20% or more of subjects actually don’t obey (the Stanford study being a rare exception owing to the fact it was subsequently shown that its recruitment tactics disproportionately selected sociopathic subjects—an example of that failure to randomize I just mentioned).

Work out what actually is good and bad about you, and openly embrace the one, and just as openly work to fix the other. By taking matters into their own hands – by practicing healthy masturbation – recovering Nice Guys can change the most basic dynamics that shape the bigger picture of how they do sex. You are not “the provider” or “protector” or “leader” in your relationship; and if you think you are, your relationship is not likely to go well. This would lift some of the load, by actually giving citizens some of the actual skills to “suck it up” as society Glover is essentially just ignoring science, and replacing it with his own sexist beliefs, sounding disturbingly too much like the infamous misogynist Stefan Molyneux.

Nice Guys are over-attentive; or always absent; are propelled by conscious shame; or else by unconscious shame. I define personal power as a state of mind in which a person is confident he can handle whatever may come. She will also come to know that if her partner will stand up to her, he is also likely to stand up for her. Even though I am sure it is possible to break free from the Nice Guy Syndrome without the help of a group, it is the most effective tool I know for facilitating the recovery process. He should be here clarifying what the difference is between “being a leader” and being controlling, and between “providing for and protecting” and trying to be a toxic Nice Guy all over again.

It is largely a waste of time for anyone to then try to tease out what he says actually holds up as sound, and what doesn’t.

Hiding one's humanity and trying to project an image of perfection makes a person vague, slippery, lifeless, and uninteresting. Even by his own proposed model and evidence, it is the ignoring of women’s actual concerns and complaints that causes the problem psychology that Glover is trying to fix.

He cites no scientific basis for this concept, as a thing or its cause, nor ever explains what age of children he is even talking about—children change substantially in their worldview and egocentricity as they age, but Glover seems unconcerned with such distinctions, and continually uses anecdotal examples that conflate adolescence with childhood, and childhood with infancy, which is all suggestive of a lack of scientific rigor to anything he is doing here. There simply is no evidence women aren’t up to the task of teaching their sons to be good and competent men, nor even that any significant number of men have only women teaching them that. To answer his unscientific anecdotes with my own, I benefited tremendously from being left alone and allowed to make my own decisions and solve my own problems when I was young, as long as I demonstrated I could and my parents were always there when I needed them—and in fact that is what I think actual current science says parents should do: teach kids to be independent, train them for adulthood; rather than obsessively avoid giving them some dubious Freudian “abandonment issues.Glover may have an advanced degree in family therapy, but he has no science backing anything he says, and cites none. Even though (as we’ll see) he never really explains what childhood environment, for example, makes any other kind of man, or what a different kind of man even would be apart from one who strives to become an “ex” Nice Guy, let’s assume he just forgot to cover those things in this book.