Brought up because there's so much confusion around what "nice" even is in regards to dating perception, which seems to cause a lot of misunderstandings.

There seem to be two major schools of thought, which don't necessarily exclude one another, but when brought up for discussion seem to rely heavily on one other the other:

TYPE ONE 1.) Nice as Adjective -- In which a person is nice. A nice person generally does not change the state of their "niceness" regardless of their environment.

ie, My dad told me once that he got his first girlfriend because she saw him rescue a baby duck at a park, and inferred from this behavior that he was a kind, "nice" person. He didn't save the duckling because he was hoping a girl was watching, and probably wouldn't have changed his behavior whether she'd responded positively or negatively, because his "niceness" in that moment was not reliant on external rewards.

It seems that this sort of niceness transcends dating, as a "nice person" is nice whether or not dating is an item on the table. It doesn't matter who is watching, or how they respond, because the niceness is not conditional on the environment. This sort of niceness is considered almost universally positive, thought it seems to come at the downside of being easier to take advantage of, guilted, pressured or otherwise coerced into doing "nice things" if they can be convinced that it's pro-social.

TYPE TWO

2.) Nice as Adverb: Refers more to the idea that "people aren't nice, but their actions can be". This niceness does not tend to reflect on the person, as its manifestation is conditional to the environment more than any inherent trait in the person committing it.

A stranger might hand you a pen you dropped on the bus, and this behavior would be considered "nice of them" -- but it could be argued that it doesn't suggest anything about the quality of the person who does it. They could beat their wives or kick dogs in their free time, but it wouldn't negate the fact that it was nice of them to help a stranger on the bus.

This niceness has more nuance and control for the person committing it, but communicates little about the person "being nice", because their state could just as easily stop being nice in the next moment - there is no commitment to remaining nice long-term. Thus it's a less reliable manifestation of niceness.

THOUGHTS

In RP terms, I suppose Type One is essentially a template for Betabux, while Type Two is where the confusion around "NiceGuysTM" vs "a nice person" comes into play.

I don't think either type is useful, by itself. Type One is more beneficial to wider society, while Type Two is more beneficial to the individual. A healthy balance, in which one strives to be a Nice Person (Type 1), but can turn it on and off in situations where it is detrimental (Type 2), would probably be most ideal... but hits up against the wall of Personal Proclivity.

Qs: Does this sound accurate? Which do you struggle with more? Do you find one or the other more attractive, yourselves? Do you feel either type is "gendered" male or female? Are there other types I'm missing (ect ect, just bored at work so up for whatever)