Why are some people more selfish than others?

[tcaudilllg]

Selfish people (by which I mean, ID DOMINATED people) have two sides, a selfish side and a social side. They begin life on the selfish side, and gradually become more social as they grow older.

The evidence (as in, the philosophies of sociopaths of the past) suggests that selfish people believe their way amicable to society, and even superior in terms of responsibility to altruism. However, selfish people -- really selfish people -- are almost universally conservative or leaning in that direction. Far left people, even if they have the "selfish" gene, apparently don't become "evil" people simply because they are too critical of themselves to become so. Even Saddam thought he was fighting to extinguish hatred from the world (he made this clear in his final letter). Saddam simply believed that people should act on their desires and not hate each other for trespasses. Of course this lead him directly into confrontation with altruists, and that's at least half of what his wars were about (the other half was him wanting to rule the Middle East). But he believed he should not be hated for this, and to the end, he lived a life of integrity to his own views. Pure logic... pure fairness... no bad feelings. Of course, logic can be brutally cold, and fairness is not the only right.

But what is his reason for choosing egoism over social ethics? It must have something to do with discomfort, to the point that social ethic was simply disadvantageous. The rewards of social participation didn't have the same potency they do for the rest of us.

It could be that he couldn't process other person's consciences, and as such, saw the world as filled with psychopaths (who have no conscience) where he and his followers were the only "light". Or perhaps, he couldn't process altruism. But one thing is clear: Saddam did have a conscience.

[tcaudilllg]

Like I said, I do not think it is the method that makes a person selfish, but the actual content of the desire. A person can do bad things with selfless intentions, ie the ends justify the means. But while selfishness may be a bad thing, it is not fair to say selfish people are bad people.

Why don't people ever respond to my ideas? D:

We're trying to get to the essence of the content.

[tcaudilllg]

dunno tcau. i've known people who've moved from far-left to far-right. what about them? it's not like political compass is inborn (imo)

It's not uncommon for young adults to switch sides once they have been faced with a few years of self-responsibility, because it is self-responsibility that requires the ethical core of the person to be shaped. Before then, they obeyed their parents who put a lovely spin on the reality of the other side. After all, they never had to suffer the consequences, because they were lucky.

Amazing what the threat of a lower living standard can bring out in some people.

[tcaudilllg]

So I spent an hour watching a documentary of Saddam's interrogation. And last night I read about Emperor Palpatine on Wookiepedia (amidst other Sith characters). Then I cross referenced with ******'s philosophy (courtesy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and reached this conclusion: these people all lacked a concept of hope, and it is hope that separates antisocial "selfish" people from social people.

I had often wondered what it meant to "hope". It occurred to me though, that I have always had an enormous sense of hope, such that I never truly questioned what it means to have hope. I lived hope, unconsciously, and did not even know what it was I felt. All the major decisions in my life have been anchored on hope. Those who do not live by hope see a world that is bereft of saviors, where the only real salvation is in forcing oneself and others to acknowledge that hope is a lie. The merely antisocial see this truth as the beginning of the road to social progress. The psychopaths, on the other hand, are filled with rage over this "truth", and act out by destroying all that they can.

It comes down to an impression of relations between the self and the world. Most people see these relations as reciprocal. Altruists give to the world because they like giving. Consequential altruists give to the world out of fear of punishment if they don't. Idealists expect the world to give to them. Ideologues demand that the world control itself such that it can provide for them (or else avoid impugning on them). Antisocial people see the world as completely indifferent to them. Psychopaths take revenge.

[tcaudilllg]

I think I understand now. Selfish people -- that is, people with antisocial personality disorder -- see themselves as the only "being", and everyone else as essentially robots. Think back to your early childhood, when you thought of other people as "fun animals who talked back". They are stuck at that. Forever. They never developed the ability to perceive an "other". They live life perpetually alone -- even when surrounded by others who "know" them -- and see everyone as forces of nature. This is why they are dangerous, because people to them are no more than complex AIs.

The idea of autistics missing a theory of mind is incorrect. Some are, but only the selfish ones. The non-selfish autistics very much possess theory of mind, I think.

This video may offer some perspective:

[Beautiful sky]

Ask yourself why do you and I seek to understand things that are not understandable (sometimes).

[tcaudilllg]

Anything can be understood.

I think the limited mind theory road has potential. I'm going to prepare a talk about how mind theory influences immanence.

[inumbra]

Selfish people -- that is, people with antisocial personality disorder

lol?

[Absurd]

lol?

Another DividGhost. rest assured, I'm going to beat them.

[Creepy-male]

I don't know sometimes it's nice just to see people as "fun animals that talk back", or whatever you are getting at, sometimes people can make things to be too sacred or important to the point where its confining and soul crushing. I enjoy empathy but I don't like it to be crammed down my throat. A lot of times I feel kind of paranoid around other people, everything has to be these split second guteral things, you can never think or play around with new ideas you have to immediately react in a certain way or suspicion is turned on you. It's fun to kind of just interact with people in that kind of innocent curious state without having to take people super serious, it's refreshing and relaxing.

Also with 7 billion people inhabitting the earth right now, it's hard to treat everyone with respect and true compassion and feeling. It's hard to connect with all these people and it's hard to have a full understanding of their issues. I feel like being a "good person" just requires a few simple things. Like personal integrity, standing by your own view points and not being manipulated. Being loyal to people you care about. Being respectful and helpful to people who you feel are suffering and incapable of helping themselves. Everyone else that isn't in your circle or isn't suffering I think you don't have to worry about, it's best to let them do their own thing. People take a lot of effort to truely help and I don't think it's selfish to realize you can't help them all, you have to draw the line somewhere and find your own way to make a positive impact. I think a person is doing just fine if their net effect on society is positive, they shouldn't have to worry about every little minor discretion. That kind of anxiety can sap a person of their willpower to actually make positive change happen.

[Shazaam]

*shoves empathy down Lucid's throat.*

[Atlast]

I don't know sometimes it's nice just to see people as "fun animals that talk back", or whatever you are getting at, sometimes people can make things to be too sacred or important to the point where its confining and soul crushing. I enjoy empathy but I don't like it to be crammed down my throat. A lot of times I feel kind of paranoid around other people, everything has to be these split second guteral things, you can never think or play around with new ideas you have to immediately react in a certain way or suspicion is turned on you. It's fun to kind of just interact with people in that kind of innocent curious state without having to take people super serious, it's refreshing and relaxing.

Also with 7 billion people inhabitting the earth right now, it's hard to treat everyone with respect and true compassion and feeling. It's hard to connect with all these people and it's hard to have a full understanding of their issues. I feel like being a "good person" just requires a few simple things. Like personal integrity, standing by your own view points and not being manipulated. Being loyal to people you care about. Being respectful and helpful to people who you feel are suffering and incapable of helping themselves. Everyone else that isn't in your circle or isn't suffering I think you don't have to worry about, it's best to let them do their own thing. People take a lot of effort to truely help and I don't think it's selfish to realize you can't help them all, you have to draw the line somewhere and find your own way to make a positive impact. I think a person is doing just fine if their net effect on society is positive, they shouldn't have to worry about every little minor discretion. That kind of anxiety can sap a person of their willpower to actually make positive change happen.

If you believe that the ethics of right/wrong are based in reason and not easily bent emotion, then he who is without empathy and feeling is the most ethical. It's scientifically impossible (to the extent that a few experiments on monkeys can grant us leave to make that claim) to emotionally give a damn for more than like ~50 people at a time, and the statistics practically prove the fact; I tell you tens of thousands die horribly every day, you blink, you don't feel. Show you a picture of a gruesomely mutilated baby, and you cry in outrage. Man is easily emotionally malleable and manipulable if he lets his empathy/emotions to run without tether. I wouldn't think of others as machines unless you considered yourself one, though, because it is clear we are all of the same species and potential.

And no, having an underwhelming 'net positive effect' on the few people around you while ignoring everyone/everything else doesn't do any good. If you don't mind me saying, that sounds like a cop-out to escape the responsibility to do anything legitimate for a world so obviously in need, but I don't know your situation so I'm not judging you guilty of anything; many people live in an overworked condition just to survive, and it is difficult to expect much from them.

[anndelise]

If you believe that the ethics of right/wrong are based in reason and not easily bent emotion, then he who is without empathy and feeling is the most ethical. It's scientifically impossible (to the extent that a few experiments on monkeys can grant us leave to make that claim) to emotionally give a damn for more than like ~50 people at a time, and the statistics practically prove the fact; I tell you tens of thousands die horribly every day, you blink, you don't feel. Show you a picture of a gruesomely mutilated baby, and you cry in outrage. Man is easily emotionally malleable and manipulable if he lets his empathy/emotions to run without tether. I wouldn't think of others as machines unless you considered yourself one, though, because it is clear we are all of the same species and potential.

And no, having an underwhelming 'net positive effect' on the few people around you while ignoring everyone/everything else doesn't do any good. If you don't mind me saying, that sounds like a cop-out to escape the responsibility to do anything legitimate for a world so obviously in need, but I don't know your situation so I'm not judging you guilty of anything; many people live in an overworked condition just to survive, and it is difficult to expect much from them.

I,m not fully understanding your post.

In the first paragraph, you say a person can only care for ~50 other individuals.
In the second, you suggest that it's a cop-out to escape from respnsibility if HLD focuses on, and has a net-positive effect on, those ~50 people he cares for.

Wouldn't focusing on the ~50 be falling in line with what the monkey test claims?

If he focuses on his ~50, and one of them focuses on their ~50, then from two people alone, there,s about...what....~80 or so people covered (allowed for an overlap). If one of those other people cares for their ~50, then between just 3 people, ~110 people are covered. And so on. His circle of ~50 alone could be covering a population of ~1470 people. Who in turn have their ~1470 and so on. But all that one lone individual has to do for that kind of influence is care for his ~50 circle.

I honestly don't see what's bad about what HLD wrote, in light of the ~50 claim.

[Creepy-male]

to emotionally give a damn for more than like ~50 people at a time, and the statistics practically prove the fact;

Hopefully this isn't the 51st post I've read today =p

Why 50?

Show you a picture of a gruesomely mutilated baby, and you cry in outrage.

Actually I think people may react differently, some people may get angry because they are insecure about the way it makes them feel, they may get angry at the person showing them the picture or disgusted. They may laugh to deal with the pressure of the image. They may just sit there and drift off and think about other things because its too brutal. Or they may cry.

I wouldn't think of others as machines unless you considered yourself one, though, because it is clear we are all of the same species and potential.

That's not what I'm saying. I kind of felt like I was being a bit unclear but from time to time I get sick of what I would call "people worship", placing human beings on a pedestal. I mean the natural world encompasses a very wide spectrum of things. There are living animals and plants, and many people are 100% content looking at these as just raw material to meet their needs, but the moment it becomes a human they freak out. It seems less like a realization about one's place in the world around them and more a dogma to be shoved down your throat. It's like this forced ideology to acknowledge a certain set of standards of behaviors in dealing with people or else you become a "sociopath" and get labeled as evil. A lot of times this thing, what I am calling "people worship" feels like an imposed thing from above, rather than something that grows from the roots of one's perception of the world around them.

And no, having an underwhelming 'net positive effect' on the few people around you while ignoring everyone/everything else doesn't do any good. If you don't mind me saying, that sounds like a cop-out to escape the responsibility to do anything legitimate for a world so obviously in need

No it's not, it's extremely practical. The moment people start to take on views of how to help the problems in the world, they can develop these god complexes and narcissism leaks through. Overtime they loose touch with the grounded aspect of their message and it becomes about something different, it becomes about them imposing a lifestyle on other people, and its foolish to think they know what is best for everyone else. It's micromanagement. If people focus on creating positive change with those that are immediately at their access I think it can be healthy.

I'm not saying people should completely ignore the big picture, but from what I observe in my day to day is there is an imbalance between how people make an impact in a grounded way and how people attempt to control things in the big picture. Maybe I'll write a thorough disposition of exactly what I mean, but that's all I'm saying... sometimes its best to not micromanage and try to control peoples lives to the extreme but instead find the solution to one's problem in a very immediate practical and grounded sense.

It's like someone goes through the drive thru and they think the person serving them is rude, instead of trying to communicate with the person, they go off and complain to the local news station which airs an undercover investigation on "bad service" that is ridiculously sensationalize, then this crowd forms that advocates for better service, and they put pressure on politicians, and before you know it there is a law that decrees the proper way for citizens to act when serving people. It seems a little ridiculous when maybe the person was being rude because they are having a bad day and maybe if you stuck with the shittiness for a bit, the next three words out of your mouth could have diffused the situation and solved the problem.

[redbaron]

I was thinking about this topic the other day and what came to mind was what someone said on the first page about how you have to love yourself before you can love others and those who are selfish are essentially people who never learned to love themselves properly. Then again, there are a lot of martyrs who put others "first" for their own reasons, because they think it's the right thing to do. Problem is, they might wake up one day and find themselves resentful of the fact that their own needs have never been met because they were so busy taking care of others. I think I'd put my mother in that category. Lots of moms live for their children and then once the kids are grown up there's a void. My mother has been in counseling for years trying to find a niche for herself. Well, now she's 65 with best years behind her and still not really sure why she's on this earth. She raised two kids but really hasn't done much else with her life. Personally I wish she'd been more focused on herself when she was younger. Because she wasn't a very good role model and she essentially taught me that a mom is never as important as her kids. And I think that's wrong. I think everyone is important and I hope my kids see that I respect myself as a human being and feel I have something to offer the world besides making their lunches. Plus, I don't think I ever really believed her when she said I could do or be anything I wanted to be--the message that was conveyed was "you will grow up and be just like me". Anyway, I think selfishness also has to do with respect. Loving yourself enough to say hey, I'm important here too. It's not about getting EVERYTHING you want, or bullying others. It's about paying attention to who you are and respecting yourself enough to stand up for what you want and need.

[Beautiful sky]

Being selfish requires no thought and no work; it's expedient on their part to be that way.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Being selfish requires no thought and no work; it's expedient on their part to be that way.

Being selfish requires a different sort of work and thought than that required to be conscientious.

[Beautiful sky]

No comment at both of you.

[Absurd]

[Korpsy Knievel]

No comment at both of you.

Why's that? You mad?

[Creepy-male]

Then again, there are a lot of martyrs who put others "first" for their own reasons, because they think it's the right thing to do. Problem is, they might wake up one day and find themselves resentful of the fact that their own needs have never been met because they were so busy taking care of others. I think I'd put my mother in that category. Lots of moms...

Interesting, I read most of what you wrote but this in particular I find interesting. I think it's really true, I think some people will tend to focus on others and helping them because it helps alleviate their own insecurities about themselves, they can feel valued through the value they provide to others as opposed to feeling their own value. Overtime this can make them resentful because their own needs haven't been met. However I think it can work in reverse too, people that value themselves too much may be too into themselves and feel isolated from others, and thus make them resentful about because their own needs haven't been met with other people -- the feel alienated. I'd place the people in the first category as e2's and people in the last category as e4's with e3's in the middle.

[tcaudilllg]

Interesting, I read most of what you wrote but this in particular I find interesting. I think it's really true, I think some people will tend to focus on others and helping them because it helps alleviate their own insecurities about themselves, they can feel valued through the value they provide to others as opposed to feeling their own value. Overtime this can make them resentful because their own needs haven't been met. However I think it can work in reverse too, people that value themselves too much may be too into themselves and feel isolated from others, and thus make them resentful about because their own needs haven't been met with other people -- the feel alienated. I'd place the people in the first category as e2's and people in the last category as e4's with e3's in the middle.

It is so. It's easy for those who mean well to be taken in by philosophies that have been designed by others to give specific advantage. An example is the open source "movement", led by Richard Stallman. Stallman is himself the biggest hypocrite in the industry, having made a fortune for himself as a leader of the movement and exploiter of the limited opportunities it creates. Free software creates a fortune for everyone who doesn't write software, unless they are paid by someone else to write it. Stallman has done little to counter the philosophy of selective donations for software used, insisting, pathologically, that the expectation of donations is no different than requiring payment for software. In reality, the only authentic purpose of free software is to put it in the hands of those who cannot afford to buy software, due to lack of gainful employment opportunity. Anything else leads to increased wealth concentration and the imbalances. But Stallman is sitting pretty on his mountain of cash as official lead lawyer (and exec) of the Free Software Foundation. He plays off the alternative of software patent mayhem, which indeed is just as bad. The pathology of extremes creates an increasingly extreme and dangerous environment, with the two extremes playing off of each other and orienting more and more situations towards them.

[jet city woman]

Because they feel like it.

[Beautiful sky]

There are degrees and relativity; someone who may ordinarily be a very self-less person may be quite selfish at times and vice versa depending on the circumstances and the people they are interacting with.

[anndelise]

There are degrees and relativity; someone who may ordinarily be a very self-less person may be quite selfish at times and vice versa depending on the circumstances and the people they are interacting with.

Oooh, yay... Maritsa is finally showing some Ne!!
ty