Results 1 to 40 of 45

Thread: Selfishness and types...

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Kiba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp SLI-0,1Te sxsp
    Posts
    3,419
    Mentioned
    413 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Selfishness and types...

    How do you define selfishness (what is being selfish for you) and what are the most selfish types in your experience?

    I think that what we consider as selfish could be influenced by quadra values. F.e. To me being selfish is consider only your own needs and desires over others needs in a situation which involves 2 or more beings, and then, being helpful is being considerate.
    Politeness, appropriateness and courteousness are part of being selfless (I'm not too good with this but I appreciate it).

    Personally I've had more irl experiences (close relations) about selfishness with NFs, especially IEIs, but I its possible that this traits could be more related to immaturity than type.


    Share your thoughts and experiences.
    Last edited by Kiba; 03-26-2018 at 01:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ya as soon as I saw the topic prior to reading your post I was like to myself "most selfishness is in the eye of the beholder"... I think we can say Fi views selfishness as a lack of reciprocity, but which reciprocity is calculated from the point of view of a mutual degree of assumed egotism. Fe views selfishness as the presence of such egotism to begin with. In other words, Fi is more about rationally calculating what is selfless on the basis of what each party deserves but keeping in mind their interests will often conflict, whereas Fe is more about denying their right to be self interested to begin with. That is how I view it anyway. I feel like Fe operates from a presumed level of selflessness that then primarily subjects itself to perceptual manipulations and rule-based injunctions which may produce outcomes that are clearly selfish but with a degree of plausible deniability, having laundered itself through this process, whereas Fi admits selfishness is normal and sees "true selfishess" not as the desire to look after oneself or ones own but the inability or unwillingness to balance it against others in a rational manner. superficially they look the same, which is why so many times the two groups talk past eachother, but it has to do with their basic starting points and how they view the process whereby one comes to conclusions. Fe starting from the point of view of no individual rights has an easy job of inventing rules that in effect say "this is why you owe me x, failure to follow suit makes you selfish--that I benefit and unilaterally impose these rules is nothing because I am in fact standing in as the voice of the group." whereas in Fi, Te takes on the role of "voice of the group" and becomes a more "legal policy" more akin to "game theory" which is to say in a world of self interested people it makes sense the rule be x, not because I necessarily benefit, but because it functions to incentivize x and discourage y and if we order things that way its the best policy to avoid harm and waste going forward, and anyone can see that if they look

    that the Fe individual benefits from their rule is of no moment because a degree of un-egotism is presumed at the onsent, and its often true. when Fe types especially people like LII make rule based analyses they really are dissolving their own ego into the diffuse realm of structural logic within which they're only a node (that this is precisely their ego and they don't suffer from it is an unrecognized advantage, a form of covert egotism)... at the same time that the Te type does presume to speak for the group, in the guise of objective logic, is not lost on the Fe types, who regard such advocacy as strangely inhumane, lacking passion for the group and so on. its interesting because I think the two groups basically balance eachother out, they just come to it from very different sides

    I think in the end we can say no type is really more selfish than the other, but some types focus more on the issue and choose to think in terms of selfishness more than others. in the end there are ways for any type to be selfish or selfless. I think egotism (Fi) is thought of selfish more often, but I think its just a difference from where the right flow at the onset that inasmuch as it diverges from Fe types is considered selfish, but its really not
    Last edited by Bertrand; 03-26-2018 at 12:30 AM.

  3. #3
    Kiba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp SLI-0,1Te sxsp
    Posts
    3,419
    Mentioned
    413 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    Fe starting from the point of view of no individual rights has an easy job of inventing rules that in effect say "this is why you owe me x, failure to follow suit makes you selfish--that I benefit and unilaterally impose these rules is nothing because I am in fact standing in as the voice of the group." whereas in Fi, Te takes on the role of "voice of the group" and becomes a more "legal policy" more akin to "game theory" which is to say in a world of self interested people it makes sense the rule be x, not because I necessarily benefit, but because it functions to incentivize x and discourage y and if we order things that way its the best policy to avoid harm and waste going forward, and anyone can see that if they look
    Well, this is exactly how I've experienced Betas values in close relations (not friendships or superficial interactions). Inventing rules, domination as form of basic interaction (kinda bdsm not in sexual way I mean), expansionism etc. And yes, I suppose selfishness and selfless has a role in this, as ignoring the needs of others that are not strong enough to impose or fight for themselves.
    I think all of this operates much more in close, personal, frequent and familiar interactions than in public or superficial interactions. I think its the style of aristocracy of Betas.

    Then, Deltas aristocracy is more like voluntary submission according to credentials -Te- (talent, qualities, achievements, practical and psycho spiritual benefits etc) in seek of the perfect, the sublime, the holy (see clipped wings), instead of violent imposition. Therefore caregiver/childlike (pseudo caregiver) style.

    I'd like to know how does it all works in alpha or gamma.
    Last edited by Kiba; 03-26-2018 at 01:32 PM.

  4. #4
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,937
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think of (pathological) selfishness as being in an immediate position to do something prosocial, but not, even though there is no conflict of interest for you. I suppose what constitutes "prosocial" can be a point of disagreement.

    Ordinary selfishness (secure your own mask before securing others') is a lot more understandable.

  5. #5
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah I think in betas live in a universe of totalitarian power so Se shapes the contours of what is permissible. I think Thucydides described the betaverse when he said "the strong do what they will and the weak bear what they must"--thus Ti Se "rules" are whatever they can essentially get away with without there being some kind of Fe Se uprising, which is probably why Hamlet is always popping off. anyway "selfishness" as a concept to beta is subject to these sorts of dynamics, but its all predicated on knowing they're just defenseless specs of dust waiting to be eradicated by some overwhelming force, thus they view life as more or less all equally cheap, and there's a kind of "equity" to that they take to be ethics. very r selected form of "selflessness"-- from the point of view of delta its the "selflessness" of low self esteem coupled with aggression ready to raise the banner in the name of the mob whenever it suits the ringleader. they consider themselves justified for as long until they're forcibly stopped, in other words, the momentum they generate justifies itself and selfishness is what they call self control

  6. #6
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    4,396
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everyones selfish. The only difference between appearing so or not is the way u assert urself
    ~ ESTP ~ SLE ~ 7w8 ~ Sp/Sx ~ Fire ~ Aries ~ Beta ~ Gryffindor ~ Summer ~ SLUEN ~

  7. #7
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,064
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Merry quadras have a particular brand of selfishness. It manifests as a willlingness to give only if something will be received. They feel the need to keep scores. Nothing is completely free.

  8. #8
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    282 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    Merry quadras have a particular brand of selfishness. It manifests as a willlingness to give only if something will be received. They feel the need to keep scores. Nothing is completely free.
    This is not my experience and socionics literature attests to the opposite actually. Merry quadras are portrayed as very social and freely sharing stuff and information, especially alpha quadra, while gamma is portrayed as grumpy and stingy because of their realism.

    In my experience in reality it's not the case, and I don't see any one quadra as particularly selfish over the others.

    "
    Personally I've had more irl experiences (close relations) about selfishness with NFs, especially IEIs, but I its possible that this traits could be more related to immaturity than type."

    I actually have seen people call IEIs I've known selfish a few times. I would imagine that NF types have the realm of taking care of material resources as weaker for them and something they're more anxious and uncomfortable having to deal with, therefore they may feel defensive and have selfish behaviours so that they don't get taken advantage of. You may be on to something. STs can seem stingy for the opposite reason though, because they're highly aware of their material resources and can be uncompromising on certain things they find important in regards to that. Socionics literature would support this as well.

  9. #9
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,064
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    In my experience in reality it's not the case, and I don't see any one quadra as particularly selfish over the others.
    Then your experience differs from mine. Merry quadras share valued -Se/+Si. This is the IM that most closely correlates to ego and getting it satisfied. When your ego is not as important (serious quadras without valued -Se/+Si), real generosity can occur.

  10. #10
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    282 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    -Se/+Si. This is the IM that most closely correlates to ego and getting it satisfied. When your ego is not as important (serious quadras without valued -Se/+Si), real generosity can occur.
    I don't know what you are talking about. Either quote socionics writings or explain more. I haven't heard of this concept before anywhere.

  11. #11
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,064
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    I don't know what you are talking about. Either quote socionics writings or explain more. I haven't heard of this concept before anywhere.
    This concept is original content by me. Either accept it, test it, or ignore it. You could also try asking n0ki about it since he seems to be really getting the handle on the model B signs.

  12. #12
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    282 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @lavos I think you just believe what you want in a way that supports your views. There's no evidence that the signs get flipped around for how the Id and Superego get identified in Model B. (If this were the case, it would have several elements that would be in direct conflict with Model A, e.g. the polr thing you brought up which apparently didn't register to you as being contradictory, and it doesn't do that.)

    Hey wait a minute, if I have Ti as my polr though (according to your views), and Ti is the source of all selfishness, then I should be low in selfishness too.
    Last edited by niffer; 03-28-2018 at 02:46 AM.

  13. #13
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,064
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hey wait a minute, if I have Ti as my polr though (according to your views), and Ti is the source of all selfishness, then I should be low in selfishness too
    Not Ti; -Se/+Si. But sure, if that makes you feel less triggered. But then it means you are mistyped.

  14. #14
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    282 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I could be any type; it wouldn't make you less wrong.


    Sorry for the derail @Crystal .

  15. #15

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wonder how long is this farce going to continue...

    It doesn't matter if you say "It says so in Model A, it says so in Model B, Jung said so, Augusta said so, therefore it's correct, therefore I'm right". What matters is whether the explanation actually makes sense, and whether such an explanation actually seems to match with reality.

    If you can't even explain or understand how it actually works or how it makes sense, then you are simply deferring to authority, which can be fine, because we all don't have unlimited time or resources to look over everything, and so we simply defer to authority like medical doctors for medical expertise simply because it's practical and convenient.

    But we're in a discussion where we claim to understand how people work, and what people's motivations are and how they operate. If you simply appeal to authority and act on faith and then claim that you understand and that you are right about things, then you are being irrational.

    So if you can not explain how things work, and are simply acting on faith, then are the "Socionists" and Jung etc. trustworthy and credible? Well, probably not...

    As far as I know, "selfishness" is a rather universal concept, and people don't actually have "different kinds of selfishness". There must be a general and an objective way at looking what is selfish. Some people may be less selfish than others, but when we're being selfish, we all pretty much act in the same way.

    When we say that "Alphas are selfish, Betas are selfish, Gammas are selfish", then we're simply relabeling "selfish" with Alphas, Betas, which are essentially meaningless in of itself. You say well it's because Ti is selfish, Fi is selfish, then again it's just repeating the same process, relabeling selfish with Ti, Fi, etc.

    But the most interesting and the important thing is, how does being selfish work? What are its mechanisms? We don't just want to relabel selfish with something else. We don't just want to observe a certain behavior, and then label it "Merry" and leave it at that. We want an EXPLANATION as to why that is and how it actually works. Never mind being able to PREDICT behaviors from that.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    What matters is whether the explanation actually makes sense, and whether such an explanation actually seems to match with reality.
    The main what matters is the prediction based on the model matches the reality and does this helps to improve something.
    Explanation is secondary. But to try use something we prefer to have reasonable explanation beforehand, though explanation is just a model, not a reality. You may to have any bs as explanation how something works - it's ok until you may use it.
    Jung gave reasonable explanation for the core theory, Augustinavichiute gave it for IR. While DarkAngelFireWolf69, for example - gave almost nothing based on doubtful.
    Jung's core theory fits to my experience. And IR fit. To check them thoroughly I prefered to have them as authorities and to see the clear reason in what they said. In other case I'd never tried to check it and get chance to find it correct. In this aspect the authority matter too.

    > We want an EXPLANATION as to why that is

    we want to like the behavior of other. why he behaves such and how to name it - is always secondary
    if we do not like how other one behaves against our interests - we say him selfish. it's the core

    in the context of types. if we get in relations what we like - we have them mostly as good IR. such people look as lesser selfish for us
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  17. #17
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    282 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ triggered lol

  18. #18

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The fact is that you can't pin down things like "unselfishness/morality" or "efficiency" into a single fundamental function, because they are acts of creativity. When we're being "unselfish" for example, we are overriding what we were biologically designed to do, such as eating, avoiding pain, having sex or whatever. We would for example, give food to a starving child, even though we ourselves are starving, because we have decided that that is the unselfish/moral thing to do. Being moral sometimes means deliberately doing the opposite of our biological imperatives. The moral decisions that we make are I'm sure complicated and creative, such as that they're based on our belief systems, the society that we live in and its cultures, our environment, how we feel about another person or people in general, empathy and sympathy, and so on.

    There is no inborn ability where we were just "born" to do those things, and by that I mean I'm sure you weren't born with the ability to know that giving your food to a starving child is the unselfish and moral thing to do. It was more or less an act of creativity, and through the accumulated process of your own life experience as well as your own belief system.

    So it seems like things like selfishness/unselfishness are emergent phenomenons, and they still lack proper explanations on how they actually work, because we don't yet have a clear theory on consciousness. It can't be simply be explained by biology or DNA, or God forbid, functions.

  19. #19
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    hey guys trust doctors when it comes to life and death medical advice but advice pertaining to how people's minds work is off limits and you should only decide for yourself. okay

  20. #20

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    hey guys trust doctors when it comes to life and death medical advice but advice pertaining to how people's minds work is off limits and you should only decide for yourself. okay
    So you're saying that "Socionists", and people like DarkAngelFireWolf69 and others are trustworthy and credible.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you could explain how typing works, then simple, you could type with 99%+ accuracy, because you can explain precisely what you are doing right and wrong. You can explain each and every steps and its processes, and you can analyze exactly what is happening, and what you are doing wrong.

    If you could explain how ITR works, then simple, you could predict relationships with 99%+ accuracy.

    But such things are not possible, because there are no such explanations in Socionics.

  22. #22
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    i don't start from a position of mistrust... but it probably has to do with dual orientation, I feel like I sort of understand your position, but realize DarkAngelFireWolf69 is not K4m

  23. #23
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    4,396
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    but realize DarkAngelFireWolf69 is not K4m
    Wow my wwhole life was a lie
    ~ ESTP ~ SLE ~ 7w8 ~ Sp/Sx ~ Fire ~ Aries ~ Beta ~ Gryffindor ~ Summer ~ SLUEN ~

  24. #24

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    i don't start from a position of mistrust... but it probably has to do with dual orientation, I feel like I sort of understand your position, but realize DarkAngelFireWolf69 is not K4m
    It's not to do with "dual orientation", and even then, you'd have to explain how that works. And if you were to explain dual orientation, then you'd have to start with the explanations from the scratch, such as "How does Fi work?" "How does Model A work?" and "How does ITR work?". And then, I'm sure that you can't actually come up with a reasonable explanation, because no such explanation actually exists in Socionics. At best, it only comes up with something that is very vague and half-baked.

    So people just say all these things, like Model A, Model B, -Fe/+Fi ignoring, etc, that only gives a semblance of being "scientific-y" and authoritative. It gives an appearance that they know what they're talking about. And yet these people have no idea what those symbols or names actually mean, nor do they even understand how they work, mainly because no such explanations actually exist. Science mainly works because there are explanations on how they work, from the very start to the very end. It builds up on explanations that lead to more explanations.

    It's what you'd call "cargo cult science". It looks like science, it pretends to be science by imitating the style of science, but it's not actually science. And if you say that "It's not supposed to be science", then it's just something that is irrational, just like some other forms of irrationalities, like astrology, new-age, alternative medicine and all other sorts of nonsense.

  25. #25
    Chthonic Daydream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Behind your tonsils
    TIM
    EIE-C
    Posts
    1,233
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see DarkAngelFireWolf69 as a brilliant man and props to him for making sense of socionics. Granted it's his own, though. But I don't like his model, nor his work.
    I see the model in itself, along with some parts such as the DCNH, as nothing more but a way of reinventing the wheel. And i feel like he is trying too hard sometimes.

    That being said, no, I won't entrust him with removing my liver.
    EIE | Creative | 4w3 sx/so

    "хотите —
    буду безукоризненно нежный,
    не мужчина, а — облако в штанах!"

  26. #26
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    it seems you've identified science with absolute truth which gives it Godlike significance such that anything not within its current boundaries is attacked like a false God and its proponents are heretics... I don't think science itself stands for that kind of ideological faith in it though, its sort of the scientism of science worshipers and not actual scientists, because science itself entails a degree of pyrhonian skepticism as one of its base properties and it is precisely that which separates it from garden variety fanaticism

  27. #27

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    it seems you've identified science with absolute truth which gives it Godlike significance such that anything not within its current boundaries is attacked like a false God and its proponents are heretics... I don't think science itself stands for that kind of ideological faith in it though, its sort of the scientism of science worshipers and not actual scientists, because science itself entails a degree of pyrhonian skepticism as one of its base properties and it is precisely that which separates it from garden variety fanaticism
    That's exactly the opposite of what I've been saying, as I've been keep on saying that science will always be wrong and incomplete. The entire point of science is that it is always wrong, and therefore it is continuously criticized, but it also means that it can be refined and improved.

    This is what I just said in another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    There is no "absolute truth" or "incontrovertible theory" that will forever stay the same in science. There is nothing infallible in science, there is nothing that will stay the same forever, everything will eventually be slowly and gradually be overturned. These ideas of infallibility, even over some things, will only create an authoritative attitude of "Trust me, I'm right", which can get really ugly. It will also make things not accept any criticisms, which are required to improve over anything. In science, criticisms are paramount. Criticisms are what will improve theories and check for any errors, and successfully eliminate them.
    But that is exactly what Socionics does NOT do, as it does not attempt to refine its fundamentals, like ITR, functions, etc. If we can criticize and improve ITR etc., then we don't have keep blaming the users for mistypings, etc.

    It seems like you don't actually have an ability to understand things, which is not surprising, since you still don't seem to understand the Incompleteness Theorem that I've been hitting home for a while now.

    You don't understand science, and it seems, you don't even understand Socionics, and yet you still claim to understand it. It seems to me that you are a genuinely confused person.

  28. #28
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know what world you live in but every socionist I've read admits socionics is in a sorry state

  29. #29

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I don't know what world you live in but every socionist I've read admits socionics is in a sorry state
    Then maybe they can just criticize the fundamentals like ITR, functions, typings, etc. and refine them, instead of never changing them but keep on "adding" more and more things to justify them, like DarkAngelFireWolf69 does.

    Another problem that people usually do is they refer back to their "originators", like "It says so on this Jung's text, therefore I'm more right" "Augusta said so" "It says so on Model A", and yet they can never explain whatever that they're talking about actually make any sense. Let alone, whatever that they're talking about actually matches up with reality.

  30. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    weird regarding merry quadras being selfish, because by normal conventional parameters of that word, alphas are the most openly generous. we must have vastly different interpretations here.

  31. #31
    Rei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    NOYFB
    TIM
    SLI E6 sp/so
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now that you posted that I'm actually having a hard time definig selfishness...hm, well someone who has a chance to help another - and refuses to do so - while this help wouldn't somehow put them at risk and/or considerably take away from what they have does seem like they're trash lol

    Not sure if just refusing to help but also taking away from others would be selfishness, or is that going onto a different trait, maybe a mix of selfishness with something else?

    I'm not particularly selfish (I think) but I do am very very VERY self-preservation oriented, and while normally I make sure I don't inconvenience others to get what I need; stuff like neglecting social interactions like family reunions or get-togethers with friends just because I don't feel comfortable in them is all fair game to me, so most of my friends and family think I am at the very least self-absorbed. In that way I guess refusing to compromise in order to share/connect with others can also be seen as selfish?

    I also tend to hoard resources and stuff I can indulge in, and even maintain them low key or hidden from the public so I don't have to share lol...well I might just be selfish trash... but whenever I have guests (which is maybe twice a year) they are pampered, well fed, given gifts (fine high quality gifts uknoimsayin'!), entertainment, and a comfortable bed with plush toys upon request.

    When it comes to giving, if I'm caught just existing outside for some reason (I'm usually in my cave-home) and asked for help 9/10 times I'll agree, otherwise I'd feel guilty lol. However the way I normally go about giving is setting aside a savings account specifically for charity or if someone I know is in a pinch.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •