not true.
I think really "good" things should be by definition only those things that are selfless. that's the point.
Nothing is purely selfless.Anything prioritized by the self is inherently selfish. It's almost impossible to do anything unselfish.
We only care about the community under pressure, and ego. This is the case the vast majority of the time.
When something often has a variation that shows as a vast majority, then you can say it is the will of the genome/ or the way the gnome just happens to settle when under the influence of physics/ the desired direction of the genome itself.
I don't think so. if you take a look at communication in general for example.
right now we are sharing information voluntarily.
community benefits everyone.
if you define every act as inherently selfish then a lot of selfish acts end up being win / win, a fair trade.
we may have a lot of bad traits in our genes but we also have a lot of good ones.
The fact the good is weaved is ever-weaved in with the bad means it never is entirely good, dude.
Selfish acts have the selfish gravitation aspect.
So it can benefit or detriment depending on who you are.
People are selfish and want the best flavor of validation more than genuine friendship.
Good for Chad, bad for most of the rest.
I disagree with the term, "sociopaths." Sociopaths are 3% of the world's population and rare to find, if anything, they identify more with Narcissism. Sure, humanity tries to get away with scenarios that involve consequences, but that's perfectly normal, it's human nature to get that rush of adrenaline, almost like a drug.
I agree when it comes to consequences, people can easily shift themselves into being the "good guy," in the scenario. The pressure of consequences is something we all avoid, but the scenarios that conclude with consequences are the one that gives us the biggest adrenaline rush and makes us feel the most happy and fearless.
People don't care about others beyond primal exchange value because it all comes back to human nature, rather than an actual mental illness/diagnosis that's trying to be portrayed here. How a person reacts to certain situations boils down to them as children and how they were raised as well as who influenced them that would impact a choice. We're all born without knowledge of the difference between right and wrong or consequences of one's actions.
I also agree on how children are cruel when no consequences are in place, it goes back to my previous paragraph where if it's not prevented or educated on the difference between what's right and wrong while they are still youthful, it'll affect them down the line especially once there brain is fully developed around the mid-twenties.
Again, sociopath is akin to narcissism. Both go hand in hand.
Clinically sociopath in an unrefined state is a minority.
Sociopaths enjoy doing darkness to others, but in a very latent, pussyfooting, self preservational way.
The compounding narcissism element makes us want social approval, whereas sociopaths are entirely self serving, and are independent from the empathy/ sympathy constraints.
We as a species have empathy/ sympathy constraints but it is very compounded with narcissism, which leads to natural selection.
If we could hear the inner dialogue of animals it would be selfish, mean, cruel, and dominance-desiring just as much as children.
Our empathy neural-circuitry has stipulants that don't make it entirely selfless/ empathetic.
We are just controlling pressure in a way that maintains civilization to help our comfort/ security.
Sociopaths can go without that, and drain civilization for their own benefit.
They enjoy wrecking civilization for thier own joy/ gratification.
Narcissists just do what they want and don't find an issue with people getting hurt. They want to have things go their way at the expense of others whereas sociopaths can enjoy the decimation of it.
Sociopathy puckers up in humanity, but if you're able to be labeled a sociopath, then you're bad at it.
The issue with scientific surveys is that they can only monitor what was failed to be hidden, and is not taboo to talk about.
Most sociological/ worldly scientific experiments (that are so complex that the general population wouldn't bother with it, no primal incentive, leave it to the egg heads) are only publicized if the conclusion is what the scientists want us to see.
I'd say at least 33% of the world is prominently sociopathic, but they're just evolved at hiding it.
And about 50% is narcissistic.
The remainder are exceptions/ fringes/ mixings.
I agree when it comes to consequences, people can easily shift themselves into being the "good guy," in the scenario. The pressure of consequences is something we all avoid, but the scenarios that conclude with consequences are the one that gives us the biggest adrenaline rush and makes us feel the most happy and fearless.
The priorities of most humanity are disgusting, primal, self serving and set the system in their unfair favor.
But there's plenty of fake/ invented explanations of the intangible aspects that lead up to tangible events.
Tangible event: Women walks into sephora, and you ask why.
Intangible lie: I went in for feeling healthy, I don't wanna feel gross.
(And you need to spend thousands of dollars on a pedicure to do that? lol)
Lollll.
People will hide whatever can't be scrutinized in a way that makes them culpable.
To hide their inner darkness, vanity, superficiality.
