|
something to ponder...
 Is Self-Interest Selfish?
A Modern-Day Examination of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand
Conventional wisdom in the 1990's says we're all supposed to be unselfish, caring individuals who reach out to help others at the merest
hint of a need, with no thought for ourselves. The same conventional wisdom says it's wrong for anyone to amass a great fortune and keep it all to himself, when there are so many people in the world
who lack the basic necessities of life. Karl Marx was a great proponent of this philosophy.
I don't have any particular
problem with helping others. In fact, like anyone else, I rather enjoy being able to bless someone, by providing something
they need (or want) and haven't been able to obtain for themselves. Especially
when it's something I chose to do, of my own volition. I do, however, have trouble with the idea that I should feel guilty
for taking care of my own needs, and those of my family, before looking outside my own tent to be of help to others.
You're So Selfish!
By the wisdom of the '90's, I could probably be considered selfish for making that statement.
But by other standards, it might be said that I was merely acting in my own self-interest. The literal definitions of these
two words are remarkably similar, the differences being mostly attitudinal and a matter of degree.
Selfishness,
in the generally accepted sense of the word, sees nothing, is aware of nothing, and cares for nothing but its own gratification.
Self-interest, on the other hand, while looking to meet its own needs and ensure its long-term security, looks not only at the short-term benefits of its actions, but also to the long-term affect of its present actions on its
own future self-interest.
Adam Smith perhaps
said it best in his 1776 treatise on economics, "The Wealth of Nations". He said that when one produces goods that
are of value to others, and therefore marketable, one "intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an
invisible hand to promote an end which is no part of his intention.... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes
that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
Looking Out For #1
Let's say, for
instance, that I am the owner of a small manufacturing company, and that I spend my entire life "looking out for #1." In every
endeavor, and every circumstance, I determine my course of action based on what I think will be best for me, without taking
into account the interest of any others.
I could use the
cheapest materials available for my product, and use the money I save to remodel my office, but the result would be a lower
quality product, which would probably lead to less-than-satisfied customers (who might not come back again), and could possibly endanger
lives, depending on what type of product I manufacture. Or I could use higher grade materials and produce the best quality
product for my customers. Which is really "looking out for #1?"
In the same vein,
I can choose to provide follow-up service to my customers, to be sure the product they bought from me meets their needs and
expectations. Or I can adopt the popular "let the buyer beware" stance, operating on the premise that there are plenty of
customers out there, and if one or two don't come back, then I'll just sell my product to someone else.
The problem is,
every one or two customers who don't come back know at least five or ten other potential customers, who may never come
through my doors because of what they heard from the "one or two." Which is really "looking out for #1"?
As an employer,
I can provide benefits to my employees in addition to their hourly wages, including medical and other insurance, retirement
savings, and even a profit-sharing program. I can encourage, by means of wage incentives, employee committees and participatory
management, continual product improvement, product line expansion, improved customer service, and ongoing improvement in safety and working conditions.
Or, I can treat
my labor force as a replenishable resource that has nothing to add to the profitability of the company, most of whom don't
need more than the minimum of insurance coverage, and who probably won't stick around long enough to make a pension plan worth the time and trouble. Again, which is really "looking out for #1"?
The Reluctant Altruist
When a businessman conducts
his business to ensure his own best long-term self-interest, he is, in almost every case, also benefiting the
general society. If his direct action is to produce a widget of sufficiently high quality to command a profitable price in
the marketplace, he can continue to conduct his business. That means his workers continue to be gainfully employed, and are
probably not drawing welfare.
If his direct action
is to pay his workers a wage that is worthy of their hire, they can probably afford to buy a car, possibly a computer, and maybe even a house. That means the people
who manufacture cars and computers, and those who build houses, continue to be gainfully employed and are probably not drawing
welfare. And they, too, can probably afford to buy things like cars and computers and houses, keeping even more workers gainfully
employed and off the welfare rolls (and we haven't even mentioned the people who produce
food and clothing!).
If the employer's direct
action is to provide a clean, safe workplace for his employees, good insurance and other fringe benefits, and an atmosphere that encourages their input and
involvement in improving the company's product and service, they are more likely to be happy and healthy, which means lower
absenteeism, which translates to higher productivity, which in turn leads to higher profitability, which means he can continue
to conduct his business, etc.
Even when the capitalist's
direct action is to use the fruits of his labor to purchase something for himself, whether it be food or clothing,
a car, a home, or even a luxury yacht, he is helping to keep other people gainfully employed. Even when he is only meeting
his own personal needs and wants, he is made the reluctant altruist, benefiting the general society.
American Self-Interest
If the United States
is to continue as a major player in the global economic community, it is critical not only that we Americans understand the distinction between self-interest and selfishness, but that we expand that understanding to other parts of the world as well. Because selfishness is not just an American tale,
but rather a human weakness.
The more intimately
involved we become with an international economic system while lacking this basic understanding, the more certain it
is that the American economy will be subject to the officially sanctioned looting not only of its own selfish citizenry, but of every underdeveloped, redistributionist nation in the world.
LF-Feb.96
Author Unknown
Source Site: Click here
Divorce Doesn't Scar Children - Selfish Parents Do
By Rosalind Sedacca, CCT
Divorce is a highly emotional topic. When children are involved the consequences
are far more dramatic - and, not surprisingly, so are our opinions. I know there are many people who sincerely believe that no divorce is a good divorce. That children are always and inevitably
harmed by the physical and emotional separation of their parents. And that parents should - for the sake of the kids - just
stick it out and not rock the boat with divorce or separation until the children are grown.
This
is a particularly prevalent view for many who are grown children of divorce. These adults have experienced the dramatic
life changes that come with divorce and feel permanently scarred as a result.
This response
is certainly understandable. But it's not the final word on this subject. I have another perspective based on the experience of being raised in
a family that chose to stay together "for the sake of the kids." My parents should have divorced early in their marriage.
They were both miserable together, had little respect for each other, and raised two children in a home fraught with anger,
tension, frequent loud arguments and discord.
I remember my mother asking me one
day when I was in early adolescence whether she should divorce Dad. "No," I cried. I wanted a Mom and a Dad like the other
kids. My childhood was miserable and filled with insecurity. Immersed in that insecurity I feared what life would be like
if my parents were divorced. Mom didn't have the courage to do it anyway (those were vastly
different times, especially for women) and she continued in her unhappy marriage for decades more.
Looking back, I feel that was an unfortunate mistake. Neither of my parents were bad people. They
were both just totally mismatched. Their communication skills were miserably lacking and they were wrapped up in winning every
battle at all costs. The cost, of course, was the well-being of their family, especially of their children. I believe that
each of them would have been happier and more fulfilled had they parted ways and remained single or chosen another mate.
Based on my own personal experience, I've come to firmly believe that it's not divorce that scars
our children. It's wounded parents who do not care, understand or see that their behavior is hurting their children. It's
vindictive parents who put down the other spouse in front of their kids.
It's parents who decide they should have sole custody or primary influence over the
children with little regard as to the kid's relationship with the other parent. It's parents who confide their adult dramas
to innocent children who just want to love Mommy and Daddy. It's parents who put financial gain and material decisions over
the emotional well-being of their children.
In essence, it's
selfish parents who put their own needs ahead of those of their totally dependent children when making life-altering
parental decisions. When these parents get a divorce, the consequences are not only sad. Too often they end up scarring innocent psyches. They forget - or are ignorant about - how their decisions will affect their
children in the months, years and, yes, decades ahead.
It is not divorce per se,
but the divorce of two parents so enraged by each other that they make decisions based on blind hatred rather than conscious, educated wisdom. Let's put an end to this kind of behavior for the well-being of everyone in the family.
© Rosalind Sedacca
2007 All rights reserved.
Author's Bio: Rosalind Sedacca, CCT, has been facilitating relationship seminars and workshops for more than fifteen years.
As a Certified Corporate Trainer and professional speaker, she now focuses her attention on coaching troubled families on
how to create a "child-centered divorce." For free articles on this subject, her free ezine, and her book, How Do I Tell the
Kids about the DIVORCE? A Create-a-Storybook Guide to preparing your children -- with love, visit her website, www.childcentereddivorce.com
source site: click here
How Selfish Are You?
By Steve Pavlina
Found at this source site: click here
Several readers have informed
me they’re experiencing tremendous difficulty with the issue of selfishness vs. selflessness. Deep down they want to live a live of greater service to others (STO), but they note that their current lives are designed
almost entirely around service to self (STS). This in turn often leads to feelings of guilt, but usually the guilt isn’t enough to spur action.
There are abundant belief systems which set STS and STO in conflict with each other, usually favoring one over the other.
First there’s the STO-favoring
side. Serving others requires the “death of the self.” The ego is seen as something which must be transcended. In order to become enlightened, one must sacrifice one’s own needs to serve the greater good. Many societies hold people who seem to fit this model in high esteem.
On the other hand, we have
the STS side. People are inherently selfish and cannot be expected to act against their own self interest. Selfishness is rooted in our biology, even encoded
into our genes. We’re ultimately Pavlovian stimulus-response machines driven by pleasure and pain. Those who seem to
serve the greater good only do so because on some level it gives them pleasure, or they’d feel pain if they didn’t.
I think both viewpoints are dysfunctional. They assume STS and STO are in conflict. But are they really?
Where does STS ultimately lead?
What would happen if you were
to fully embrace the STS path and take it as far as you possibly could? What would be the most selfish
life you could possible imagine? What’s the greatest pleasure you can think of?
Would you become like Hitler
and want to conquer the world and put everyone and everything under your control? Ok, so imagine you’ve just become the supreme leader of the planet. Then what? What would you do with all that power? If you didn’t have to keep struggling to maintain it, you’d probably get bored after a while.
For many people the STS path
is rooted in fear. The more money, control, and power you achieve, the more fearful you become of losing it. The pursuit of greater power is endless. Your situation is never totally secure.
But what if you could somehow
master this path and achieve total, absolute security? What would you do then? What would you do if you had no fear?
Perhaps you’d want to
contribute something… make some kind of difference… leave a legacy. If fear and security ceased to motivate you, then what would step in to take its place?
I think the pursuit of STS,
if you think it through far enough and imagine yourself succeeding at every step, will eventually lead you to some form of STO.
Where does STO ultimately lead?
But what if you start from
STO? What if you put others entirely above yourself? What if you aspire to make the greatest possible contribution you can,
whatever the cost to you personally? Where will that lead you?
Imagine you succeed massively at serving others. You’ve cured every known disease, rebalanced the ecosystem, ended poverty and suffering,
and maxed out everyone’s self-esteem. You’ve solved all the problems of humanity. No one even needs your help anymore.
What will you do then? Enjoy
it? Work on yourself for a while? Won’t this eventually lead you back to STS?
Synergy between STS and STO
Now I’m well aware that you’re not going to be able to max out the STS or the STO path within the span of a human lifetime. There will always be more to do on either side. But
this line of thinking got me curious — if maxing out one side leads you back around to the other side, then what does that mean?
To me this indicated that
STS and STO both lie on the same path. When you travel to the end of one, you hit the beginning of the other. Perhaps STS
and STO are far more twisted together, like a giant Mobius strip.
Biologically this made sense
to me. In order for humans to survive, STS and STO must be in balance. If we became totally STS but not STO, we wouldn’t care for our young (among other problems), and we’d eventually die off.
If we became totally STO but not STS, we’d fail to take care of our basic needs and would probably die from neglecting our health.
In order to be optimally STS,
you must be at least partially STO. And in order to be optimally STO, you must be at least partially STS. Sometimes being
selfish is the most selfless thing you can do, and vice versa.
If you want to serve the greater
good, you have to serve your own needs. You have to take care of your health, your financial needs, your education, etc.
If you want to serve your
own interests, you need to support the community around you which will help you succeed. At the very least you may do this financially, by buying products and services from other people.
Diagnosing congruency problems
STS and STO must remain in
balance. It isn’t a matter of choosing one path over the other. You need both.
But what about situations
when they’re in conflict? Certainly I don’t deny such situations exist. But rather than spending lots of time trying to figure out when to choose STS and when to choose STO,
I suggest trying to work on your life path itself to bring STS and STO into greater harmony.
For example, suppose you’re
in a situation where your job is almost entirely STS. You do it for the money or for other perks or for a feeling of security, but your work doesn’t serve the greater good in any meaningful way. Suppose your company manufactures junk food, the
kinds of products that are only going to harm people’s health in the long run. But your company (and you) get paid to do it.
Then in your off time, you
do volunteer work, spend lots of time with your family, and so on. In your personal life you try to be a lot more STO.
STS and STO are in conflict. They’re not in balance.
How many companies do you
know like this? The work they do is almost entirely STS, serving the needs of the company and its investors, but then they also dabble in community service projects and slap a cutesy mission statement
over the whole thing. Internally they’re driven by one set of values (mostly greed), while externally they project a different set of values (mostly service).
This is pure schizophrenia.
If you find yourself in a
situation like this, you can start by getting clear about where you’re overly STS and where you’re overly STO.
Where are you being driven too much by self-interest and damaging others in the process? And where are you sacrificing too
much and hurting yourself?
No cheating
When many people find themselves
in an unbalanced situation, they try to cheat.
They attempt to redefine STS
or STO to fit their current situation. For example, a greed-driven corporation may try to come up with a cutesy mission statement
that casts an STO light on its business goals. But no one buys it. It’s nothing but a whitewash and has no real power to motivate people. Most of the corporate mission statements I’ve seen from Fortune 500 companies fall into this pattern.
They’re written with such fuzzy, imprecise language so as to say nothing of substance. I’d give them more credit
if their mission statements began with, “Our mission is to make our investors filthy rich and to squash our competition.”
I think that would be a more accurate statement of purpose than what makes it through the PR filter.
What happens to individuals
who find themselves in an overly STS situation is that they try to rationalize some STO components. They try to find the good
in what they do. Hey, at least I’m paying my taxes. If I don’t do this job, then someone else will. I’m
just being a good provider.
Don’t lie to yourself.
You know the truth.
Finding the path where STS and STO are congruent
It’s not easy to find
a path where STS and STO are congruent. But it is possible. On such a path, greed and service are both pointing you in the
same direction. While you’ll still need to manage minor conflicts between them, the big picture is balanced. You’ll be able to see that pursuing STS and STO will take you down the same path.
What is the greediest path
you can take? I think if you answer this question deeply enough, you’ll find that it’s also a path filled with service. What is the
path of greatest service? Is it not also a path marked by great pleasure?
I hit the incongruency wall
as I built up my games business. Parts of my work were STS (like sales and marketing).
Other parts were STO (like writing free articles and coaching other developers).
But each part seemed to be separate. I’d usually either be doing STS work or STO work. I’d even try to balance my time between the two of them.
After several years of that,
I began seeing that this manner of living was nuts. So I opted to define a new way of working where I could spend the majority
of my time doing work that is both STS and STO.
The greediest thing I do for
myself is to work on my own personal growth. Growth is my driving force, my greatest STS.
The most service oriented
work I do is to help others grow. If I can give someone a perspective shift or teach them a new skill, it has the potential
to change them for life. And then they may go out and use it to do more STO work.
Well, it wasn’t hard
for me to imagine the kind of work where I could have my cake and eat it too. I realized that there would be tremendous synergy
between working on my own growth (greed) and helping others to grow (service). The more I work on my own growth, the greater my capacity for service.
And the greater my service, the more it feeds back into my own growth.
This was how I ideally imagined
things working, but now that I’m about nine months down this path, I have to say that it’s working.
For example, my decision to
write this blog entry is motivated both by STS and STO reasons.
On the STO side, hopefully
this blog entry will benefit someone who reads it. It might have no effect, or it might help a lot of people. Also, this blog
entry will help generate more traffic to this site, which will hopefully benefit even more people. And there’s tons
of free content here now, so it’s very accessible to a wide audience. I have no doubt that this web site is doing people
some good. Every week I get feedback to that effect. Many readers have told me about multiple shifts they’ve experienced
and how dramatically their results have improved.
Then there’s the STS
side. Writing this blog entry helps me clarify my own ideas. It will generate feedback that will help me see what I’ve
written from other perspectives. People may poke holes in some of it. This may in turn help me to re-evaluate my own thinking, which means that I’ll grow. The ideas from this blog post may also end up in a future book, speech, or seminar, which
means that people who read it today are helping me beta-test these ideas.
Also, each new blog post helps
generate more traffic, which means more ad clicks (immediate revenue) and
more newsletter sign-ups and RSS subscribers. That means a bigger audience to buy info products down the road - books, audio
programs, seminars. It also means more people who might hire me as a speaker or who might attend a seminar of mine 5-10 years
from now. And that ultimately means more income, which means that new growth experiences become accessible to me. New growth
experiences for me means more ideas I can share with others, which feeds back into STO.
So what I do is driven both
by greed and service. To me they’re the same thing. Serving others is being greedy.
Ongoing conflict resolution
Whenever I encounter conflict between STS and STO, I look at the big picture. I try to figure out why the conflict is occurring and engineer it out of existence. It’s not easy, but I feel that the more I do this, the more harmonious
my life becomes.
For example, what if some
mega-corporation offered to pay me an insane amount of money to give a motivational speech to their sales staff? And suppose
this corporation’s purpose is totally incongruent with my values, so by helping their salespeople to sell more, I’d be contributing to a greater problem. Maybe the company has a hideous
environmental record. This seems like a conflict between STS and STO. Do I take the money and give the best speech I can? Do I take the money and give the salespeople bad
advice that will do them more harm than good? Do I decline the offer?
Given my values this kind of situation is one that could very well occur (although the above example is
a bit exaggerated). I have no interest in helping companies make money in a destructive manner, regardless
of pay. But at the same time, I do want to help the people who work at such companies, and corporations hire enormous numbers
of speakers each year, so it isn’t a market I want to write off entirely.
My decision was to focus on
the kinds of speech topics that would allow me to still speak for certain corporations without compromising my values. I won’t speak on business-growth topics like sales or marketing to corporations which I’d rather not see grow.
But I am open to speaking to their people about topics like living consciously, the kinds of topics that could plant the seed
for change. That may seriously reduce the number of people who’d be willing to hire me as a speaker, but the extra money is not
worth the damage to my integrity.
When you work on a task where
STS and STO are both aligned, motivation skyrockets. Having worked like this for nine months now, I’m simply not willing
to lose one side or the other.
There’s a good chance
you find yourself in a situation where STS and STO are in conflict. Maybe it’s your work, your relationship, or your family. Take some time to think about how you could set these two powerful forces in harmony. Instead of having them work against each other, set them both after the same goal. Allow your greed to fuel your service and your service to fuel your greed. Accept and integrate both the selfish and the selfless parts of you. Learn to use both the dark and the light sides of your nature.
The Art of Selfishness: It’s Not What You Think
by Career and Personal Success Coach
Achieving a harmonious balance between your work responsibilities
and your personal life requires that you become selfish. That’s right, selfish. Stop frowning and wipe that look of
disbelief from your face. Let’s look at this concept in more detail by examining the word “selfish” in more
detail.
Selfish vs Self-ish
The reason you’re reading this article right now is because you don’t
have work-life balance and you’re seeking answers to your dilemma. The other reason you don’t have the balance
you desire is because, most likely, you continually put the needs of others before your own. Well, it’s time to stop.
You need to learn how to become self-ish. And you need to start right now.
When I speak of selfishness, I’m not
talking about the negative sense of the word -- about being concerned excessively with oneself, for one’s own advantage
without regard to the well-being of others. This isn’t about living your life at the expense of others. Instead, I’m
talking about self-ish – about being loving, kind and caring towards yourself.
It’s about honoring the
commitments you make to yourself; it’s about taking care of you in all aspects – body, mind, and spirit. Without
this attitude of self-care and nurturing, you are of no use to anyone – not to yourself and certainly not to others.
Harry
Brown wrote in his book, “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World,” that if someone accuses you of being selfish,
the reality is that they are only upset because you aren’t doing what they selfishly want you to do. Thomas J. Leonard,
the late founder of the coaching movement, pointed out that this kind of selfishness is actually neediness in disguise.
By
always taking care of the needs of others, you’re denying them the opportunity to be responsible for themselves and
their own success. Essentially, you’re enabling their inability to take care of themselves – denying them opportunities
to build self-confidence by taking on challenges and working through them.
Getting Started
So how do you stop
giving in to the needs of others so that you can properly take care of yourself first? It all starts with making a commitment
to yourself and then learning how to communicate your needs to others.
We all know about keeping commitments to others.
We show up for meetings, we attend to the needs of our co-workers, our spouse and our children. We’re always there for
everyone else. But, when it comes to ourselves, sometimes the follow through is not nearly so spectacular.
For example,
if you planned a meeting with someone, would you fail to show up? Of course not. Then why do you do this to yourself? You
need to turn this around. You need to take care of your needs and responsibilities first. Everyone has this same responsibility
to themselves. It’s time that you keep your commitments to yourself so that you have the time, energy and other resources
to help others when and how you can.
You might be thinking, “Well, that’s easier said than done. I can’t
say ‘no’ to my boss, my spouse, and, certainly, never to my children.” Yes you can. And, it’s easier
than you think.
Do you hate to say “no”? Don’t worry; you’ll never even need to utter that
word. Thomas Leonard suggested that you start by never making promises. It’s all about developing a new way of communicating
– one that doesn’t harm the relationship between you and others, but just as important, it doesn’t harm
you and the commitments that you make to yourself.
Here are some example phrases you might try with your friends, colleagues,
or family members:
• I’ll get back to you if I get a free moment.
• I’ll see, but I’m
not making any promises.
• Let me think about it and get back to you.
• Do you have an appointment? No?
I’m sorry, but I’m busy
right now, but if you would like to make one … (a great
response for those
who interrupt your work day)
• I’ll come for lunch, but I can’t stay all afternoon.
• Let me
see; I need to get this finished first.
None of these phrases demand that you say “no.” All gracious in
their wording, you’ll never offend others and, at the same time, you don’t need to defend your other work and
life responsibilities. You’ll be much happier with how you’re treating yourself and the positive feelings will
certainly carry over to other parts of your life.
By being selfish, by keeping commitments to yourself and communicating
with others in a way that keeps you responsible to you and your life, and others responsible for their outcomes, you automatically
bring more balance into your daily life.
You’re living life on your own terms. By doing so, you’re serving
your needs and requirements first so that you can actually be in a better position to help others. Unbelievable as this may
seem, it’s actually a win-win situation for everyone when you start to learn how to be more selfish.
Think about
what it would mean to you and your life happiness if you learned the art of selfishness. How will your attitude change once
you learn to honor your commitments to yourself? How will you feel once you start to communicate in ways that are loving and
caring towards yourself, and which empower others to take responsibility for their own needs? Make a commitment to try some
of these suggestions. I’m sure you’ll be pleased with the results.
Author's Bio
Known for her
straightforward coaching style, Krissy helps stressed out, overworked, under appreciated woman working in IT regain control
of their lives and careers.
For tips on personal growth and development sign up for our success tips now! www.krissyjackson.com
Selfishness is a Virtue?
by
Doug Sawin, Ph.D.
When
I was young, they told me that being selfish was bad. They said that I should think of others first. I didn’t understand.
What did they mean and why did they say that? I felt the terrible burn of shame when they said I was being selfish and self-centered.
I couldn’t figure out what I had done wrong. I was only trying to tell them what I wanted, was trying to get what I
wanted or get more of what I wanted. What was wrong with that?
Since that time, I have turned all of that around 180
degrees and I now recognize that selfishness and self-centeredness are virtues—that they are critically necessary to
my personal health and wellbeing. They are also the greatest gifts that I give the people in my life that I love and care
about.
The definition of the word selfish in the dictionary* (“…concerned excessively…with one’s
self…without regard for others…”) is a shame based, morally pejorative definition that was used against
me when I was an eager child who was naturally concerned about myself and interested in improving my lot.
More recently,
I have found it useful to break the word selfish down into its two components self and –ish and look at the meaning
of these two parts. Self refers to me, the person that I am. –ish is defined as “of, related to, or being”.
Combining these, we can see that selfish is “of, related to, or being the entire person of an individual”. That
is, pertaining to, or focused on, ones entire being. Thus, to be selfish is to be conscious of one’s self, one’s
whole self, one’s being.
Is that so bad?
Looking at these definitions makes clear that the true meaning
of the components of the word selfish when they are combined has become lost to a shaming version when defined as a single
word. A version, I believe, designed to control children’s natural tendencies by defining them as bad and wrong and
by inducing shame.
Let’s consider self-centeredness. This one is easier.
In the same dictionary, the
term self-centered has two definitions: 1) independent of outside force or influence: self-sufficient, and 2) concerned solely
with one’s own desires, needs, or interests. While the first definition sounds like a virtue, the second is, again,
morally pejorative and shame based.
When I break the word self-centered down into it’s two components and look
at their meaning, I get a different picture. Again, self is me, my person, my being. Centered is defined as “emotionally
stable and secure”. When I put these together they describe an emotionally stable and secure self. This version definitely
sounds healthy.
A young woman that I love and hold in the highest regard, responded to my assertions about the virtue
of self-centeredness by asking me “Where else would you be centered?” Good point.
I offer you some considerations
about selfish and self-centered to support my argument that they are virtues. First, I distinguish between selfish/self-centered
on the one hand and self-absorbed/self-obsessed on the other. The critical distinction is regard for others.
When
I am self-absorbed/obsessed, I am so blindly focused on my own wants, needs, desires and interests that I disregard and offend
others. I proceed as though others don’t exist and I violate them and their rights.
When I am selfish and self-centered,
I put my wants, needs, desires and interests first. I put them ahead of my regard and caring for others wants, needs, desires
and interests. That is, I take care of myself first and make sure that I am meeting my needs.
When I take care of
myself and my needs are met, my tanks full and I am centered and grounded, I am far more regarding and considerate of others
wants and needs. I have far more to give them than when I put their needs first. When I put others needs first, I feel depleted,
sorry for myself and resentful because I did not get my needs met. To make matters worse, I am most likely to blame others
for this unfortunate condition.
Taking care of me first allows me to be so much more giving and generous with others.
They get all of me with all of my internal resources replenished and filled up. They get me at my best.
An analogy
brings the point home for me. When we fly in an airplane, the attendant informs us of several safety considerations. Among
them is: “Should we loose altitude during your flight, air masks will drop from the compartment above your head. Please
pull them toward your mouth and place the elastic band around your head. If you are traveling with children or other dependents,
put your own mask on first before assisting others with theirs.” That is very wise advice.
The same principle
applies to the interpersonal relationships in your life. Take care of your self first, fully and completely, so that you can
be maximally regarding, considerate and giving to those you love and care about.
Is there any greater virtue?
Author's Bio
Dr. Doug Sawin
is the founder and director of the Life Skills Training Institute (LSTI), which is based in Ladera Ranch, CA. Dr. Sawin (pronounced
“Saw-win”) uses a cross section of approaches, pulling from his dual Ph.D.s in Personal Guidance and Human Development
and his experience of university structures and corporate cultures, to transform lives and business enterprises. He can be
reached by e-mail.
|
 |
|
Entitled Selfishness
Boomer Generation Is in a State of Denial
Robert J. Samuelson - Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A13 - Washington Post
As someone born in late 1945,
I say this to the 76 million or so subsequent baby boomers and particularly to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, our generation's
leading politicians: Shame on us. We are trying to rob our children and grandchildren, putting the country's future at risk in the process. On one of
the great issues of our time, the social and economic costs of our retirement, we have adopted a policy of selfish silence.
As Congress reconvenes, pledges
of "fiscal responsibility" abound. Let me boldly predict: On retirement spending, this Congress will do nothing, just as previous
Congresses have done nothing. Nancy Pelosi promises to "build a better future for all of America's children."
If she were serious, she would back cuts in Social Security and Medicare. President Bush calls "entitlement spending" the central budget
problem. If he were serious, he, too, would propose cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
They are not serious, because few Americans - particularly prospective baby-boom retirees - want them to be. There is a consensus against
candor, because there is no constituency for candor. It's no secret that the 65-and-over population will double by 2030 (to almost 72 million, or 20% of the total population), but hardly anyone wants
to face the implications:
? By
comparison, other budget issues, including the notorious earmarks, are trivial. In 2005, Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid (the main programs for the elderly) cost $1.034 trillion,
twice the amount of defense spending and more than two-fifths of the total federal budget. These programs are projected to
equal about three-quarters of the budget by 2030, if it remains constant as a share of national income.
? Preserving
present retirement benefits automatically imposes huge costs on the young - costs that are economically unsound and
socially unjust. The tax increases required by 2030 could hit 50%, if other spending is maintained as a share of national
income. Or much of the rest of government (from defense to national parks)
would have to be shut down or crippled. Or budget deficits would balloon to quadruple today's level.
? Social
Security and Medicare benefits must be cut to keep down overall costs. Yes, some taxes will be raised and some other
spending cut. But much of the adjustment should come from increasing eligibility ages (ultimately
to 70) and curbing payments to wealthier retirees. Americans live longer and are healthier. They can work
longer and save more for retirement.
Because I've written all this before, I can anticipate some of the
furious responses from prospective retirees. First will be the "social compact" argument: We paid to support today's retirees;
tomorrow's workers must pay to support us. Well, of course they will pay; the question is how much. The alleged compact is
entirely artificial, acknowledged only by those who benefit from it. My three children (ages
16 to 21) didn't endorse it. Judging from the e-mail I receive, neither did many 20- or 30-somethings.
Next I'll hear that the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds, intended to cover future benefits, have been "plundered." Blame Congress and the White
House - not us. This is pure fiction.
Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid are pay-as-you-go programs. Present taxes pay present benefits. In 2005, 86% of Social Security payroll taxes
went to pay current retiree benefits.
True, excess taxes had created
a "surplus" in the Social Security trust fund (it hasn't been "plundered")
of $1.66 trillion in 2005; but that equaled less than four years' worth of present benefits. More important, Medicare and
Medicaid represent three-quarters of the projected spending increase for retirees by 2030.
All the misinformation bespeaks
political evasion. With his rhetorical skills, Clinton might have raised public understanding. Instead, he lowered it by falsely
denouncing the Republicans for attempting to "destroy" Medicare. The first refuge of good Democrats is to accuse the Republicans
of conspiring against old folks by trying to dismantle Social Security and Medicare.
And Bush's credibility is shot,
because he made the problem worse. His Medicare drug benefit increases spending, and though it could have been justified as
part of a grand bargain that reduced other benefits, its isolated enactment was a political giveaway.
The failure to communicate
also implicates many pundits and think tanks, liberal and conservative. Pundits usually speak in bland generalities. They
support "fiscal responsibility" and "entitlement reform" and oppose big budget deficits. Less often do they say plainly that
people need to work longer and that retirees need to lose some benefits.
Think tanks endlessly publish
technical reports on Social Security and Medicare, but most avoid the big issues. Are present benefits justified? How big
can government become before the resulting taxes or deficits harm the economy?
Opportunities for gradual change
have been squandered. These public failings are also mirrored privately. I know many bright, politically engaged boomers who
can summon vast concern or outrage about global warming, corporate corruption, foreign policy, budget deficits and much more
- but somehow, their own Social Security and Medicare benefits rarely come up for discussion or criticism.
Older boomers (say, those born by 1955) are the most cynical, hoping their benefits will be grandfathered
in when inevitable cuts occur in the future.
Our children will not be so
blind to this hypocrisy. We have managed to take successful programs - Social Security and Medicare - and turn them into huge
problems by our self-centered inattention. Baby boomers seem eager to "reinvent retirement" in all ways except those that
might threaten their pocketbooks.
|
|
|
|
|
Selfish – The Dilemma
Today I’m finding that I’m
selfish. Here’s the dilemma I’m facing -- a coworker at my second job needs me to work for her tomorrow so that
she can drive to a different state to pick up her family who needs to be present for her surgery that she will be having next
week. The thing is, I really don’t want to help this coworker out. It’s not that she’s not a friend, it’s
just that I’m a bit selfish (likely an understatement). Normally I don’t do this kind of thing, and by that I
mean I don’t normally go out of my way to help people when there’s nothing in it for me.
It’s not
that I don’t have a good excuse. The thing is, by the time I could get there to work for her, I will have already worked
ten hours at my first job. Not only that, but my second job is by no means a walk in the park. I usually only work at this
second job once a week for the sake of my sanity, and when I do work those few hours, I need to be rested in order to be able
to handle what I will face. If I work for her tomorrow, I won’t be rested, and it will not be easy. Considering all
this, I think I have a good enough excuse to get out of helping her. Problem is, all this isn’t a good enough excuse
for my conscience. My female coworker may not know it, but I know that I would survive the day. I may not like it, but after
some rest it would all be water under the bridge and I would be no worse for the wear.
My natural tendency would be
different if this concerned a beautiful girl who I wanted to like me. If this were the case, I would help the girl out, no
questions asked. But truth is that the girl isn’t someone I find attractive. Because of this, it isn’t natural
for me to want to help her out knowing that it’s going be hard on me. My natural instinct is to think only of what’s
in it for me.
Selfish – What’s in it for me?
Am
I just being selfish? I keep thinking that maybe this is a test or an opportunity from God…. Perhaps if I’m selfless
and help the girl out, then maybe God will reward me with something I really want. But if that were the case, then my decision
to help her would actually not be truly selfless because I would still be basing my decision on the possibility that God might
throw me a bone to thank me for my efforts. A truly selfless act would be for me to help this girl, and expect nothing in
return. Selflessness would be to base my decision solely on the fact that this girl needs my help.
This all brings
me back to a memory I have of a class I took at my church. A couple was sharing with our group their experience of giving
money to the church. The husband was explaining how they had given money to the church for many months, and nothing came to
them in return. The husband was disappointed because he was expecting God to reward him for his sacrifice; consequently, the
wife told him that he must give and expect nothing in return. The husband told our group that after listening to his wife’s
advice, he was eventually able to take on this attitude of expecting nothing in return for what God asked of him. After his
change of heart, God blessed his family above and beyond their needs.
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure,
pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured
to you" (Luke 6:38).
The husband was likely thinking of this verse when he
thought God would bless him simply for tithing, but it isn’t our money God is interested it -- He only cares that our
hearts are in the right place.
Selfish – Can I change my perspective?
I
realized tonight that the husband’s story parallels my current dilemma. It is not that God would reward me for doing
something good, but it is that God is expecting this kind of behavior from me regardless.
So knowing this, making
tonight’s decision provides a new perspective for me. I must admit that I am a very selfish person. I have suspected
that for quite a while now.
I was right about one thing, though, and that is this: tonight’s situation is indeed
an opportunity. It is an opportunity to see what is important to God, and I now know what I must do if I ever hope to reflect
Him.
“Turn my heart toward your statutes and not toward selfish gain” (Psalm 119:36).
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit,
but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to
the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
“Who, being in very nature
God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even
death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:3-8). source site: click here
December 15, 2008
Selfish is as
selfish does
By Bookworm
I frequently bemoan the fact
that my children are extraordinarily selfish, in a way that my peers and I weren't when
we were their age. This isn't just my own rose-colored memory looking back on my childhood perfections when compared
to my own children. My mother and her friends confirm that we children (all of whom
grew up in the 1960s and 1970s) were definitely less self-centered and more willing to contribute to the family's
well-being without financial incentives or punitive coercion.
In my own mind, I've often
attributed the relative unselfishness my friends and I demonstrated to the fact that my friends and I all had parents scarred
either by (a) WWII or (b) escaping the Vietnamese/Cambodian Communists or (c) escaping from the Chinese Communists.
Add to those travails the fact that almost all of our parents, in light of their recent immigrant status, had little money
and worked ferociously hard to provide life's basics.
These shared histories meant
that my friends and I saw our parents as amazing survivors, who willingly sacrificed their time and their energy to support us. We also saw them as genuine victims, made fragile by unimaginably awful experiences. In light of their lives,
it didn't seem like too much to clean a room, set a table, empty a dishwasher or vacuum a room.
My children, on the other
hand (and my friend's and neighbor's children too), see their parents as
people of boundless competence with endless supplies of money -- and that despite the fact that none of my friends and neighbors
are rich, although we're all comfortably off. That we all work extremely hard to maintain that comfortable economic
situation seems to elude the kids, something that strikes me as peculiar given that my friends and I were very aware of our
parents' sacrifices. This generation seems unwilling to see the efforts made on their behalf.
Recent experiences, though,
have made me wonder if I'm thinking too narrowly about the selfishness of today's young people when I focus only on parent-child
dynamics. The other day, I attended my daughter's middle-school play. The short review is that the school drama
coach neglected to teach these young thespians what is probably the most basic skill for a stage performance -- elocution.
Even though they were amplified, I was unable to understand a single word these young actors slurred, whispered and mumbled (and that despite the fact that I have extremely good hearing).
I can say nothing more about the show, since I had no idea what was going on up there, on the stage.
(And is it just me, or are young people deliberately speaking
in rushed and mumbled speech? It's certainly a trend amongst the kids in my neighborhood. I've told these children,
my own included, that if they want to communicate something to me, it's their responsibility to speak clearly. Otherwise,
I'm just going to ignore them, since I have neither the time nor the energy to decipher their speech.)
While I can say little about the
show, I have a lot to say about the audience. Half the audience was made up of children attending the same school
as those performing. And of these children, half talked non-stop throughout the performance. Keep in mind as you
think about this rudeness that the show was one presented by their friends and peers. Nevertheless, they could not be
bothered to stop talking, or even to lower their voices to a whisper. Bad manners? Definitely. But also
the kind of selfishness that elevates ones own needs ("I must talk") over those of all others
present (such as those performing or those trying to listen).
Intermission was no better.
When we left the auditorium, I was buffeted left and right by middle schoolers who, in their own minds, had to get to their
various destinations immediately, without regard to those luckless souls caught between them and their goals. Nor were
the hard shoves I received followed by apologies. These kids had gotten what they wanted -- motion -- and the Hell with
other people's petty concerns (such as the need to remain upright and without bruises).
I might have shaken off
these acts (and, indeed, I had mostly forgotten them by morning), but for
the fact that I had to drive into San Francisco the next day. Again, I ended up on the receiving end of startlingly
selfish behavior -- behavior that wasn't directed at me personally, but that showed an attitude
that had the actor as the center of a universe in which no one else existed.
At one intersection,
several adult pedestrians (adults! not teens) sauntered slowly across the street on a green light, as drivers patiently
waited for the lights to change. To my surprise, when the lights changed, these same adults continued their slow saunter,
leaving us drivers fuming as the lights went through a full cycle again, leaving us still sitting at that intersection, having
missed our green and now being forced to wait out another red. Nor did this happen to me just once, or twice, or even
three times -- I got hit by this pedestrian behavior four times before I got out of the City.
One sees the exact same behavior
from bicyclists, by the way. There's a very curvy road that lies between me and a common destination, and it's quite
popular with bicyclists. Since the road is too narrow for bike lanes, and visibility is poor, one would think that these
vulnerable bicyclists would bike carefully. While some are indeed quite careful, a significant number seem to feel they own the
road. I can't tell you the number of times I've come around a blind corner to find two or three bicyclists cruising
side by side down the middle of the road, deep in conversation.
I used to think that the
startling increase in car-pedestrian and car-bicyclists accidents was because drivers were more careless. While that
may be true, I'm beginning to suspect that the pedestrians and bicyclists, despite the obvious disparities in their vulnerability in any engagement with a car, are so intent upon their own desires, and so happy to thumb their noses (figuratively) at cars,
that they willingly put themselves into life-threatening situations. (And indeed,
statistics show that, in the majority of bike-car accidents, the bicyclist is at fault.)
I could go on with this
litany, but I'll refrain from selfishly boring you. I'm also willing to bet that you
can instantly summon to mind examples of behavior in which people, especially young people, elevated their own needs to such
preeminence that everything around them became secondary. And it's not personal. That is, the actors didn't mumble
to insult me. The pedestrians didn't saunter to frustrate me. The neighborhood kids don't speak
unintelligibly to befuddle me. The audience wasn't rude to destroy my pleasure in the show.
The pushy children weren't out to get me. Instead, in each instance, the actor willingly abandoned the needs
of the community (safety, efficiency, courtesy, etc.), simply because the actor thought that his or her needs were paramount, while
everyone else's were of no account. In other words, these were profound acts of selfishness
by tweens, teens and young adults apparently incapable of thinking beyond their own immediate desires.
If you want, you can view
this trend as a microcosm of something playing out on a larger scale across America. In an entitlement culture such
as ours has become, there's no room any more for the gentle give and take that comes with a live and let live paradigm.
Instead, every interest groups' rights are so overarching that there is no room on the stage for any other group.
It's therefore fascinating
to witness spectacle of blacks, gays, women, Hispanics, the handicapped, etc., all duking it out for the title of "most victimized,
pathetic, needy interest group in America." It's all about me, me, me. There is no hypothetical public forum
called "America" in which people ease their way around each other using basic courtesy, thoughtfulness, and a little give
and take. It's no wonder, therefore, that my children are infected by this sense of entitlement, one that sees their
needs as the only needs, and all other people as mere facilitators for the fulfillment of their
selfish desires.
In a way, Obama is the ne plus ultra of this selfishness phenomenon.
He is, after all, someone whose whole career is devoid of any actual accomplishments other than self-aggrandizement, at which
he is a master. His needs are so preeminent in his own mind, that he's willing to sacrifice an entire country to his
inexperience, because he thinks it would be a fine idea for him to get the recognition he feels he deserves simply because
he is who he is. What's sadder than his narcissistic desire for the fulfillment of his own selfish
need for aggrandizement is that a little more than half of our citizens displayed the same traits in voting for him:
they didn't cast their votes because they thought he'd be good for America; they cast those votes because they wanted to make
themselves feel good about voting for a black man. The Hell with America; it's all about me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
