I agree with you jenny - i say in my book that the only thing that can overcome our selfishness or others is pure unselfish love - but now i ask how many of the 6 billion people you know that have such? Only in times of distress and life or death of loved ones or even strangers do i see this type of unselfish love, and then as i state - one returns to being selfcentered afterwards.

I'm not convinced that we are all selfish. I've met too many unselfish people in my life to believe that.

Sure I'll grant you that they are the exception rather than the rule, but they most certainly exist in numbers great enough that you can meet them fairly frequently in everyday life.

Also, one fellow on here was arguing that it's human nature to be selfish, and that we are all born selfish as children need to be taught to share. Ironically he was actually using that argument to support Christianity and the need for salavtion.

But it's not. I've seen young children who were very giving. In fact, I knew a woman once who had a young daughter who just wanted to give every away. Her mother had to follow her around to make sure she didn't give way important things.

You could give this little girl a brand new baby doll and she'd take it straight over to the quietest little girl in the room and give it too her. Almost as if she could intuitively see that the shy girl needed attention.

Little tiny tots can sometimes blow your mind. Dumping mankind's arrogance on them just to try to support a bigoted dogmatic religion is truly said. Maybe that's the only true definition of 'evil'

Well, based on that point of view I'm in complete agreement with you.

But isn't that just denying the very concept?

How could you even define 'unselfishness' from that point of view.

Religious people claim that they are being 'unselfish' by following Christ. But if you stop and think about it such an act would be the most selfish thing a person can do. Christ promised to pay for their sins and give them everlasting life. How many people would follow Christ if he didn't have those things to offer? Not too many. In fact no one would.

Why should they? What would be the motivation to follow someone if you aren't going to get something back from it? What they think they are going to get back is the love of a God. They are hoping that by loving God then God will love them. In fact, that's what they are always bragging about how much God loves them and does things for them.

They got the big reward. It was a totally selfish act.

I don't see any being could not think in terms of itself. That defies the very nature of what it means to be aware of one's self.

Look at the Biblical God! It all about ME ME ME!!!

Worship ME!

Obey ME!

Have no other Gods before ME!

ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!

No James what you've done is met people that had no present need to be obviously seen as selfish as to your understanding, as they live outside there safe refuge that is who all are when they are alone and not having to "act" like that which they do not even ponder upon often or at all.

what degee of self one shows in public is what one want's others to perceive them to be seen as in public. This does not mean that they are being deceitful, it is just a part of who they feel they are and want to be recognized as. A good person, an "Unselfish person" We all do that to whatever degree feels comfortable to each.

But do you not see that the very act of thinking your a "Un" selfish person is a self-centered act? you gain self satisfaction of who you believe you are as to what you might be in a different situation at some time past present or future.

I personally believe as i write in my book that the most saintly well thought of person is capable of the most hideous crimes against man if the situation arises for self survival to kick into high gear, and the most depraved person is capable of good actions also - if he feels he will gain something from it. its life dear james no more no less - it is who we are at our core - except in times of desperation on wether of loved ones part or other self sacrificing circumstance, selfless love, as i already stated before.

as to children having had 2 to raise, i'm quite familiar with both their unselfish and their selfish behavior - it is not taught as you may think- my son is actually the inspiration for my book - my mirror as i call him there. from the easrliest age when playing with others his actions could be said to be both good or bad for lack of better words. without any parental intervention others would come and grab his toy away from him and he'd cry, or it could be visa versa? It again be as you state of the little girl you met also. Where did he/she learn that james? Were not talking older kids here were talking 1 or 2 year olds- it was not from me or his mom? We are BORN with this selfish/selfcentered nature - it is not something that is put upon us as we grow - its there from the very beginning and i dont attribute it to anything religious at all - it is what it is.

Now - this does not take away from natural dispositions of us or even animals whos nature may be more trusting or more giving just by being born of that nature, some kids and animals are just that way, others as you must know james are not. -

But you must also keep in mind that no matter how thoughtful or nice or well disposition someone is - does not free them from being self-centered - in fact much of how they continue to be as they grow is because they like the fact that everybody thinks well of them and they love the "self" esteem that it gives them. They love the attention and compliments this brings them and they continue in it for that reason - is that wrong? no of course not - but what i'm driving home is the point that it is being done by them - by all - for self serving reasons james - even you. -

No james as far as i read and understand the book god/jesus/spirit are the quintessential example of self centeredness, everything thats done is for their own selfishness reasons.but thats a topic to long and deep to respond to here.

i will discuss this more if you like tomorrow but its beddy by for now its 1:15 am been up since 9 enough for this selfish guy who wants to sleep -

Oh by the way guys lets try to keep religion out of this if we can i'd like to have a nonreligious discussion for a change with my freinds here - again - selfish me - hahaha

the definitions of possible selfish acts is suspect to infintiy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

does this not leave the mind with no conclusive data to guide, as each day one believe selfishness exist, the more increased this perception becomes.....

if a friend call me a bigot, and there is offense, and it is left within my mind as a truth of wisdom, then the heart has not found resolution, and each day afterward my offense list is compliled mentally, subconsciously if you will, and where does this road lead........

broken friendships, broken loves, broken promises......

if one is selfish, and EMBRACE anothers "selfishness", rather than abhore it, then what can go wrong?

how can two fight over accusations of selfishness if both see it as normal and good, and then the natural core self come out that is NOT most selfish........

it is evil to begin to think one did a selfish act and is bad, as if the heart or mind tell oneself they are selfish, then it cannot be heard and recognized as truth, since the perception it is bad has been taught, now wa lah, we just pumped out another MORE selfish being, lol......

every person is selfish ALL DAY LONG, AS TO BREATH IS SELFISH, AND EACH IS CARING THE OTHER HALF OF THE DAY IN MANY ACTS THE SAME........

to focus on what is percieved as good leave only a partial logic possible to be seen........

to focus on self fixing be the greatest repression of natural wisdom to befall society, as each problem will become as intensified thru a magnifying glass, and seeing oneself as bad more each day, until it consume, just like an addiction, and the view out the eyes will then see and think eveything else is just the same, which bring birds of a feather together, never leaving the nest of comfort of same to accept more..........

if we were not selfish we would not be alive....

nothing in front of the eyes like houses, cars, lights, streets, stores, FOOD, would not be here.........

so if one believes selfishness is the culprit, then give all those things up, since it is from the root of selfishness, even diobolical selfishness.......

we have electricity because thomas edison was so damn selfish all he did was sit in his shop all day and neglect his family........

issac newton was so damn selfish he changed the world, lol....

to try to not be selfish lead to a mindless repeating of all words as self wisdom when nothing has been effected except creating ones own misery and lonliness of failing oneself, which will MAKE ONR FAIL OTHERS THEN THE SAME.........

the thoughts of man have created every last thing in front of the eyes that is made physically, and if the true wisdom that is inside is blocked with this thinking that all of oneself is not equal, by first realizing that all things outside are equal, and everything happens for a GOOD reason, not a BAD one, then no less new is had or seen as digested past only partial perception filters.........

were talking about basic core human logic that can be applied across and spectrum of any potential truth.....

these things are nothing more than a basic understanding of human nature, and are not relgious at all, but still encompass even all of biblical text and principles as well, and any other historical data passed down thru time.....

if a scientist look into any subject, and believe any one thing is greater than another, will not bias effect the verdict, and even the evidence thoroughly examined.......hell yes

no one can really care about anything as it wishes to until one accept oneself, and each word spoken here is totally about this, as what else is there but common good........

these are my fellow men and women, who's feelings are just as real as mine, who have families and friends and all wish and need happiness to enjoy it, so why the hell wouldn't i care..........peace

you bring up core logic david which is good. It is this core logic mixed with core reason that led me to my conclusions as i have written before.

Becomeing aware of what and who you are at your core - Self-centered - is the beginning of finding ways to change behavior in my opinion, till i know who i really am and why i act and say and feel the way i do about evertything - i really can not go forward with working upon that which i find myself to be at my "core".

it is not a discovery for me that lead to "more" self centeredness, but less. It also allowed me to be able to understand everyone else's actions and why they were the way they were.that's a "good" thing i believe.

An example from my life.

when my son was small, there were things he did that upset me and he asked me one time why what he had done had angered me, i don't remeber the answer i gave him now - but what i do remember is thinking about his question. "why did his behavior anger me or upset me"? This was not a breif look at the question by any means. It had far reaching implications for me learning more about myself.

The answer came to me in time that it was because those things he did were things inside me that i did not like about myself, and in seeing him do those things - > which were really him mirroring things he saw in me or me doing< I saw that i was really reacting to those things i did not like about myself or others.He or his actions were not the problem - "I" was the problem!!

That's why i state my mirror / son - was my greatest teacher for me to find out at my core who i really am david.

This is why i say first you must know yourself and all you are before you can change anything or especially try to help others see anything of truths or logic or reason.

Am i in an echo chamber??????

HELLO! , hello,hello,hello ------------

T R I B O

T R I B O

TRIBO

t r i b o

tribo

tribo

Abra >>>>>>>> )))))) (((((( <<<<<<<< Abra

Yes U all are goin to HELL!!! muahahahhahahaaaaaaaa

not me

Here's something to think about on this subject. There are other articles about the Prisoner's Dilemma linked from this page, too.

Reprinted from
The Ethical Spectacle September 1995 http://www.spectacle.org

Introduction: We Are All Prisoners by Jonathan Wallace

The prisoner's dilemma is a game invented at Princeton's Institute of Advanced Science in the 1950's. In the basic scenario after which it is named, two prisoners who the police know to have committed crime A, but whom they wish to convict of the more serious crime B, are held in separate cells and offered a deal:

* The one who testifies implicating the other in crime B will go free, while the other will receive 3 years in prison (the "sucker's payoff").

* If they both testify against each other, each will receive two years.

* If they both remain silent, they will both be convicted of crime A and serve one year.

Thus there are two choices--usually known as to cooperate, in this scenario remain silent, or to defect, which here means to confess. And there are four possible outcomes, depending on your partner's move: you may serve 0, 1, 2 or 3 years in prison.

Cooperation either means you serve one or three years. The results of defection straddle this: you may serve 0 or 2 years. Because you do not know whether you can trust your partner (there is no opportunity to communicate when deciding your move), most rational players will choose to defect in order to maximize the upside (0 years) and minimize the downside (only 2 years instead of 3). Yet the outcome consistently is better for two cooperating players than for two defecting players.

However, in a sequence of games (an "iterated prisoner's dilemma") something different may happen. One or both players may fall into a pattern called "Tit for Tat", in which cooperation is rewarded and defection punished. Effectively, this means doing on this move whatever your partner did on the last. In a computer tournament of programs playing the prisoner's dilemma against one another, held by political scientist Robert Axelrod in 1980, a four line program playing "Tit for Tat" beat out much more complex and sophisticated programs. Yet "Tit for Tat" can only draw; it can never score more points in the game (fewer years, in this scenario) than its partner. On the other hand, a player who, out of moral obligation or naivete, cooperates on every move no matter what the partner does (the All C strategy) will be ignominiously defeated. His partner has no incentive to cooperate, but can defect and earn the greater payoff on every move. The moral: cooperation is best, but only if defection is immediately punished. Axelrod coined the phrase "shadow of the future" to describe the force that keeps a player cooperating. Someone who knows he will never meet you again may have nothing to lose by betraying you; someone who will have to deal with you many times more may be deterred, for fear of retaliation. Thus the future has a longer shadow in the second case.

Human nature being what it is, in some prisoner's dilemmas. both parties will always defect (all D strategy), thus scoring worse than they would if they always cooperated.

The prisoner's dilemma is a simple but powerful idea; once you have hold of it, you see its applicability to every walk of life and all human experience. The prisoner's dilemma has been used to analyze problems in nuclear warfare, anthropology, biology and evolution. In the following essays, I discuss its applicability to love, business, law, politics and software development; introduce some variations on the theme, such as the Gandhi game and the scorpion player; and finally raise the question of whether it is possible to base an ethical system on the prisoner's dilemma.

An Ethic Based on the Prisoner's Dilemma

The lesson of the prisoner's dilemma, that Tit for Tat is the soundest and even the most ethical strategy, runs counter to the teachings of the New Testament. Instead of turning the other cheek, Tit for Tat teaches you the old Testament doctrine of an eye for an eye. In my childhood, the phrase tit for tat never denoted justice; instead, it always was used to describe childish retaliation escalating into uncontrollable hostility. It was said with a sneer: "Yes, that would be tit for tat, wouldn't it?" The message was always to rise above the other person's behavior, to be the first to act like a grownup and promote cooperation.

As always, everything depends on the other player. Gandhi's strategy of defection was successful only because the British strategy of defection (mostly) did not include mass murder. The Jewish strategy of cooperation in occupied Europe failed because Nazi defection meant that all cooperating Jews died--the ultimate sucker's payoff.

Tit for Tat is not the best of ethical standards--that of Jesus, Gandhi and Dr. King, all murder victims, may well be--but Tit for Tat may in fact be the best ethics available for those who wish to survive in our imperfect world.

I am a cooperative person--I find a kind of chemical high in good teamwork--and for years it was my unexamined strategy to continue extending cooperation far beyond the point at which it should have been apparent there would be no reciprocity. I was not able to understand the mysterious motivations, the self deception, that leads other people to defect when there is no long term benefit to be gained. Then, when I abruptly awoke to the fact that I was a sucker, I would quit the game entirely (leaving a job, for example, is a form of defection that by definition ends the game with that particular player, the employer.)

Not all prisoner's dilemmas permit one to walk away, and the purest form of the dilemma, the one most worthy of study, is precisely the one where the parties are inextricably chained to one another, like the U.S. and the Soviet Union were during the cold war. Cooperation and defection were options; leaving the planet to get away from the Soviets was not.

I always cooperated in earlier years because I was a naive optimist. I always believed that if I cooperated long enough, even unilaterally, the other player would come to trust me, and see the value of cooperation. What I refused to see is what the prisoner's dilemma teaches: anyone who plays the "All Cooperate" strategy is a sucker, and incents the other to defect on every move. I now believe that the lesson of the prisoner's dilemma is that a robust ethic succeeds where a weak one fails. Be fair, be strong, reward cooperation and punish defection, and you will have nothing to regret.

Usually. Because even then, life may not let you live according to your lights. Each of us may at any time be presented with choices to which there is no easy or right answer. If you are playing a scorpion, who escalates immoral and destructive tactics in each defection, how do you respond? You walk away from the game if you can, but suppose you can't? Put another way, do you become a Nazi in order to fight the Nazis? Where do you break free, by choosing to die instead?

This is an extreme case. Most people manage only to play against players whose defection will leave them standing (people ruined by their stockbrokers are just one example of not following this advice.) Most of us do have the ability to walk away from at least some prisoner's dilemmas. Looked at this way, you are only a prisoner if you want to be. You always have a choice; you can always, given no other choice, choose to be a sucker rather than a defector.

The prisoner's dilemma gives us insight also on the influence of human xenophobia and racism. When you begin an iterated game, your stereotypes regarding the other player may influence you to defect on the first move. You are especially likely to defect, triggering an unending chain of defections, if the other player belongs to a group you believe is especially likely to defect.

Axelrod highlights how a majority group, playing Tit for Tat with each other but "All Defect" with the members of a minority, will thrive, while the minority, pursuing the same strategy, suffers. A member of the majority group will have more people with whom to cooperate over time, while the minority member will suffer more defections as he comes up against members of the majority. Looked at this way, affirmative action is nothing more than a way to break the series of defections by encouraging a few acts of cooperation that will lead to more. People who want life to be totally race blind are ignoring the different effects on a majority and a minority group of the same strategy of internal cooperation and external defection. The vicious circle must end somewhere, and those fighting affirmative action have not offered any alternative method to end it.

The ultimate and rather lovely lesson of the prisoner's dilemma is that the better I know you, the more entwined our destinies are, the more likely we will learn to cooperate with each other. The shadow of the future must be long (which it is) and we must recognize it (which we do not always). Familiarity breeds cooperation and defection breeds defection and death. In this world, Tit for Tat is the best strategy available.