"people only look out for number one"

Post Reply New Topic

wtf does this mean? i know what the sentence means by definition, but what does it actually mean?

ive been told (and heard, sometimes from other threads here) that being nice doesnt get you anywhere.

1) apparently i cant do anything nice for anyone else, just because i want to, without wanting something in return

2) i shouldnt be doing anything for anyone else (that would be a friend for example), see 1.


why couldnt everyone, or at least everyone that mattered or was involved with just all do nice things because they want to do nice things?

Doesn't the quote mean, "people only look out for themselves"?

Be a jerk, and nobody likes you.

Be a nice guy, and people take advantage of you.

Either way, it never works out in the end.

So, definitely don't be a jerk.


So what? What difference does it make? It's all in the interpretation anyway. (I'm being sincere here, BTW, and not meaning to be snarky at all.)

Suppose you went out of your way to treat someone really well, and that person took it for granted -- just a very generalized example. Well, you got to be the guy who treated someone really well. Isn't that worth something? Why does the response count for so much?


Nah ... it always works out in the end. Sometimes it's difficult to know where "the end" really is ... I'll give you that.

Be a smart guy, and people will argue with you.

Be a tough guy, and people will pick fights with you.


But be a little "crazy" and people will leave you alone!



I think the OP may want to consider this idea: Nobody does anything for anyone else unless they expect something in return. Some do it for money, some do it for future favors, some do it for a special places in Heaven (or to avoid going to Hell), and some people do it just for the warm, fuzzy feeling it gives them. Altruism is the ideal; and as such, it can never be attained, only simulated.

What would you say about a hypothetical situation in which someone does something good simply because he believes it's the right thing to do? In other words, you can't identify any "return." He's not getting paid, doesn't expect a future favor, doesn't believe in heaven or hell, doesn't get a particularly warm or fuzzy or any feeling about it. He just has a sort of depersonalized sense that something needs to get done in this situation -- and he goes ahead and does it. Without any fanfare, or celebration, or spectacle, or really much conscious thought at all. Just does it. He's indifferent to whether he himself does it or someone else does it; but, he's guided by the sense that someone should do it. Do you believe it can happen? Does happen? What then?

Sounds like one of those You can't Win situations.

Be nice and caring, people may think you're a phony and bullshitting.

Don't do anything, people think you are aloof and don't care about others.

It's an NT thing: being a politician. Being selfish while APPEARING unselfish, at least to enough people so you achieve your objectives. it's a very difficult trick to pull off, and aspies are very bad at it: we tend to say what we mean.

If you ignore what people say and watch what they do, you will see that their actions are designed to maximise their personal income. Hence so many people have big houses, and the more able they are, the richer they are. Yet if you listen to their words they sound like they only care for others. Tony Blair is a perfect example of this. If you listen to his words he sounds completely sincere and convincing, even inspirational. He appears like a genuine nice guy who wants nothing more than to make the world a better place. Yet while we may argue whether he left a trail of wars and broken promises behind him, the one thing he is unambiguously good at is making himself rich. George W Bush, Obama, self styled religious prophets, busines leaders, etc., and all the others are the same. We can argue about their achievements, but the one certainty is that they ALWAYS make themselves rich. The guy next door is the same but lacks the skills to be quite as successful. But if you talk to any of these people they ALWAYS sound like they put others first.

I fell for this completely when growing up. Everyone around me spoke like they cared about global poverty, science, etc., and so I devoted myself to those things, thinking that would make my life a success. But now I am old I realize that all they cared about is personal comfort: when I was spending my life on research and deep thought, they were furthering their lucrative careers.

Successfully looking after number one means being very good at deception. That's why we have problems with it.

Last edited by trappedinhell on 07 Jun 2011, 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Umm I think it just means looking after yourself.

Also related is the saying,

No good deed goes unpunished.

As the OP noted, that creates a paradox: honestly put yourself first and you're a jerk, honestly put others first and they use you. So looking after number one in that simple sense does not work. Tthe trick is to put yourself first while others THINK you are putting them first, then you escape the lose-lose situation.

Of course, an even better solution is to create a more transparent society where real behavior is easier to spot, but that is another topic.

Social relations requires the use of complex layers of political correctness, diplomacy, subtleness and ambiguity to operate in NT society.

The advantage is that it overcomes social disparities and allows groups to work together that would otherwise have competing agendas or historic disputes.

The disadvantage is that if you are unable to read the signals or coded language then you leave yourself vulnerable to exploitation or being misunderstood. Yes, it does leave one feeling they have little integrity left in this world.

I'd much rather be vulnerable to exploitation than become so paranoid I can never help anybody else. On the other hand, letting people take advantage of you doesn't help them, so it's important to prevent it. Otherwise you teach them that they can get away with taking advantage of people, and they may target people who are less resilient than you are.

I completely agree. However, in an age of mass communication I think there is a better way: business. Most of us use Microsoft products despite disliking Microsoft. We pay taxes to the government despite disliking the government. We buy Chinese products despite disliking the Chinese government. Business leaders can play golf together despite being at open war. Information is better than obfuscation.

When knowledge is power, obfuscation is a tool of trade in keeping information locked away.
Most western governments may be democracies in name but they are structured like national security states where the state operates behind the scenes interacting with the business community, international stakeholders and the tax paying public.

Nowadays anything can fall under the umbrella of national security and the public don't need to be told. With this type of framework as a benchmark for smaller organisations it's no wonder that truth is always the first casualty in any bureaucracy.

George Orwell said it best
*During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.*

Last edited by cyberdad on 07 Jun 2011, 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would say that since it is only a hypothetical situation, it really doesn't matter, so I shall not be bothered to read the rest of it.