Here’s my rough guesstimate:
~95% of us over-focus on the goal of improving our own well-being in life. Human nature, whether by evolution or original sin, is very selfish. Natural selection tends to allows only altruism toward relatives or people that can pay you back, because genes that don’t favor their own propagation disappear from gene pools. So unsurprisingly, most of us focus more on ourselves than is good for everyone. Only a very small minority among us is too selfless, too thrifty, too self-sacrificial, their error being that of martyrdom and asceticism.
No one will ever reach the “perfect” balance-point between serving their self and serving others, and the question of “how much is too much” will never have a solid answer. But let’s be real; most of us know which side we err on: we are too selfish. My assertion is simple:
~90% of us should work on sacrificing more. You’ll notice the 5% gap; that’s the people who err so slightly on the side of selfishness that there’s no way to tell. Those people aren’t perfect people — any one of them have some other catastrophic tragic flaw. It’s just that they don’t have any way of figuring out whether to sacrifice more or less. I’ll draw a picture:
Do you agree or disagree with the fundamentals of this framework? (Namely, that it’s possible to spend too much or too little focus and resources on your own well being, and it’s also possible to be close enough to the balance point that you’ve got better things to worry about.)
If you think the framework is valid, how would you rewrite the numbers?
(Use this format: “95%, 5%, 2.5%, 2.5%”)