Research on the Role of Personal Interest in Human Life

It seems to me that in modern discussions about politics, morality, religion, corruption, wars, or even everyday human behavior, one thing is very often missing — an honest attempt to answer a simple question:

What most often truly drives human behavior?

For many years I have reflected on this question and gradually came to the conclusion that there exists a certain stable pattern in the motivation of human behavior that concerns the overwhelming majority of people.

In future posts I intend to show what a significant role this pattern plays in various spheres of social life. And therefore, understanding and recognizing this phenomenon may allow us to use it as a tool for a deeper analysis of human relations and social processes, and even to some extent for predicting them.

But first I would like to try, step by step and through ordinary life examples, to show that this pattern really does exist and work.

I have already partially touched on this subject in previous discussions in the Political Philosophy and Ethics categories. But gradually I realized that this issue is much broader and perhaps closer precisely to social philosophy.

Every Day

If any of us tries to trace what he or she does during an ordinary day, we will see approximately the following:

You wake up — you need to wash and refresh yourself. You want or need breakfast because lunch is still far away. You need to get dressed before leaving home, and not only decently, but for women often beautifully as well. You go to work to earn money in order to buy food, clothes, pay for housing, water, gas, electricity, and recreation.

At work you try to work better — either to earn more money or to improve your status, again with the same thought of a stable or larger income.

The road home, like the road to work, is usually chosen to be more convenient, faster, cheaper. You stop by a store to buy food or other things — again with the same earned money.

At home — dinner, rest, watching television, which was also once bought with earned money, and then peacefully going to sleep in a warm bed.

And so it goes — every day, every month, every year, practically an entire lifetime.

And then new desires appear: on weekends to enjoy a favorite sport or relax with family outdoors. During vacation — to travel. For this, you may want to buy a car. Later — your own house.

Now try to analyze: what drives a person in all these ordinary actions?

And I think most people will come to the conclusion: the desire to satisfy personal needs, desires, interests.

Yes, this is completely natural, normal, and logical. This is how the overwhelming majority of people in the world live and think.

Historical Perspective

If we look at this historically, then for primitive humans the main concerns were food, clothing, shelter, safety, and reproduction. This was a natural instinct of self-preservation.

Without satisfying these needs, a person simply could not survive.

Those who better secured their interests and needs adapted to life and survived more successfully.

As civilization developed, these basic needs gradually began to be satisfied. But at the same time, expectations also increased: people wanted tastier food, more comfortable homes, more beautiful and convenient clothing.

The striving to satisfy these needs is, in essence, the striving to satisfy personal interests. It is natural, necessary, and beneficial for each individual.

But let us examine this motivation in more detail — beginning with childhood.

About Childhood

As soon as a child is born, he or she already instinctively demands the satisfaction of personal needs. The child cries when hungry, cold, or in pain.

Later, children pull toys toward themselves, sometimes even taking those belonging to others. They try to do what they themselves want, rather than what adults demand.

At school, children usually prefer playing and гуляти rather than making efforts in study. They seek a more advantageous position among peers and try to stand out somehow.

All this is primarily the desire to satisfy one’s own needs and interests. In childhood this manifests itself almost instinctively and is often called childish egoism.

Later, in the upper grades, a young person begins to think about the future: college, university, profession, future life. They begin to take study more seriously if they see benefit in it for themselves.

The same happens among peers: some try to stand out through natural abilities, others through sports, study, clothing, or behavior.

An adult already much more consciously follows personal interests and benefits: choosing a profession, work, place of residence, level of income.

After finishing education, people in choosing work are often guided mainly by personal advantage — within the framework of their own understanding of life.

I also regard parental care for children as a manifestation of personal interest. Parents want to see their children healthy, successful, and happy. This too is part of their personal needs and interests.

Further Life

Beginning their working life, some people immediately try to prove themselves from the best side, work conscientiously, master new skills, improve qualifications. Others, if salary depends little on effort, work less diligently. But when such behavior threatens salary or career, people usually adjust their behavior.

Both the first and the second care about their own benefit.

The desire to defend personal interests appears especially clearly in conflict situations, when a person’s interests collide with the interests of other people or society. Here the majority defend their own interests as strongly as they can.

But there is also a broader question — the meaning of life.

Some people, having created for themselves a more or less stable life, strive only for “tomorrow not to be worse than today.”

Others want to live better and therefore try to achieve more.

For some, the peak of success is a large house, a good car, a secure life, and a happy family.

But there are also people who set great goals before themselves and are capable of sacrificing personal comfort, advantage, and sometimes even life itself for certain ideas or noble aims. Such people do exist. But in my opinion they represent a minority.

Everything stated above may seem so obvious that it appears banal. But it is precisely from such seemingly banal things that the general pattern of human behavior is formed.

After long reflection and attempts to find the most accurate wording possible, I formulated the following pattern:

“The majority of people in the majority of situations are guided by personal interest and personal benefit.”

I called this the Law (or pattern) of Personal Interest — abbreviated as LPI.

I do not deny the existence of altruism. But I believe that in most life situations most people are still guided primarily by their own interests.

Nor do I claim that this is good or bad. I merely believe that it is real, natural, and has the character of a stable pattern.

Unlike the exact sciences, social and philosophical patterns are often demonstrated not by formulas but by a large number of life examples, observations, and analysis of cause-and-effect relationships. Such patterns have a statistical character.

Many people may say:
“This is simply egoism and nothing more.”

But in my opinion, aggressive egoism is only one form of personal interest. A much larger part consists of the so-called reasonable or healthy egoism — when a person, while defending personal interests, is still capable of compromise and coexistence with others.

I am also far from thinking that no one has ever come to similar ideas before. Ancient and later philosophers expressed thoughts about the important role of personal interest in human behavior.

But this exact formulation of the Law I developed myself more than thirty years ago, and only now, being retired, am I trying for the first time to discuss it publicly on a philosophy forum.

In future posts I would like to show how this principle manifests itself in much more serious spheres:
politics, economics, trade, corruption, crime, and other areas of social life.

I realize how ambitious this sounds. But I can no longer keep this idea to myself.

I am ready for criticism and debate. But try, based even on these ordinary life examples, to prove that this pattern does not work

A well-written and clear original post. I have two major criticisms 1) You’ve failed to make your case and 2) Your claim is wrong about human nature.

I think the weakest part of your argument is that it’s circular. You define everyday actions as being motivated for personal benefit and then use that as evidence for your claim that the primary human motivation is for personal benefit. The one that struck me most:

So, sincere and heart-felt care and interest for others is evidence for action in self-interest. If that’s your claim, then no argument in opposition to yours has a chance.

Your description of human social history is a caricature—seems-to-me history. Again, you describe so-called history slanted toward your position and claim it as evidence. Your purported evidence for your position is “a large number of life examples, observations, and analysis of cause-and-effect relationships. Such patterns have a statistical character,” but you haven’t provided any specific testable claim at all beyond your own personal—and uncharitable—interpretation of everyday human behavior.

In my personal experience, concern for the interests of others is a major motivator for human behavior. Of course there are plenty of examples of exploitation of others for personal benefit. As I understand human nature based on reading, observation, and introspection, humans have evolved as social animals. We like and like to be with each other. How could it be any different. No society, no family, could survive without concern for others. Everyday I see people treating others with kindness and concern. We like each other. We like to hang around with each other. We feel a sense of responsibility for others.

3 Likes

What drives us to behave in specific ways is more often the situation than self-interest or alturism or personality. Modify the habit or situation and we behave in other ways.

Give an example of altruism that doesn’t collapse under your definition of “personal insterest.”

If I run into a building to save a stranger, might that just be me wanting my community to be “healthy, successful, and happy”?

The point being that altruism is not the opposite of acting within your personal desires. Altruism is having a specific type of personal desire, which is to benefit others.

An example of not acting within your personal desires is to engage in accidental behavior. Should I save someone from being hit by a car by accidentally bumping into them while playing on my phone, that would not be an expression of my personal desire. It wouldn’t be altruistic either. It would have no moral value at all.

Thanks for posting – an interesting topic. However, I agree with @T_Clark and @Hanover about the argumentative problems inherent in what you’re saying.

Another issue: I realize you’re trying to talk about how the majority of humans live their lives, so that people whose daily vision encompasses more than personal satisfactions are seen as the outliers, but still – the picture you paint in your opening description is to me absolutely chilling. It’s a classic illustration of “alienated man” – people so trapped in their routinized existence that they can’t understand why their life is nothing more than a series of desires. What really worries me about that picture, though, is that you don’t seem to see any problem with it either. “Completely natural, normal, and logical”?

This question reminded me about a famous cartoon -

So, mostly, we are guided by the same instincts as our non-human animal ancestors, with the added bonus for self-reflection.

But, I don’t think that question can ever be answered with one simple answer. I suppose some convoluted rationalizations could be given to explain away every behavior in terms of self-interest, but there really are a lot of exceptions to the rule.

Just this morning while I was driving, a thought came to my mind - that there are two kinds of people when it comes to being faced with the suffering of others. The instinct of some people is to move closer to the suffering person and offer comfort, and for other people the instinct is move away and protect themselves from having negative emotions impact on them.

Our capacity to love makes us do all kinds of selfless things. I was caregiver to my disabled husband for years, and my deep respect and love for him motivated me to giving myself over to do everything in my power to make the road easier for him. I took myself out of the equation. After all, the illness was happening to him, not to me. Even now, after he’s died, I wish I could have done more for him.

I know of two other couples, that when the husband got sick, the wife left. I hesitate to judge them, but clearly they operated from a different motivation than me.

So … our primary motivation, imo, is human connection. It’s just that for some people, they want to take more than they give.

1 Like

Isn’t this a scientific question? It seems to me that all you’ve done thus far is present some examples to verify your hypothesis. It feels kind of wrong to respond in so few words to a post with so many.. so please refer to @T_Clark 's reply on circularity instead of this one.

I believe it’s a myriad of things based upon how individuals make sense of their lives and the world around them.

It’s probably fairly easy to point to almost any behaviour and say that it satisfies a need, which can then be called egoism, or self-interest. We can say this about rampant hedonism or joy-denying self-sacrifice. Which makes me wonder how useful it is as an explanation. If we always choose in order to satisfy ourselves through some psychodynamic process, then how do we understand the differences between people in how that impulse is manifested, and are those differences significant?

@T_Klark

  1. You wrote:

“So sincere and heartfelt care and concern for others is evidence of acting in one’s own self-interest. If you argue this way, then no argument against your position has any chance.”

Dear friend, forgive me, but here you attributed to me — perhaps unintentionally — something I did not say.

I spoke only about PARENTAL care for THEIR OWN children.

I wrote:
“I also regard parental care for children as a manifestation of personal interest. Parents want to see their children healthy, successful, and happy. This too is part of their personal needs and interests.”

  1. “I think the weakest part of your argument is its circularity. You define everyday actions as motivated by self-interest and then use this as evidence for your claim that the primary human motivation is self-interest.”

Again, first of all, you interpret the actions I described only as PERSONAL BENEFIT, while wherever benefit is involved I specifically emphasize it separately. Most of the actions I describe — and repeatedly emphasize throughout the text — as manifestations of PERSONAL INTEREST.

Now regarding “circularity.”

You say that I “DEFINE” and then “USE.”

But I do not invent these actions myself. First of all, I take them from life itself, and then yes, I use them as evidence. What exactly is intellectually dishonest about that?

Everyone will say — and correctly so — that there are countless examples of “how people treat others with kindness and care. We love one another. We enjoy spending time together. We feel responsibility for others.”

Of course I agree.

But from your statement:
“From my personal experience, caring about the interests of others is the main motivator of human behavior”

it does not follow that every person, immediately after leaving home, primarily rushes somewhere to TAKE CARE of others.

People first of all go about their own affairs according to their own interests. And this is what they spend most of the day doing — exactly as I described.

But if during the day a situation arises where they can help someone, then they will most likely help. But not everyone and not always. It depends on the situation.

If helping requires a person to sacrifice significant amounts of time, effort, or personal matters, then some people will indeed do so. These are altruists.

But there will also be people who will weigh the situation and, if helping is not too difficult for them, will help as much as they can. But if major sacrifice is required, they will not always sacrifice too much of their own interests. These are what I call “reasonable egoists.”

And there will also be some who refuse help even demonstratively. These are “aggressive egoists.”

Which of these categories turns out to be the largest — that is precisely the subject of my research.

  1. You wrote:

“We enjoy being with one another. How could it be otherwise? No society, no family could survive without caring for others. Every day I see people treating others with kindness and care. We love one another. We enjoy spending time together. We feel responsibility for others.”

Of course, I agree.

You are speaking about ordinary pleasant, even idyllic situations in life where people’s interests, even when they intersect, do not contradict one another.

But when in the course of this idyllic or simply normal situation those interests collide and become opposed, then we must begin speaking about the priority of personal interests.

Again, an example from life so as not to be unfounded.

As you describe it, imagine people walking in a park with families and children, everyone in a good mood and friendly. They stand politely in line for ice cream, or settle comfortably on the grass, or move closer to the stage at a concert.

Everything is fine.

But when someone rudely cuts in line ahead of you and others, or refuses to let you sit on the grass because you are “too close,” or aggressively pushes through everyone to get near the stage — will you really remain completely calm and benevolent toward this?

Even your children may ask:
“Dad, why didn’t you defend us?”

It is precisely in such situations that the Law of Personal Interest manifests itself most vividly.

You may again say that I deliberately invented such a situation. But does this kind of thing not happen constantly in real life?

Again my reply turned out too long. But excessive shortening is exactly what gives rise to questions like yours — for example about human history.

Perhaps I will address that in a future post. Though that threatens an even longer text.

Parental care for their own children is an example of “sincere and heartfelt care and concern for others.”

I don’t understand how “personal benefit” is different from “personal interest” in this context. I didn’t intend them to mean something different.

I didn’t accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. I only commented on the weakness of your argument.

You misquoted me. What I said was “concern for the interests of others is a major motivator for human behavior”—“a” not “the.”

You need to learn to use the quote feature. It will save you lots of time and will help avoid such mistakes.

Few of my everyday interactions with other people involve significant conflict.

джкоп

jkop

1d

What drives us to behave in specific ways is more often the situation than self-interest or alturism or personality. Modify the habit or situation and we behave in other ways.

It seems that you are treating egoism and altruism as a kind of “habit.” But I do not think they are habits.

They are relatively stable value orientations of a person, and they do not completely change every time the situation changes. That is precisely why they are relatively stable.

An egoist, in most situations, behaves as an egoist. Even if exceptions occasionally occur, this does not turn him into an altruist.

The same applies — perhaps even more strongly — to an altruist.

@Hanover Наведіть приклад альтруїзму, який не підпадає під ваше визначення «особистого інтересу»..

You asked for examples.

  1. You are hurrying to work. An ordinary passerby asks you to explain how to get somewhere. You explain, but see that the person is having difficulty understanding. You offer to personally walk them there and do so, realizing that because of this you may be late for work. And indeed you are late and receive a serious warning from your boss. Despite this, you still consider your action the right thing to do.

  2. You are not a physically strong person, but repeatedly, whenever you see some bully harassing an innocent person, you intervene and get beaten for it. Yet every time you still cannot refrain from intervening.

  3. You constantly help your elderly neighbor with household tasks simply because you humanly feel sorry for her.

In each of these examples, the person sacrifices personal interests for the sake of another person’s interests.

Aggressive egoists would not do this.

Reasonable egoists might:
in the first case — help;
in the second — intervene once but another time not;
and in the third — help, but only if it does not take too much time

This is the first part of my reply to your comment. I will think about the second part later.

That’s not what I say.

Whether behaviour is influenced by personality or situation is a classic question. We do have personalities, but the situation is often more influential.

For example, mountaineers climbing Mount Everest are infamous for leaving their injured or exhausted colleagues to die on the slope. That’s because of the extreme situation, regardless of their individual personalities.

I read about an experiment at a seminar for priests. Each priest was going to hold a speech about the good Samaritan and the importance of helping people in need. On the way to the stage, actors faked an accident with a severely injured victim. But the priests had no time to help, because they were in a hurry to hold their speeches. Did they lack empathy? I’d say they were pushed by the situation, social pressure from clergy and an audience waiting for a speech etc.

@Jay

“The picture you paint in your introductory description is absolutely horrifying to me. It is a classic illustration of the ‘alienated man’ — people so trapped within their routine existence that they cannot understand why their lives are nothing more than a sequence of desires.”

Please tell me what exactly you find horrifying in the picture I described.

Let me list the situations I described:

In everyday life:
A person wakes up, washes, has breakfast, gets dressed.

On the way to work:
chooses a more convenient route.

At work:
earns money in order to satisfy personal life interests and needs.

After work at home:
rests in one way or another.

On weekends:
chooses the kind of rest and leisure he personally enjoys.

Where exactly is the horror here?

Childhood:

Childish egoism is part of human nature.

A child prefers playing rather than doing school homework — where is the horror or routine in that?

Older children:

  1. Desire to stand out among peers;

  2. A changing attitude toward studying;

  3. Choosing future education or work.

Is there horror here?

But already simple childhood interests gradually move toward benefit and advantage.

Adults:

  1. Choosing work or occupation;

  2. Behavior at work.

This already becomes a pursuit of benefit in order to achieve better pay and more fully satisfy further life interests.

Where is the horror or alienation from people here?

None of this prevents a person from functioning normally in society:
their desire to play sports, walk with family in nature, travel (using money previously earned for their own benefit), meet friends, go to the theater or cinema, discuss aesthetic, cultural, intellectual, and even philosophical topics — all these are also their personal NON-MATERIAL interests.

And your own participation, like that of all other users, in this philosophy forum is also your own NON-MATERIAL personal interest.

Is this “sequence of desires,” as you call it, unnatural or unethical?

Moreover, all this behavior guided by personal interests does not prevent a normal person, in certain situations, from selflessly helping others and even sacrificing something personal. This does not contradict my formula in any way.

Now let us speak about the meaning of life.

I do not abandon my position that everything depends on the individual person.

I have no doubt that all participants of this forum — and many philosophically minded people — think deeply about meaning in life.

But first, you are a separate, specific category of people. There may be many of you, but I still maintain that you represent a relatively small part of society. I am speaking about the majority of people.

Second — can you honestly answer me this question:

Do the life goals I listed — a house, comfort, a car — not interest you at all as philosophically minded people? Do you completely reject such goals on principle?

Please answer honestly.

If such life goals are achieved without aggressive egoism (that is, not at the expense of others), then what exactly is immoral or unethical about them?

Why do you think that such a life is merely “deep routine,” and that the personal interests I described prevent people from being normal, socially connected, and non-“alienated” human beings?

Quote:
“One more issue: I understand that you are trying to speak about how most people live, so people whose daily vision extends beyond personal satisfaction are regarded as exceptions.”

First, I am speaking not about “personal satisfaction” but about “personal interests.” This concept is much broader, although it naturally includes satisfaction as one of its elements.

Second, you yourself said “more than.” By doing so, you did not exclude the existence of personal satisfactions in such people as well.

And third, the fact that some people are guided by something greater is also completely natural — both for them and for those who prioritize their own interests, as I mentioned earlier.

Moreover, you could go even further and mention altruists.

I believe such people also exist, and not in small numbers. But I still maintain that they are in the minority.

I said “chilling,” but no matter.

I said “routinized,” and this does matter. When life becomes routinized, the capacity for individual choice and authenticity is diminished. If you’re unfamiliar with the concept, routinization shows up a lot in sociology and existentialism. I don’t know that there’s a single terse definition, but generally it refers to a kind of falling back into habitual or socially expected behavior patterns, often at the behest of a society that has a lot at stake in keeping you comfortable within the power structure.

Rather than address all your questions one by one, let me say a little more about the picture I’m contrasting yours with. A life that responds largely to desires is not unethical, usually, and is quite “natural” in the sense of being biologically understandable: We do what all animals do, on this picture.

But the question is, how much of this is chosen? And if we accept the satisfaction of desires as the primary purpose of our lives, what other choices are we prevented from making? Here I don’t want to impose “exemplary” figures on you, but I’m sure you have them – people from history or from your own acquaintance who seem to experience life on a different, deeper plane, and act accordingly. For us philosophers, perhaps Socrates would be such a figure. For artists, we have many examples to cite, and likewise for agents of social change.

What you call “a pursuit of benefit in order to achieve better pay and more fully satisfy further life interests” is not a perspective such exemplary figures would share. The “further life interests” would be the very things that determine whether that good job is worth getting.

In other words, the issue is not about whether comfort and satisfaction are good things – certainly they are, up to a point. The issue is what role they play in the conceiving of one’s life, where they stand in one’s hierarchy of values and projects.

Yes, and that’s fair enough. But two things: First, the contrasting picture I would paint is not merely about “thinking deeply about meaning.” It’s about actually letting your life be changed by what you think, away from what I’m calling routinization and alienation and toward a deeper enactment of being human – the “different drum,” if you will.

And second, while I agree that the majority of humans may well live (if they can) the sort of life you describe, I don’t think we ought to say, “Well, if that satisfies them, then fine.” I think we ought to be dismayed, and find ways to encourage them to think again, to look again. In the immortal words of Talking Heads:

And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife
And you may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?”
. . . And you may say to yourself, “My God, what have I done?”

They interest me and also frighten me. They’re often desirable, there’s nothing wrong with them in principle, but as a basis for making choices in my life, they seem like Sirens. And that is precisely because I too am vulnerable to their appeal, a huge part of me would be willing to fall back into a life of comfort in a nice home with a nice car. But I made a choice many years ago not to do this, so it would be too late to change now anyway!

. . . Reading this over, I realize it sounds as if I’ve taken a vow of poverty and sacrificed everything to some ideal of authenticity. That’s not even close to true. I have some money, an OK house, an OK car, a more than OK wife! So, what I find really interesting in the questions you raise is this: What are the compromises I’m willing to make in order to put comfort and the satisfaction of desires in their proper place? That’s an ethical question that touches all of us.

@TomShtormTomShtorm

“What most often truly drives human behavior? I think it is many different things, depending on how people make sense of their lives and the world around them.”

I absolutely agree with you that there are many different things that influence a person in each specific situation .

And I also agree that this “depends on how people make sense of their lives and the world around them .”

Surely you would not deny that there are egoists, hedonists, and also altruists. But there is also a large group of people whom I call reasonable egois ts.

And it is precisely the way people “make sense of their lives and the world around them” that divides them into the categories I mentioned ab ove.

My idea is that altruists make up a significantly smaller part of humanity than egoists and reasonable egoists taken together. Perhaps unfortunately, but I think this is rea lity.

“If we always choose some psychodynamic process to satisfy ourselves, then how do we understand the differences between people in the way this impulse manifests itself, and are those differences signifi cant?”

That is exactly how we understand those differences — by assigning people to these different categories. And those differences are indeed signi ficant.

Note:

Here in the Social Philosophy category, I think it could be useful for better mutual understanding in our discussion to introduce my topic “On Human Egoism and the Pattern of Personal Interest,” in which I analyze these concepts in much greater detail and even try to разобраться in the confusion that, in my opinion, exists in the interpretation of these concepts.

I originally posted that topic in the Ethics category, and for now I hesitate to repost it here because the forum rules prohibit publishing the same topic in multiple c ategories.
For now, anyone interested can read more about this topic on Ethics

Perhaps forum participants with more experience could clarify how this is usually h andled here

I am not entirely sure which of my “short” replies you are referring to. I responded to T_Clark with quite a lengthy post, including a discussion of circularity. You are welcome to read it.

And the examples in my topic are certainly not just “a few.” I could provide just as many more.

I can only add that by a person’s personal interests I mean all of their needs, goals, and aspirations to do or possess anything for their own personal benefit or satisfaction. These interests may be material, physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and other non-material interests. They may even be pursued at the expense of others, but in that case I would classify them as aggressive egoism.

Selfless actions performed in the interests of others, where a person sacrifices their own personal interests of any kind, I classify as altruism.

I have published a separate topic on this issue in the Ethics category under the title “On Human Egoism and the Pattern of Personal Interest.” There I examine these questions in detail and, I hope, quite clearly. You are welcome to read it if you are interested.

As for the scientific status of my topic, I would be glad to discuss that separately. Specifically, whether the regularity of the priority of personal interests in human behavior should be regarded as a philosophical law or a scientific law. However, our discussion has not yet reached that question.

No. You must not have traveled much or observed much human behavior.

Yes, On daily, deliberate actions, people do plan their course of action with an intention to satisfy self-interest for the day, the week, the year. But actions/decisions do not all arise out of planning. There are always interruptions to these plans: a neighbor’s house is on fire in the middle of the night, a lost child on the street, an animal needed to be rescued. I have experienced these and all of a sudden, I jumped into action without a moment to think about my own self interest but to remedy a situation as quickly as possible.

Travelers in remote villages would tell you how they got help by interrupting the locals in which the locals would help not thinking a minute ahead of what they could squeeze out of you afterwards.

I wasn’t talking about your replies when I said, “It feels kind of wrong to respond in so few words.” I meant my own reply..[1] It is too short to be of value for you to reply to, so I said that you might as well reply to someone else whose reply is more substantive.


  1. Note that I wrote that before you ever replied to anyone, so I couldn’t have been referring to your replies.. ↩︎

Thanks for the clarification

1 Like