Egoism has a negative connotation for most people, everything for yourself is not good, you do not think about your fellow man, etc. We are raised to be good to our fellow man and, strictly speaking, that is true. But that doesn’t alter the fact that you can or perhaps should be good to yourself. The extremely negative image of selfishness may be slightly more nuanced, the test shows.
Meaning
The dictionary says that selfishness means being selfish, strongly focused on one’s own needs and not taking other people into account. Acts in his own interest and is only self-oriented. It is a human trait and the word is derived from the Latin ego.
What does it mean?
Negative
Everywhere we can say that it carries a negative connotation, but selfishness is not only negative. If something is in moderation and in balance, then selfishness is not as negative as we often label it. Egoism also includes taking good care of yourself and you can only really mean something to others if you are also good to yourself.
We often recognize selfishness in people who make little or no noise, but when things get to the point in these people, the environment suddenly has to show up and be ready to help. This type of person often ignores what this means for the receiving party. For example, it can come across as very hurtful, but since this type of person is so focused on themselves, he/she is usually not even aware of it.
Positive
This is actually how the egoist is described, but it is also a strong form of egoism. The weakened form, where people take good care of themselves, but do not do so at the expense of others, is not always recognized. If it is already seen, many people still have difficulty with someone taking good care of themselves. Still, taking good care of yourself forms a solid foundation.
Added value?
The added value of a limited dose of selfishness has been demonstrated in scientific research (Clifford, Ohio University). The boundary is sensitive, but the starting point or question is defined as follows: Where is the boundary of being good to yourself or being so good to yourself that you ignore those around you?
Being good to yourself was not explained in terms of material things, but rather in that you love yourself enough, you do not neglect yourself and you also give yourself things. The overall picture determines the extent to which one is happy with oneself and from that basis can and wants to be there for others.
Difficult to be good to yourself
Only just under 20% can tick off the items mentioned earlier, because the rest find it very difficult to love yourself. Giving yourself something is more likely to be pushed back and then someone who may have a more difficult time than themselves be pushed forward. However, the majority of this group also indicates that it is easier to see someone else happy than to dive deep into yourself and understand what is good for yourself.
Giving something to someone else is considered pleasant by 83% . It gives both the giver and the receiver a good feeling. In addition, in almost 20% of cases, people do not think it is done to give it to themselves. This suddenly becomes easier, as the test shows, if the recipient is wealthy. Under the guise that he/she can arrange it himself, the pleasant feeling of granting something to someone becomes less important and people seem to adopt a more selfish attitude. This applies to no fewer than 75% of those who have previously indicated that they would give something to someone else before themselves. Remarkable.
Give yourself something as a gift
Almost 90% must admit that giving themselves something as a gift, especially if it is money they have won or found, gives them a very pleasant feeling. No one does anything with the money won or found. It is striking that most of the people interviewed first think about something material, little about intangible things and about the other through, for example, a good cause. Although almost half give something to charity, the pleasant feeling on a scale of 1 to 10 is at least 2 points lower than when it could be spent on themselves.
Standard of decency or natural behavior?
The question remains to what extent it is ingrained and we learn from home to take good care of the environment and, above all, not to be too selfish, or whether it is our natural behavior. Evolution teaches us that it is partly natural behavior. Because we give our lives for our own children and take in old and dependent relatives or otherwise ensure that they lack nothing. In addition, we are taught at home that you should be good to other people, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, being good to other people does not automatically mean that you should ignore yourself.
Balance is actually what it’s all about and that’s important for everyone, because it’s often said that you can’t really help other people if you’re not good to yourself.