A serious thought, do you think people are generally users in life?

Console

In every aspect of life. Friendships, Relationships, Business, Personal etc.
That there has to be a "gain" for someone to go along with something.

We all know of the "something for something" latin quote (quid pro quo) But is that really the sum of people in general. That if they dont gain something from you, in various forms, you are nothing?

Offy

Console wrote: »

In every aspect of life. Friendships, Relationships, Business, Personal etc.
That there has to be a "gain" for someone to go along with something.

We all know of the "something for something" latin quote (quid pro quo) But is that really the sum of people in general. That if they dont gain something from you, in various forms, you are nothing?

Yes.

amacachi

Obviously, I doubt there's more than a tiny proportion of people who do anything that isn't ultimately for self-benefit. Just because someone doesn't realise they're doing something for their own benefit it doesn't mean they're not.

Aoifey!

People do things to make themselves happier, to get further in life, and plainly, just for themselves. Even if you do something for someone else, it's because it makes you feel good.

Console

Aoifey! wrote: »

People do things to make themselves happier, to get further in life, and plainly, just for themselves. Even if you do something for someone else, it's because it makes you feel good.

Yes. thats "gain" as was mentioned above.

But at what point does your gain become more important? (to the point its using someone)

Saila

Console wrote: »

Yes. thats "gain" as was mentioned above.

But at what point does your gain become more important? (to the point its using someone)

when someone decides they have had enough

Console

Saila wrote: »

when someone decides they have had enough

Sorry could you go into more detail?

MrStuffins

When I saw the thread title, I was honestly expecting the OP to be Hard Luck Woman!

Saila

Console wrote: »

Sorry could you go into more detail?

everyone has a line, they decide where it is and when they are not going to cross it. There is no one size fits all answer

Console

Saila wrote: »

everyone has a line, they decide where it is and when they are not going to cross it. There is no one size fits all answer

Thats the thing. Where does one draw the line. If they can draw the line.

Saila

Console wrote: »

Thats the thing. Where does one draw the line. If they can draw the line.

you make a decision

im invisible

people in general? no
me? maybe, certain situations definitely. in other situations i let myself be used, not too sure what side it balances out on

Console

Saila wrote: »

you make a decision

So your stance is the ol' "everyone is different" foolish speech we here everyone spout about. That human nature just doesnt exsist, just 'cetain people act that way'

great stance. :rolleyes:

Mardy Bum

Bad Faith.

We use ourselves and we use others.

davoxx

no unselfish deed goes unpunished.

hondasam

some people are users and others like to get used. I know people who are only out for themselves but you have to accept them for what they are.

davoxx

hondasam wrote: »

some people are users and others like to get used. I know people who are only out for themselves but you have to accept them for what they are.

do i really? :eek:

Riamfada

Ive never met a completely selfless person. Except for my girlfriend. Everyone else is a jerk.

bnt

It's rarely otherwise, in my experience. When you meet someone who isn't, you want to stay in touch with them. I came from a family of "users", with the exception of a sister who is no longer with us, so I have some experience of this.

But that doesn't mean that I'm selfish, or expect people to do things for me out of pity or a sense of duty i.e. I strive to not be a user myself. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, where someone has to lose for someone else to win. (You can probably tell that I've read Atlas Shrugged: the book talks about "moochers", which is pretty much the same as the OP's description of "user", but with much higher stakes.)

hondasam

davoxx wrote: »

do i really? :eek:

everyone can't be perfect

Duggy747

I work in IT so I have to deal with alot of "users" :pac:


















*groan*

GavRedKing

There is some really caring people out there that look out for others but they are few and far between.

I think human nature is progammed to be self interested and looking out for number 1. Speaking for myself, I do generally put my interests before anyone elses, i wouldnt say im selfish or anything but you got to realise in life not many people will help you unless you try and help yourself.

Just my thoughts.

stovelid

I haven't heard that phrase since I was a kid.

I always preferred sleeveen.

pragmatic1

Aoifey! wrote: »

People do things to make themselves happier, to get further in life, and plainly, just for themselves. Even if you do something for someone else, it's because it makes you feel good.

Dont know if I agree with that e.g if I see my mother lifting something heavy, I'll always take it off her and put it where she wants. I dont do it because it makes me feel good, I do it because I dont want her hurting herself.

pragmatic1

gavredking wrote: »

There is some really caring people out there that look out for others but they are few and far between.

I think human nature is progammed to be self interested and looking out for number 1. Speaking for myself, I do generally put my interests before anyone elses, i wouldnt say im selfish or anything but you got to realise in life not many people will help you unless you try and help yourself.

Just my thoughts.

I agree with you to an extent but there is such thing as alturism and we wouldnt have got this far as a species without it. Its been observed in other animals too.

alexa5x5

Nobody enters into relationship either romantic or otherwise without wanting something in return. What would be the point in human interactions otherwise. Does that make us all inherently selfish, no I don’t think so. You can have a truly satisfying relationship with another person without giving as much as you are receiving, so yes to users, but it only works out well when we are give as much as we are taking.

Latchy

Some people are very good at the use them ,take from them and forget them mentality and others are to weak to tell them to gtfo .

I long ago stopped being pig in the middle for other peoples selfish agendas but I'll be there at the drop of a hat for some family members and close friends

'' some of them want to use you , some of them want to get used by you,some of them want to abuse you , some of them want to be abused ''
''

Sweet Dreams - Eurythmics,

Cianos

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Dont know if I agree with that e.g if I see my mother lifting something heavy, I'll always take it off her and put it where she wants. I dont do it because it makes me feel good, I do it because I dont want her hurting herself.

Yes but you don't want her hurting herself because that will effect you emotionally in a negative way. :rolleyes:

tbh I don't really buy in to this view. It's easy for a skeptic to dismiss anything good around them in this exact fashion...I think it's just a bit of a cop out.

Little Acorn

Console wrote: »

In every aspect of life. Friendships, Relationships, Business, Personal etc.
That there has to be a "gain" for someone to go along with something.

We all know of the "something for something" latin quote (quid pro quo) But is that really the sum of people in general. That if they dont gain something from you, in various forms, you are nothing?

I've discussed this with a fairly philosophical friend of mine before. The idea that with every good deed or act, there is a "gain" for the giver, the feeling of having done a good deed and reaffirming to yourself that you are a good person, such as giving to charities, helping an old lady with with her shopping bags, or even just letting a car pull out infront of you in busy traffic.
I said that some/most people are just simply nice people and do these little things for no other reason other than plain goodness, and that most humans are good.
My friend questions it a lot though, even though he himself would do these everyday good things and doesn't expect any thing in return, he reckons that on a subconscious level humans must do this for the "gain" of feeling good about ourselves. We don't personally set out to get this "reward" feeling, but it happens none the less.
We spoke about relationships, and I think that people do good things all the time for the people that they love, and he said "yes, but you are receiving something that you want and gain from in return", be that reciprocated love, companionship, or friendship. I questioned the case of very bad relationships, and in that case he said that either the person sticking around unhappy has some sort of issue like extremely low self esteem, or in some rarer cases the person gets a kick out of the feeling of martyrdom, of being such a good person for putting up with crap like a cheating spouse. He doesn't believe it is done out of love in those cases.
Our conversation came about because were talking about something else, and he asked "yes, but is there actually such a thing as a selfless act?" " Does selflessness in humans actually exist?"
He doesn't strongly believe that it doesn't, he was just arguing and questioning the possibility that it might not. He often has philosophical thoughts like these.
I said that his theory would be an extremely depressing view to have in life. That there was no such thing as pure goodness, kindness, or love really without a "reward" for the giver?
I refuse to believe in that, I believe that there is goodness and love abundant in humanity. I think there is more good than bad, we just hear more about the bad because that it was stands out as different and everybody talks about. It is exactly because it is rarer that it is a conversation point or makes the news. Only extremely good acts get attention, but lots of smaller good kind acts never get talked about, because they are seen as normal to us humans.
I said I think he was overestimating the "gain" feeling for a lot of simple acts of kindness. People do them regularly without even a second thought, and don't really ponder about "what a good person it makes them".

The only "selfless act" I could think of that he didn't have an annoying argument for was an example of a young single mother [her partner had died] who chose to give her child up for adoption, because they were unable because of maybe the mother having a mental/physical illness, or maybe extreme poverty , to raise a child. The mother loved the child with all her heart, and wanted more than anything else in the world to raise the child, but for whatever extreme reason, it would be a very difficult life for the child. So she chooses to give away their child she love so much for the chance of a much better life and a chance of more happiness.
He tried to say that they would get "a gain" from the feeling of having done the right thing, but I said that the feelings of heartache would far outway that, so much so that "the gain" if it existed would be insignificant.
To this he agreed, and we moved on to more pressing matters like what song to put on youtube next.:p

Don't get me wrong, I don't trust most people, only very few people who I love very much. I do think that a lot of people are out to serve their own interests in some competitive friendships, and especially in careers, and I think that people who are strangers to each other, will obviously often think of their own needs first before that of a stranger. But I think that these strangers/untrustworthy people to me, would be trustworthy and good towards their own family and people they love.
I don't expect everybody to act selflessly towards every single person, [I know I don't], but I do think that most will towards people they love.

Gummy Panda

My user wants me to destroy the MCP

beano345

if you let people use you and walk all over you they certainly will.ever notice some chancers will try something with one person that they know they can get away with it but wouldnt with a person whos dead wide to them.

Knasher

Little Acorn wrote: »

I said that his theory would be an extremely depressing view to have in life. That there was no such thing as pure goodness, kindness, or love really without a "reward" for the giver?
I refuse to believe in that, I believe that there is goodness and love abundant in humanity. I think there is more good than bad, we just hear more about the bad because that it was stands out as different and everybody talks about. It is exactly because it is rarer that it is a conversation point or makes the news. Only extremely good acts get attention, but lots of smaller good kind acts never get talked about, because they are seen as normal to us humans.
I said I think he was overestimating the "gain" feeling for a lot of simple acts of kindness. People do them regularly without even a second thought, and don't really ponder about "what a good person it makes them".

This reminds me of one of my favourite quotes from one of Terry Pratchetts books:

"You're saying humans need ... fantasies to make life bearable."
"NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE."
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers?"
"YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES."
"So we can believe the big ones?"
"YES. JUSTICE. DUTY. MERCY. THAT SORT OF THING."
"They're not the same at all!"
"REALLY? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET YOU ACT, LIKE THERE WAS SOME SORT OF RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
- Susan and Death

The theme of the book, encapsulated by this quote is that there are things in the world that are nothing more than ideas or concepts, but we as a society act like they are real things and by doing so they are given power and *almost* become real. I'd place selflessness and goodness in the same category. Greed is often seen as a bad thing, which is understandable given its destructive potential, however it is also what motivates us and allows us to function as a society. Greed however can motivate selfless behaviour because the idea that we can benefit indirectly from a good deed is pretty deeply ingrained (most religions have a concept of a divine repayment for selfless acts) that by acting selflessly towards others they might do the same towards us. At a fundamental level its motivated by greed, but if we act that it's a real thing then it almost becomes true.

Empathy is probably the emotional capacity which best informs your ability to perform selfless acts. However I would still place greed at the root of empathy, the inclination to maximise your own survival potential by grouping together by helping each other.

Little Acorn wrote: »

The only "selfless act" I could think of that he didn't have an annoying argument for was an example of a young single mother [her partner had died] who chose to give her child up for adoption, because they were unable because of maybe the mother having a mental/physical illness, or maybe extreme poverty , to raise a child. The mother loved the child with all her heart, and wanted more than anything else in the world to raise the child, but for whatever extreme reason, it would be a very difficult life for the child. So she chooses to give away their child she love so much for the chance of a much better life and a chance of more happiness.
He tried to say that they would get "a gain" from the feeling of having done the right thing, but I said that the feelings of heartache would far outway that, so much so that "the gain" if it existed would be insignificant.

All live is driven to propagate and any life which is capable of understanding cause and effect will try to maximise their potential, a direct manifestation of this is greed. Giving a way a child and ignoring your feelings so it can live a better live than you can provide is a difficult choice, but it is also a greedy one because what you are doing is trying to maximise the survival of your genetic line.