what defines selfishness amongst fellow humans? it usually connotes self-concern that is excessive or improper (in the sense of harming others) rather than self-interest itself. (Wikipedia) let us first use this piece of information to define he situation that follows. Person X has a piece of information that will benefit himself, as well as the others around him. however, only he has been told of this very important piece of information by Person Y. he has three options now. It is either to
a) actively share this information,
b) passively share it by revealing it when asked, or
c) to keep mum so that only he benefits despite the fact that others may or may not learn this information sooner or later.

the crux of the situation then is to evaluate an appropriate mode of behaviour. normally we tend to (c), because we act to derive the maximum amount of benefit to ourselves. this is what most people would do. however, by doing (a), one ends up being called stupid, or having a lack of wisdom. X introduces his benefit to one person, who tells two other people, who tells two more people, till everyone knows about it. at that point, everyone benefits from the information such that X no longer has an advantage. X’s chance of survival (this term is loosely used) has then been ruined by his own act of supposed folly by introducing more competitors for the same prize. in (b), one achieves a similar effect, albeit much more slowly, and dependent on chance. therefore, (c) ends up being the most ideal choice of an individual acting in his own self-interest.

now humans live in a community, and no man is an island. let us introduce Person Z who is a friend, not a random individual. if X tells Z, both X and Z benefit from this piece of information, and X is thus defined as generous, or a stupid, person. this despite the fact that the scenario cause by (a) may occur as stated above. if X does not tell Z, is he selfish or simply acting in self-interest? to bring this to a previous level, did Y intend X to tell anyone at all? if X tells Z, they end up being competitors for the same resource. important clause: Y can tell X as Y is past that stage.

now for the questions:
should X tell Z anything at all?
if yes, why? is X then lacking in wisdom and being too open mouthed?
if no, why? is X then wise, or selfish?

my personal view:

assuming they will know sooner or later, shouldn’t X share the information with his friends at least? this smaller community will then benefit as opposed to the larger community that they are part of. call it cronyism, nepotism, favouritism, or whatever else you want. i do not care. if X has no ability at all, or is lazy, why should he be concerned with trying to remove the competition when he is not even in the running? if X has the ability, and/or is hardworking, wouldn’t he then stand out above the rest of the competition? in a world with 6 billion people (and counting), what are the odds of only X and Y being the only possessors of that particular bit of information? by X not telling say, 100 people, would it make a difference? say X tells or does not tell his friends? would 10 people make a difference? statistically, by keeping his trap shut, X benefits by a miniscule amount. there is however an opportunity cost of the gratitude of his friends. if they even bother, and if they are even friends or just using him. that brings us to another topic: how to define a friend.

A friend is *gack*….

in this film we hope to show you how not to be seen. Mr Nesbitt has learned the first lesson of not being seen. not to stand up. however he has chosen a very obvious piece of cover. *kaboom*

And now for something completely different.