Reader claims 80% of people are selfish

80% of people are selfish, according to this calculation

Can you tell if someone is a good or bad person just by looking at them? The question, which sounds like bar talk, hides a debate with more facets than it seems. A reader opens the issue with a numerical thesis: after a lifetime observing others, he concludes that 80% are selfish people who only think about not losing, 10% are psychopaths willing to do anything for a slight advantage, and another 10% are good people. The "sensitivity" he describes is not a mystical gift, but the ability to read intentions before they materialize.

What is sensitivity for detecting intentions

Most participants agree that there is something similar to an atavistic instinct that allows categorizing someone in seconds. A former businessman sums it up bluntly: everyone who approaches wants something —money, sens, entertainment, protection, company— and from there you have to decide if that interest is acceptable or excessive. He himself admits that he was fooled by employees who seemed gold-plated and partners who seemed angels. His current conclusion: negotiate the price upfront.

Some argue that this capacity can be trained. The more you tell the truth in daily life, the sharper it becomes. The problem lies with those who feign kindness: the most dangerous, because they raise no suspicion. The comparison used is that of a chameleon-like android versus a basic one: the first passes as human, the second does not.

The body betrays: physical traits and non-verbal language

One line of analysis goes beyond intuition and argues that psychological qualities are inscribed in the body. A rounded physique suggests peaceful people; a tense mouth, malice; dull eyes, introversion. The face of a specific politician is cited as a library of evil: someone who never rests nor relaxes. Others add gaze, abrupt movements, jaw tension, and tone of voice. Experience in customer-facing jobs is mentioned as the best training: after a couple of years, seeing someone walk in is enough to know if they will cause problems.

Criticism of this approach comes from within: some fail to grasp subtleties and get burned for years. Macro-subtleties, however, are detected from minute one. The difference between perceiving and not perceiving may be the difference between avoiding an opportunist or sharing a table with him.

Interest as the engine of every relationship

The conversation drifts toward an uncomfortable idea: if you always offer something to others, does a selfless relationship exist? The most repeated answer is that humans, like any animal, relate seeking a benefit. A cat approaches because it wants food. The key is not the existence of interest, but its symmetry: as long as both gain something good, there is nothing wrong. The problem arises when only one benefits.

Falling in love is pointed out as the great clouding factor: you don't see that your partner is an opportunist until the initial phase passes. And here enters cold calculation: how much time is lost before detecting that the relationship was an unequal exchange?

The corruption of the good: why nobility is costly

One of the most pessimistic theses in the exchange holds that nobility of spirit is innate and extremely rare. From childhood there are hierarchies, children who fight, compete, and mock the weak. Those with a good disposition become corrupted because socially the good one is the fool: lying is rewarded, not integrating with the marginalized, and belittling those below to ascend. Honesty, courage, and defending the weak are seen as qualities of the weak.

Against this, some advocate diplomacy as a tool: if you treat well someone not spoiled by irreconcilable traumas, they will show their most benign side. There are no movie heroes or news villains; everyone hides secrets. The question is whether that diplomacy is strategy or genuine.

The cost of being fair: waiting to be deceived

A nuance appearing at the end of the exchange: if you are fair and cannot judge anyone beforehand, you must wait to be deceived so that what you already knew is legitimized. It seems crazy, and it is. The tension between prudence and justice is resolved, in practice, with a damage calculation: how many times is it worth giving the benefit of the doubt?

The most repeated answer is not encouraging: two types of people, those who live to annoy you whenever they can and those who live to please you if given the chance. The key is to detect them in time and not give second chances. Trash out.

---

With these elements, the conclusion of the reader who peine the issue is that he is on the verge of throwing in the towel and stopping production. Not physically removing himself, he clarifies, but of letting everything slide. Sensitivity, in the end, serves to know who will let you down. What it does not resolve is what to do with that information when 80% of your environment falls into the category of those who only think about not losing.