By

Joe Wilkins

Copyright  © 2014

There’s a basic truth about us human beings that, when understood, eases our ability to make sense of all the turmoil that’s occurring in politics and social discord in America today. I call it the “I” factor, which asserts that all human beings think about themselves first and others second. Religious people might call it original sin. The ancient Greeks called it hubris. We counselors and psychologists call it narcissism. The guy in the street might call it self-centeredness.

Political progressives might state that, “No, I do not think of myself first. I think of the common good first! I want there to be peace and harmony in the world so we can all live together without strife and turmoil.” A noble goal, but I offer the proposition that while kumbahyah-togetherness is important to them, it is secondary to the more primary need to serve themselves first! With their efforts to ignore or oppose opposite views—despite possible facts to the contrary–they are demonstrating that these strongly held attitudes about serving their fellow man are actually supported by a more fundamental need, which is to feel good about themselves by supporting such causes—ideals which may or may not be supported by objective reality. Some progressives’ lifestyles, careers, and self images may become based on their positions on such matters, making these issues of primary importance to them. This whole process reflects their primary state of mind, and demonstrates that they are defending themselves first and their actual causes secondly.

This pervasive process affects all humankind in varying degrees. For illustration, people who hold certain polarizing positions—such as global warming, political ideologies, religious orientations, and other views—often structure their entire lives in support of these positions. Over time, this support can evolve to mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, strong enough to incline them to alter everything about their lives to support their views even more intensely—often when the facts suggest they should moderate or change their behavior. The social psychologists have termed this process the “effort justification hypothesis,” which states that people who hold strong attitudes about certain beliefs and opinions, will do almost anything to defend these attitudes—even when reality proves them wrong. And, paradoxically, they will engage in continuous behavior to prove themselves “right,” even going to the extent of “recruiting” more converts to their views, supposedly supporting the notion that if everyone thinks like them then they must be right!

All this illustrates that there is something inclining all of us to serve ourselves first, nurturing that state of mind around which we orient our entire lives, followed by structuring our lives to conform to these attitudes. Moreover, other people come in second to this process. We might say that we all have a bit of narcissism in our souls.

This is much like two-year old children who “want what they want when they want it,” and go into tantrums when their parents do not comply with their wishes. In young children, this I-Factor often prompts self-centered outbursts of anger, because they have not yet learned to consider other people’s feelings and needs. Unfortunately, some children pass into adulthood never learning the need to consider others also.

Of course, most people, if properly parented, modify this I-Factor sufficiently to consider others’ positions— but they still value themselves first. If a tiger charges into a primitive village, threatening to kill and eat someone, the first instinct will be for everyone to react to save themselves. Closely following this will be for them to save their loved ones.

Soldiers in combat sometimes sacrifice themselves for their comrades or their country—but this is in service to some “code” they have been taught and believe in. If they did not follow the code, they would have to live with guilt and shame, which is something they are unwilling to endure. Paradoxically, they are still serving themselves first by avoiding shame, even though it could cost them their lives.

I have known people to commit suicide so others will not have to take care of them in their old age. A first impression might be that they do not want to inconvenience others by becoming dependent on them for care, but what they are usually doing is taking care of their need to be independent, and not rely on others. Thus, they are serving themselves first, and others second. I once had an elderly client who said if he got ill to the point he was dependent on others, he’d put a gun to his head. It was more important for him to maintain his “I-Factor” of being independent than to worry about how his suicide would affect his family and friends. Fortunately, he died of natural causes—with no one else having to care for him.

In this regard, conservative people have the same orientation as progressives. They have political and social positions they want to promote, and they too are serving their ideologies first and others second. Some religious leaders are in the same position when they promote their religious beliefs to their followers, suggesting they are taking care of themselves first, and others second.

Even in the animal world, we see this scenario playing out. A mother bear has to feed herself before nursing her cubs. If she does not they all die. This is pretty much true of all animals. The mother bear is like the dedicated soldier in combat: she instinctively preserves herself first against all threats, but will fight to the death to protect those cubs.

Ancient humankind had a similar orientation: survival meant serving the tribe, in hunting, gathering food, building shelter, etc, but all had to serve themselves first, to do what they had to do to stay alive, so they could serve the tribe.

Psychologists have explained this conflict between the “I-Factor” versus serving the rest of humankind, with the concept of independence vs. mutual inter–dependence: We have to maintain our own independence first, thus freeing us to then serve others. But we cannot serve others very well if we neglect our own needs. Since few can survive solely on their own, we are forced to think of ourselves first, keeping ourselves fit and healthy, so  we can then serve others to get certain mutual needs met, promoting the survival of us all.

However, many well-intentioned persons get confused when going about this process. Our recent Congressional leaders are prime examples. For instance our Congress-persons, in the recent health care fiasco, have evolved into two opposing factions, whereby the Democrats got what they wanted by out-maneuvering the Republicans. In essence, they went to “war” and defeated the Republican opposition. The Harry Reids and the Nancy Pelosis got what they wanted by using superior Congressional   force. In addition, they were serving themselves first by passing legislation that completed their fundamental psychological need to give the American people what they believed was needed, completing a deep-seated need- fulfillment within themselves. The little voice inside them was probably saying something like, “We have given the American people a great healthcare system, so what  wonderful  people we are!” This helps them complete benevolent self-images of themselves, which is necessary to maintain their basic egos, and the ego always demands to be served first.

Thus, we have the great conflict within ourselves to reconcile this primal need to serve ourselves first and others second. The narcissistic and pathological people never consider others first, but we will dismiss them for obvious reasons and look at the average citizen who faces this dilemma. What does one do?

One technique is to “surrender” our egos to a higher power. This is a process whereby we look for something outside ourselves to reconcile life’s problems. Some people surrender to God, Allah, the Happy Hunting Ground, Buddha, etc. This helps them  struggle with their own egos, and they can assign a portion of the responsibility to their God of choice:  “It’s what God wants me to do!” Others typically assign a portion of their egos to their ideal view of government, believing it can create a better world.

Some alcoholics and drug addicts, when they have demonstrated they cannot stay sober using their own willpower, are asked to surrender their egos to the God of their understanding. This suggests that only when they do this can they get sober—and most who choose this path, do get better. Like the child who has accepted that others are important also, they are then free to relate properly to the rest of the world. There is no greater I-Factor than that state of mind in an alcoholic or drug addict, whereby the primary motivation in their lives is to get that next drink or drug fix. But if they have truly gotten clean and sober, they will have rid themselves of their self-serving way of thinking, by surrendering it to a higher power, thus freeing themselves to devote their actions to others in the ways they are supposed to.

Summing up, we all have a primal need to take care of ourselves first and foremost. Without proper socialization at an early age, many are prone to neglect their relations with others. Clever I-Factor people will construct elaborate rationales and belief systems to cover up their narcissism and will convince themselves that they are truly in service of others, when deep down in their egos they are really doing these outward acts of benevolence to maintain their incomplete ego identities. Sometimes this works out to the good—sometimes not!