The Four Groups

Which group ARE we in, and which group SHOULD we be in? Does it exist, or can/should we cultivate it in everything we do? The 4 groups… can you think of another?

The Four Groups

The first group of people only takes care of their own self and never of anyone else because they think it is leeching to make other people take care of you. They refuse to work with others unless there’s some sort of survival benefit they can get out of it, so they euthanize those who cannot eventually contribute to survival. They’re only focused on survival and don’t have time for thrive needs.

The second group of people never takes care of their own self, but instead takes care of someone else. Nobody’s needs go unmet because everyone is taking care of someone else.

The third group of people doesn’t take care of anyone else and doesn’t take care of their own self. They leech off of the group that takes care of other people.

The fourth group takes care of their own self and takes care of other people. They only take care of the survival needs of others if the other is unable to take care of their own survival needs, so no one’s survival needs go unmet, and no one leeches off anyone else. Because of that, they have plenty of time to take care of each other’s thrive needs.


Just a self assurance via others’ not so sure: we all take of singularly quizzical, genetics and all that, we’re all human after all, earned that right evolutionary speaking, so believing in the fourth level for some is tatamount to loving the human race so much that can even four one’s sanity in believing in transcendentally transmitted signs coming from some one to whom one is far too familiar with not to believe in such over the top signaling.some people are receptive that way and prone to psychic phenomenon.

Are you group 4 or virtue signaling the opposite?

Either, maybe or, depending on an internal or external source of view.


In a society composed of Group 4 or Group 2, there would be a strong incentive to ‘cheat’, i.e. be a member of Group 1 or Group 3, because there is no cost to the individual (all your needs are met by members of the helping groups), and you could spend more time advancing your own agenda against others. In a very a cooperative group, a cheater will tend to dominate.

Which is just to say that these groups are unstable, over time the composition of any society will be a mix of these groups, because the present mix will influence the future rewards to being a member of different groups, and rational agents will make choices that align them with different groups at different times.

So maybe there is no group we ‘should’ be in, but a social infrastructure that allows the dynamic equilibrium of group mix to change without undermining society as a whole. This probably means at minimum never letting membership in group 3 exceed some level, and limiting group 1 by both punishing excesses and encouraging their selfish actions to end up benefiting society as a whole.

The resulting policies probably look something like a market economy with progressive taxation and a reliable but modest safety net.

How would this allow cheaters? Cheaters not just at the “top” (slaving freeloaders) but at the “bottom” (nonslaving freeloaders): “They only take care of the survival needs of others if the other is unable to take care of their own survival needs, so no one’s survival needs go unmet, and no one leeches off anyone else.”

Both would be held accountable for helping themselves to other peoples’ means of survival rather than helping those who can’t help themselves, and no tax money would be wasted on them.

I dunno, looking at it logically is different and mathematically so as well, so this is merely a stab, before cutting it up, even if they were cut up in essence, or the whole idea of slicing is really unnecessary, for rather than doing that maybe the whole is like an onion, and peeling off the top to reach not the bottom, but the kernel could be more appropriate.

The 4 sided #2 & #4 are really rectangular, square, cubistic, whereas #1& #3 are more symbolically functional, as if the latter represents a newer geometric and the former the usual Euclidean.

If getting lost in a forest of pointillistic aesthetic violations bothers others as it does me, then think again, how meno should or should not have felt ashamed of himself.

So the first the cube, represents a square objective content, containing fairly evident measure of how much volume and what shape could be imagined within, and the concentration of the inside required to withstand the less concentrated solution force in their solution from outside.

The functional (1&3) requires much more effort to figure out, because the triangle turned pyramid requires more limited approximations, as there conceivably no pressures at all at the apex , although surmising that at the aoex there appears as if no pressures are presen, my guess is there are such near absolute pressures, that squares may trat them as unimaginable.

Apexes are mini black holes, one can not see them because like their cosmic brotherhood implies, their force field bends and swallows light it’s self.

So what? How does that sqare with microeconomics?

Squares figuratively can not account any consistency, rhyme or reason to calculate what it really takes to build one, as for example in antiquity it would take maybe a hundred thousand human soul to bury a pharao and his household.

It’s pretty inconceivable that happened, or time began there, to measure how long it took.

The fabric of time per hour of work expanded did probably elevated the soul of the pharao to seventh heaven, but such is illusive as it belongs to the realm of an imagination where images were actually two fold.

The one saw the outer contour as a one would a mount in a desert, the other , as a vessel, the underside a vessel for collecting . Not have functions, the first to contain and the second to collect.

It’s nearly irrelevant to ask what is contained and what is collected, fill in whatever needs it may require.

The sqare or rectangle firmed by 2 and 4 has yet no such function, it ascribes to parallelism, to record, picture existing reality as such and find digital programs that can prefigure the so early on constructed structures.

meno you should could, be ashamed

What is the function of government if not to maintain what is good for the group and its members? If a government privileges any part of its body, it will not maintain homeostasis for long. Instead of growing strong, it will break down and die.

Or it will look ridiculous like that guy on the M Night Shyamalan movie with that one really strong/huge arm.