
Why you are not as selfish as you think
Whenever I fly, one line jumps out from the pre-flight safety briefing. Somewhere between "welcome aboard" and "use this whistle for attracting attention", we're reminded to "put on your own oxygen mask before helping others".
This is, essentially, an official instruction to be "selfish". And it is sage advice if there's an emergency at 33,000ft and 550mph (10,000m and (890km/h). If the cabin depressurises, you won't be able to assist others if you black out from oxygen starvation.
But on the other hand, in a world that often seems to reward narcissism, there could be a risk that that same line speaks to a somewhat troubling life philosophy. The idea that you should always put yourself first – and that selfishness trumps altruism.
Individualism was defined by social psychologist Geert Hofstede as "the extent to which people feel independent, as opposed to being interdependent as members of larger wholes". And in many parts of the world, particularly the West, individualism is not only endemic, but increasingly on trend. The question is whether that's a good thing or not.
Elements of psychology, economics and biology – not least the ideas of selfish genes and neo-Darwinism – have normalised the assumption that competition means humans are intrinsically cruel, ruthless or selfish, says Steve Taylor, a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University. But while we clearly can all be selfish – our brain's first job, after all, is arguably to keep us alive – he adds that new research paints a more optimistic picture, challenging the somewhat gloomy notion that we only ever prioritise ourselves.
Take the "bystander effect", which first emerged in the 1960s. This is the widely cited idea that people typically avoid intervening in a crisis when others are nearby. The theory followed outrage over the 1964 New York murder of Kitty Genovese, a 28-year-old bartender who was reportedly raped and killed in front of nearly 40 witnesses, none of whom helped.
But the final detail of the story behind the "bystander effect" appears to be an apocryphal one. While, tragically, Genovese really was sexually assaulted and murdered, investigations suggest that reports of there being 38 passive bystanders were inaccurate. One 2007 paper, for example, stated there was no evidence that any people witnessed Genovese's murder and simply did nothing. The story, the researchers surmised, was a "modern parable, the telling of which has served to limit the scope of inquiry into emergency helping".
Research suggests that people are actually more than willing to prioritise others' safety over their own in many situations. A paper published in 2020, for example, investigated CCTV recordings of violent attacks in the UK, the Netherlands and South Africa. It found that one or more people had tried to assist in nine out of 10 of the attacks – with bigger groups making an intervention more, not less likely.
You might argue that even so-called "have-a-go-heroes" are on some level motivated by self-gratification, perhaps to gain group approval. But a 2014 study about recipients of the Carnegie Hero Medal, awarded to people who have risked their lives for others, found that such extreme altruists, largely described their actions as intuitive rather than deliberative, suggesting their altruism was a reflexive, or "automatic" response. It's something we are when we don't have time to think.
"There is a superficial level at which we can operate selfishly, and we often do," says Taylor whose book, DisConnected, explores how certain human behaviours can cause social problems. "But that's at the level of our ego, or socially constructed identity." Humans also have the capacity to be impulsively altruistic, he adds.
In May 2017, for example, a suicide bomber attacked an Ariana Grande concert in Taylor's home city: Manchester. A total of 22 people were killed and more than a thousand were injured. Despite the ongoing risk to survivors, however, the Kerslake Report, an independent review into the atrocity, highlighted "hundreds if not thousands of acts of individual bravery and selflessness". Similar cases of heroic altruism have been documented during 9/11 and the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks.
There are evolutionary reasons for human altruism, Taylor says. For most of our history, we have lived in tribes as hunter-gatherers – highly cooperative groups.
"There's no reason why early human beings should be competitive or individualistic," says Taylor. "That would not have helped our survival at all. It would have actually endangered our survival."
Some anthropological studies suggest that groups who still live in a similar way to our early ancestors remain egalitarian in how they share resources.
Research in children also suggests that we are "born altruistic", says Ching-Yu Huang, director of the Cambridge Alliance of Legal Psychology, a private company, in the UK and chief executive of National Taiwan University Children & Family Research Center.
Some studies have found that even 14- to 18-month-old infants will go out of their way to help others and cooperate in order to achieve a shared goal – specifically by handing over objects others couldn't reach. And young children will do this even if there's no reward on offer. A 2013 review of similar studies, for example, suggested that young children's prosocial behaviour is "intrinsically motivated by concern for others' welfare".
Being kind also makes us feel good. Volunteering, for example, has been linked to improved mental health, self-esteem and self-efficacy, and reduced feelings of loneliness. And there are physical benefits, too. Regular volunteers who were assessed as part of a study published in 2013 were 40% less likely to develop high blood pressure than those who didn't frequently volunteer. Altruism of this kind has even been associated with a reduced risk of mortality, though it's not yet clear why.
"There's such a strong association between wellbeing and altruism that it would be foolish not to live altruistically," argues Taylor.
The very structure of our brains might help dictate our predisposition towards altruism. Abigail Marsh, a neuroscientist at Georgetown University in the US, and her team have used brain scans to look for differences between people who had donated a kidney to a stranger and those who hadn't.
The organ-donating altruists had larger right amygdalae (brain regions associated with emotion), than the non-donor control group. The donors also showed increased activity in this region when viewing pictures of fearful facial expressions, perhaps making them more perceptive of and responsive to others' feelings. Indeed, the results from the donor group were the opposite of what you'd expect to see in psychopathic individuals.
Science suggests that most of us have the hardware to be selfless, often extraordinarily so. But that doesn't mean we can – or should – be selfless all the time. Whether we prioritise ourselves or others depends partly on circumstances, our prior experience and our culture.
Tony Milligan is a research fellow in the philosophy of ethics at King's College London. People should acknowledge that the vast majority of us are "morally mediocre", he says. But this isn't as uninspiring as it sounds.
Milligan argues that people tend to overestimate their own moral goodness. And this may have a particular impact when we are making deliberative, rather than automatic, decisions about our priorities. "Almost everyone we know is morally mediocre," he says, adding that it's unrealistic for most of us to try and copy the lives of extremely altruistic figures such as Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Jesus or Buddha. "We can act in the light of them, but if you're not one of those statistical anomalies, we need to recognise that we really are in the middle."
According to Milligan, overestimating our moral goodness can leave us feeling guilty and disappointed when we inevitably fail to live up to overinflated standards. "The question you need to ask yourself is not 'What would Buddha do?'," he says, "But, 'What am I capable of? Is this within my reach?'."
This, he adds, requires some humility and self-knowledge. Because if we have a realistic appraisal of what we're capable of, we will be better able to consider others when we make decisions.
"You shouldn't be thinking of this in terms of developing something you can show off to other people, as something that will make you admired," says Milligan. "Think of it more as developing a skill. A skill is something that you slowly, incrementally work on improving."
People's altruistic tendencies are likely also greatly influenced by their experiences and culture.
Some countries, such as the UK and US, are more individualistic than others, such as many Asian countries, which are generally considered more collectivistic, where people prioritise the good of the wider group over themselves. This impacts not only how selfish or altruistic people tend to be but also the degree to which selfless acts are viewed as being either a choice, or a responsibility.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, researchers found that people living in collectivistic cultures were more likely to wear masks than those in individualistic ones. The former group were more inclined to try and protect others. This difference between East and West is one that Huang has experienced personally.
She spent her childhood in Taiwan, which she describes as collectivistic, before settling for extended periods in the comparatively individualistic US and UK.
"I was brought up to really put everybody else first," says Huang. "If you're a woman, particularly a young woman, who wants to put yourself first and show your ability, this is actually really looked down on in this culture. They would call you a 'female tiger', the implication being that you're aggressive."
When Huang moved to the US and later the UK, she found it was more acceptable to prioritise herself – but initially held herself back because of her upbringing. Gradually, she found herself able to express her confidence and abilities: "I learned that, actually, I do sometimes need to be a female tiger, especially in the career sense."
Such cultural differences are captured in Huang's own research. She has explored two forms of compliance – "committed compliance" (in which you happily comply with instructions) and "situational compliance" (in which you comply even though you're reluctant to do so) – within three groups: young children from Taiwan; non-immigrant, white English families in the UK; and Chinese immigrant families in the UK.
While all groups showed the same level of committed compliance, the Taiwanese children demonstrated much greater situational compliance because they were more likely to prioritise their parents' instructions over their own desires versus the white English and Chinese immigrant children who had grown up in the more individualistic UK.
In collectivistic cultures "we're more likely to comply even if we don't really want to", says Huang.
That doesn't mean there's one right way to do things. While altruism can benefit both ourselves and others, we do need to be mindful of our own needs and how past experiences, context and culture influence our behaviour.
More like this:• Why being kind to others is good for your health• Should you ever cut ties with your parents?• Why you feel lonely even when surrounded by people
"Things become hard in cultures where the expectation always to be altruistic is supercharged," says Huang, "such as in Taiwan when you're a young woman." Essentially, the responsibility to always prioritise others can become overwhelming.
Most of us are capable of extraordinary selflessness and altruism appears to be something that does us good. It has even helped our species to become uniquely successful. But our decisions and behaviours are also influenced by a wide range of factors, from culture to our own "moral mediocrity". In other words, helping others is great – but recognise that it's okay to look after yourself too.
--
For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook and Instagram.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
BBC and Met Office team up to tackle ‘weather disinformation'
The BBC and the Met Office are to work together to counter 'weather disinformation'. Britain's main weather forecasting service, funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, was dropped by the corporation in 2017. But the relationship has now been renewed in order to provide 'weather education' to combat conspiracy theories and other false information. The concerns relate to a minority of online content that misrepresents the reality of the weather, including conspiracies about cloud formations and other phenomena. One widespread theory contends that vapour trails left by aircraft at low-temperature altitudes are in fact chemicals being sprayed into the atmosphere. The purpose of this is not agreed on by the conspiracy theorists spreading the claim, with some saying it is weather control, and others say it is for psychological manipulation of the human population. Other concerns about misinformation relate to exaggerated online claims about impending and devastating 'heatwaves' and 'snowbombs'. Safety concerns over online weather content Broadcast bosses are also worried that some online content could prevent the public taking proper measures to ensure their safety during severe weather. Tim Davie, the director-general of the BBC, said that there has 'never been more need for trusted and impartial information to help people understand today's weather'. He added that the new partnership would help everyone in the UK to make informed decisions about the weather. The announcement of the plan to work with the Met Office comes after the BBC's own weather app wrongly predicted 13,000mph winds across the UK in 2024. This error was blamed on a data issue with the US meteorological service, DTN. In 2021, the BBC made a 'Climate Content' pledge to create programming with more information on climate change that would inspire audiences to make 'greener choices'. It began a process of embedding climate-related messaging into popular programmes. Climate message in BBC programming A 2024 report into the progress of this project stated: 'The BBC has found opportunities to authentically embed sustainability themes into its content, from blockbuster natural history titles such as Asia, which launched this autumn, to gripping climate thriller On Thin Ice: Putin v Greenpeace. 'And even in coverage of the world's biggest sporting event, the Olympics.' The report added that programme-makers would continue their 'commitment to finding audience-relevant ways to reflect sustainability' in BBC output 'across all genres'. Penny Endersby, the chief executive of the Met Office, said of the new partnership with the BBC: 'As the UK's national weather service, we are excited to be back working closely with the BBC again. 'Together we can reach even more people with essential weather information, helping them to plan their days, stay safe when it matters and keep well-informed in our changing climate.'


The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
Lung cancer warning for foods which make up ‘half the average diet' after new study
Ultra-processed foods filled with preservatives, additives and flavour enhancers have been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer. In the UK and US, more than half of the average diet consists of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), such as ready meals, fast food and fizzy drinks. A previous BMJ study in 2024 linked UPFs to 32 harmful health effects including a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, adverse mental health and early death. Now, eating UPFs has been linked to lung cancer - the most common cancer in the world, according to the World Cancer Research Fund. There were an estimated 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths from the disease worldwide in 2020, researchers of the study published in the respiratory journal Thorax said. But limiting consumption of these foods may help curb the global impact of the disease, the researchers say. Although there is no exact definition of a UPF, these foods typically undergo multiple processing steps, contain long lists of additives and preservatives, and are ready-to-eat or heat. Researchers drew on data from the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trials, involving 155,000 participants aged 55 to 74 who were randomly assigned to either a screening or comparison group between November 1993 and July 2001. Cancer diagnoses were tracked until the end of 2009, and cancer deaths until the end of 2018. A total of 101,732 people (50,187 men and 51,545 women, with an average age of 62) who completed a questionnaire on their dietary habits upon entry to the trials were included in the study. Foods were categorised as: unprocessed or minimally processed; containing processed culinary ingredients; processed; or ultra-processed. The researchers focused in particular on UPFs that included sour cream, as well as cream cheese, ice cream, frozen yoghurt, fried foods, bread, baked goods, salted snacks, breakfast cereals, instant noodles, shop-bought soups and sauces, margarine, confectionery, soft drinks, sweetened fruit drinks, restaurant/shop-bought hamburgers, hot dogs, and pizza. The three types of food that featured the most were lunch meat (11 per cent), diet or caffeinated soft drinks (just over 7 per cent) and decaffeinated soft drinks (nearly 7 per cent). Participants were tracked for 12 years and in that time, 1,706 new cases of lung cancer were diagnosed, including 1,473 cases of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 233 of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). After accounting for potentially influential factors, including smoking and overall diet quality, participants who ate the most UPFs were 41 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than those who ate the least. Overall, they were 37 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with NSCLC and 44 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with SCLC. Because it was an observational study and no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect, researchers acknowledge that they weren't able to factor in smoking intensity, which may have been influential. Dietary information was collected only once, so they could not account for changes over time, and the number of cancer diagnoses was small. But researchers do highlight the low nutritional value of UPFs and the excessive amounts of salt, sugar and fats they contain. 'The rise in UPF consumption may have driven global increases in obesity, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, cancer and mortality, as these foods are confirmed risk factors for such conditions,' the researchers suggested. 'Industrial processing alters the food matrix, affecting nutrient availability and absorption, while also generating harmful contaminants,' they added, highlighting acrolein, which is found in grilled sausages and caramel sweets and is a toxic component of cigarette smoke. Packaging materials may also have a role to play, they suggested. 'You can't say from this study that UPFs cause cancer as it's observational, so we're looking at associations, not direct effects. But it does strengthen the case for looking more closely at the food environment many people are living in where UPFs are cheap, convenient, and heavily marketed, making them a go-to for many,' Rob Hobson, nutritionist and author of Unprocess Your Family Life, told The Independent. He suggested, rather than 'pointing figures at individual foods', to instead make small shifts towards a healthier diet. 'That might mean cooking more from scratch where possible, adding in more whole foods like vegetables, beans and grains, or just becoming more aware of how often UPFs show up in your day,' he said. 'It's not about being perfect, it's about balance and understanding how your food choices could be supporting or undermining your long-term health.'


The Sun
7 hours ago
- The Sun
Common medicines may not work for some people based on their DNA, experts find
A PILOT scheme has revealed a widespread genetic sensitivity to common medicines which could increase side effects or stop them working as they should. The trial saw 2,200 adults undergo whole genome sequencing to analyse how their individual DNA responds to the likes of antibiotics and over the counter painkillers. 1 A staggering 99 per cent showed a genetic variant that affects their sensitivity to certain medicines. This could mean some drugs, including over the counter, everyday painkillers, antibiotics and other prescription medications, won't work for some people based on their individual DNA. The blood test, part of Bupa's My Genomic Health scheme, also looked their genetic risk of developing 36 preventable diseases including cancers, heart conditions and type 2 diabetes. It found 91 per cent of participants were found to be at risk of developing a disease with genetic and lifestyle risk factors, such as fatty liver disease, breast cancer and certain heart diseases. While 73 per cent had multiple genetic variants that put them at raised risk of developing a condition that could be prevented or detected early, leading to better health outcomes, including the likes of high cholesterol, skin cancer and type 2 diabetes. And 49 per cent were found to be carriers of a genetic variant that could lead to raised risk of certain condition in future generations. Following the successful pilot, Medication Check can now be purchased through Bupa, and will also be available to more than three million its customers as part of its workplace health scheme. A saliva test will establish what medications are most likely to be effective, those with increased risk of adverse side effects, or ones that won't work for them at all. Dr Rebecca Rohrer, clinical innovation and genomics director for Bupa, said: 'We've long known that most medications only work for 30-50 per cent of the population. 'However, this pilot has highlighted just how significantly individual genomes impact the effectiveness of medications in treating conditions. Beware 3 of the most dangerous medicines in the world - including one found in almost EVERY home 'With more than half of us regularly taking a prescription medication and an increasing number affected by a chronic condition, it's crucial that people are prescribed the right medicine from the start, tailored to their unique genetic makeup. 'In the longer term, genomics is key to early detection and even preventing some illnesses altogether.' After completing the at-home medication check, patients will be offered a GP consultation with the healthcare provider to review any medication identified in their genetic tests. It comes as Bupa is about to introduce two new products to its My Genomic Health suite later this year, that will help to prevent or detect illness earlier. The DNA Health Check will give people early warning of an increased genetic risks of four different conditions - breast cancer, prostate cancer, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. While the Advanced DNA Health Check will combine insights from medication, disease risk, carrier status and traits, and will look at the genetic risk of developing conditions such as heart disease, metabolic disease and 10 types of cancer. Carlos Jaureguizar, CEO for Bupa Global, India & UK, said: 'Whole genomic sequencing is fundamentally changing our approach to healthcare, pivoting from treatment to prevention. 'It has the power to become a health passport that people can reference throughout their lives. 'We firmly believe genomics is the path to health innovation and prevention, reducing the nation's health burden and giving people personalised knowledge of their own genomic profile to live well for longer.'