Greed Traits

Motivation, drive and selfishness (interest only in self) of the greedy is greater than the ambition of the selfless (interest in others). The battle between commonsense and the rush to the edge of the cliff is 'driven' by this and so condemns everyone to the same fate. The Winners and Losers game is an exclusive one and the players (minority) are exposed to the risks by their own choice. The majority (of the 'players') is forced into the game with many having the belief that the right thing to do is 'play the game'.

Unfortunately, governments are among the minority players and condemn the people they are supposed to serve to the folly of their grotesquely ill-advised actions. The parasitic players-by-choice tend to have the greater influence, probably as a result of the motivation, drive and selfishness factors that create greed. A trait within the human psyche comprises these collective factors and those exposed to it's influence drag everyone else down into the same pit. It is a fortunate fact that everyone is different and exposed to a different extent. Some are the 'hardened' gambler-type that 'play' poker and such games. The stake will almost certainly, in many cases, involve those who are associated with the gambler, though only indirectly: other family members.

Paradoxically, the affected minority will destroy the majority that is not influenced. This is similar in principle to any addiction. Some remain unaffected by nicotine or alcohol possibly since they don't indulge in the habits of smoking or drinking. These 'immune' individuals could, perhaps, be influenced, though choose to avoid the habit. Fast (and reckless) driving will expose the driver (primary potential victim) to high levels of danger. The secondary victims are those involved, but without any choice.

Dilemma

Viewing the other side of the coin and the challenge to 'mainstream conditioned-thinking' has a terrible downside by enabling the potential lie to survive. To offset short-term unhappiness, the lie is maintained, but in the longer term, more damage can be done by sustaining beliefs that are very harmful. Challenging concepts that are regarded as 'untruths' can be awakening and damaging at the same time. Burying your head in the sand can be damaging as the requirement for breathable air is compromised. Argument invariably has at least two sides. It must have or else the term argument is wrong. Agreement would be more appropriate.

Truth

By challenge, a more reasoned truth is the most likely outcome. This is the basis of proceedings in a court of law. Even then, truth is often defeated as outcomes are changed where the verdict has later been judged unsafe or wrong. A prosecutor's goal is to prove guilt. Defence counsel aims to do just that: prove innocence. A judgement can only be arrived at (in theory) by considering the evidence presented in court. Nothing else. A jury can only (honestly) weigh up the evidence presented during a trial. Personal feelings should not influence decisions.

The concept of 12 men and women, good and true can only function on a law of averages. A juror's prejudices can affect the outcome. Integrity should (is expected to) win the day in an individual juror's personal battles with conscience. This can potentially fail, but on average more are assumed to win. That defines a dangerous assumption.

The dilemma is met by maintaining a damaging lie in order to prevent the emotional 'down'. But a lie is still a lie and even telling a 'white lie' mitigates against saying 'how it is'. It could be wrong, but such a belief solidly based on the interpretation of evidence that has been misrepresented by half-truths does not convert a lie into truth.

The dilemma is resolved by becoming aware. If a storm is approaching, but is still some way off and consequently unnoticed, the comforting leisure-time may be wrecked by being made aware. In the short-term, pleasure is maintained, but supporting the wrong information results in being exposed to the storm when it is too late to seek refuge. The long-term effect may result in being too far up that creek, and without a paddle, to negotiate a return to safety.

Ambition

Ambition illustrates self-interest. Achievement of personal goals at any cost, but a lack of ambition can appear to manifest itself as depressed confidence. Does a predisposition to alcohol addiction interfere with this sense of ambition? Which is the driver - alcohol addiction being the result of a lack of confidence or poor confidence giving rise to a susceptibility to alcohol addiction? In any event, is this simply an apparent genetic flaw? Is this a flaw or actually a strength?

It is a strength as this allows the characteristics of compassion and empathy to develop, presuming these are qualities. The route through life is affected and the learning as a result is significant. This can be far in excess of pure self-driven ambition. Confidence can grow (or be restored) in different and subtle ways. It is the things we learn in our past and present that shape the future that we can create. A lack of ambition is not suggestive of a lack of success. It simply defines a unique and potentially innovative and creative pathway. This can be interpreted as the ambitious individual being incapable of empathy and compassion, whatever may be claimed. This often manifests in reality. The empathic and compassionate individual is more likely to selflessly care about others rather than self. Those apparently lacking ambition do not crave unattained achievements. They aspire to what they regard as perceived higher ideals.

Offspring may appear physically similar with other similar characteristics, but each human is very unique and has its own spiritual being. Essentially, all human life is totally unique, but every composite being (physical with spiritual) has purpose. Spiritual never implies religious. It is not a requirement that a child be connected with the parent after birth (and then it's only with the mother), but this is the mechanism of the original existence.

Influence is provided by the one who raises the child. Influence does not need to come from the natural (biological) parent. Separation then creating new alliances can produce a better and more successful development. The influence source only is changed. True success is that of the complete being, not just the perceived financial wealth as a marker. The worth of an individual cannot be measured by material possession. Just like intelligence.

Intervention during an individual's development may seem warranted, but this could, in fact, manifest as interference. Any learning can go both ways and the one who feels the compulsion or desire to help may actually be the one to receive a learning as a benefit.

• Is the dopamine reward system linked to ambition, perceived success and well-being, essentially being "addicted to ambition"?