Where Do You Stand on the Scale From Self-Preservation to Selfishness?

I once had a boss, we’ll call him Jim, who always thought about himself first. And of others only when forced to. Jim always spoke more than his allotted time, changed meetings’ agendas to discuss his issues, skipped the line at lunch because he was in a hurry, finished the coffee pot without making any new, fired people no matter their circumstances, took credit for the wins, and blamed others for the losses. Jim paid attention to people only when they were above him in the hierarchy. Jim was selfish and successful (in his career) because he took advantage of other people’s selflessness. Usually, human interactions are a game of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">tit-for-tat</a> where if I do something good for you, you will do something good for me, and we’ll keep exchanging favors till the end of time. But, as we all know from experience, it’s possible to give a bit less and take a bit more. If I systematically give 49% and take 51%, people won’t complain because it’s not worth bothering for such a little difference. The problem is that some people will keep on testing the limit. If 49% works, maybe 48% will also work. What about 45/55? And 40/60? <a href="https://medium.com/brain-labs/where-do-you-stand-on-the-scale-from-self-preservation-to-selfishness-ea290c8f3ea3">Click Here</a>