Your kindness to me doesn't mean I have to be kind to you

We have been taught since childhood to treat others equally; when someone treats us well, we should give them a piece of chocolate in return—has anyone ever wondered why? Why? I think most people haven't thought about it. Teachers and parents teach us this, but they've never told us the reason, or maybe they don't even know—they only know that their teachers and parents also taught them this, or they can only say things like "people should treat each other equally and with mutual respect, united and friendly," and similar phrases. The reason why you give me a piece of candy and I give you a piece of chocolate is essentially because I want to establish a persona—that I am someone who will treat you well as long as you treat me well—that it's not just about this time, but about the next; some people even give two pieces of candy to prove they are someone who repays a small kindness with a great kindness. So why, why do we establish such a persona? Because it allows others to "dare" to treat you well, or to "be willing" to treat you well. Because treating you well can bring greater returns, so you become "more helped" by those who are wise. Wait, isn't something wrong here? If someone gives you a piece of candy, and you give a piece of chocolate, or two pieces of candy in return, isn't that a loss? The wise don't help more; rather, the more wise they are, the more they lose. Isn't it better not to treat others well at all? So actually, you don't have the ability to truly reciprocate everyone who treats you well; at most, you can be selective—otherwise, you don't have enough to give—it's not a matter of your will, but a mathematical problem. So if someone is wildly over-rewarded, there must be a problem; this person is probably trying to pull off a "Ponzi scheme" about returns, that is, buying bones for a thousand gold, attracting others to treat him well desperately in the short term, thinking that the favor is stored with him and can be withdrawn at any time, but in reality, most people can't get it back. Even if every exchange is just reciprocal, there will still be problems. Sometimes you think you've reciprocated, but the return may not be what the other person wants, which makes the other person feel it's not worth treating you well; or the other person uses the saved kindness to make a request they think is reciprocal, but you believe it exceeds the scope of reciprocation, so whether you reciprocate or not, at least one person will be unhappy. Therefore, this concept is flawed from the start; it doesn't conform to the rules of how the world operates. Or to put it another way, when the exchanged items are worthless, it doesn't matter; people can be united and friendly. But once real interests are involved, it inevitably involves moral coercion, the strong subsidizing the weak, hypocrisy, acting one way face-to-face and thinking another behind the back. So what is the correct philosophy? It is that we must understand and accept one thing: that one person treating another well does not necessarily require reciprocal treatment, and they don't even have to treat him well—nor should it be assumed that this "other person" is necessarily unkind. I often see comments in live streams or comment sections, where someone says they have possessiveness over friends; if they find that their friend prefers to hang out with others instead of with them, they feel betrayed—assuming they regard the other as their only or best friend. When we try our best to be good to someone, we default to thinking that this person can provide us with great value, whether in practical terms or emotional value, but we can't assume that we are the person in their circle who can offer the greatest value—that is, my kindness is because you are valuable. But if we think that because "I am kind to you," you should also treat me equally, that's wrong, because we ourselves may not have any irreplaceable or equal value. For example, in "The Voice of China," a contestant says they came solely for this mentor; even if other mentors turn around, they won't choose them. According to ordinary values, people would then morally pressure this mentor, shouting "Choose him, choose him, choose him." But the problem is, this mentor might be very popular, with limited spots, and among the remaining contestants, there might be someone better. So what do you do? You can't expect that just because you abandon other opportunities for him, he must fulfill your wishes. Business and the workplace are the same: as an employee, you come for me; as a supplier, you prioritize my business because I am valuable to you, but that doesn't mean I am your first choice. I can choose not to know you as an employee, or pick other suppliers; unless you can beat all other alternatives, do your job better, provide higher quality, better payment terms, faster delivery—if you can't do that, just talking about feelings and words doesn't give you the right to expect the same treatment. This world has never been reciprocal; the idea that "it's mutual" is actually based on when we know nothing, when we are children with low value, giving us a simple, feasible, low-error strategy in that environment. But if you are already an adult, and you still use childhood values to treat the world, or feel confused and angry when the world doesn't treat you that way, then your worldview needs updating. Things learned in a low-level world should never be carried into a high-level world. #分享美股交易赢英伟达股票