I'm a category 2 thinker but it comes with empathy. I think the Golden rule found in every religion depicts this; do unto others, as you want them to do to you.  If everyone applied this rule, we'd cut out like 90% of the wrongs in the society.

The problem is the definition of "first," and keeping it from becoming "only."  Phrasing it at an either/or (as often happens even inadvertently) is the problem.

You need to achieve a certain level of self-stability/health before you're even useful to others, and before doing for others wouldn't end up causing harm to you.  That's a "first."

Once you pass that threshold, it becomes a yes-and.  You have enough time/money/resources/whatever to further invest in yourself, *and* invest in someone else.  Yes, that means you're investing less in yourself by doing so, but you're still investing "enough" in yourself that you can spare the resources to help someone else out.

The tricky part is the definition of "enough" and where that threshold is, and what a "good" dividing line between self-investment and community-investment is.

The extremes are obvious and easy to answer.  The inflection point is really hard and subjective.  But people use the difficulty of the inflection point to avoid dealing with anything but the extremes, or else to argue that even at the extremes it's too hard.

Extremes: Below $10,000 a year income, you really, *really* should not be donating to charity.  You should be on the receiving end.  Asking those people to pay higher taxes is ridiculous.  Above $10,000,000 a year income, if you're not giving a substantial chunk of money back to your society you're a selfish asswipe.  (Whether that's ad hoc charity or properly managed taxes is irrelevant for the moment, and Luke don't you dare get side tracked by "taxation is theft" and that nonsense, that's off topic. :-P )

So, where between $10k and $10 million is the inflection point where you should start paying taxes/giving to charity/helping others?  What qualifies as "substantial?"  Those are the tricky questions, but the existence of those tricky questions makes it really easy for people to either avoid, or abuse, the extremes.

If you don't like that it's monetary, swap in any other less quantifiable metric and the same basic problem exists.  Eg, time helping yourself and your mental health vs spending time helping a neighbor.  The same rough outline of the problem exists, and the heuristics are no easier.

I think it is far wiser to help yourself first as it allows you to better help others. Isn't there a rule on planes where you secure your mask first, then assist others? I mean, if you can't breathe, how effective will the aid you offer *really* be?

I personally have been through hard times lately (mental-wise). I’m not 100% fit yet, but I have committed hard-core into category 2. I usually am always happy and cheerful and I have plenty of spare energy to help others. But when I’m not in that shape, nothing but my close ones and I exist.

What i want to say is that I totally agree with you. When I’m fit I make everyone around me happy. And when I’m not I have to 100% commit into making myself happy again in order for me to make everyone else happy once more...if everyone followed this rule (while accepting me-time of others that need it) the world would be a different 

It comes in phases for me.  I do some work on my self, then I try to use that to help or educate others.  Then I eventually get stuck at some point, so I then go back to working on me.

In my own opinion, I really don't care who I am going to help as long that I am showing mercy and compassion to the person who really need help. Beside, as a Christian, God will judge me for the good things that I do whether other people trick me for something that I do not know if they do is right or wrong?

I think that helping others is not good for them, only in an extreme case is good help others. I mean if you don't know how to solve a problem and i solve it for you. You don't learn how to deal with problems, indeed the only thing that you can learn is that in case of trouble you can delegate your problems to somebody else. And it is not good for you, instead it is good for me, because i can improve my skills. So while i'm improving you are remaining at the same level.
So for me if you want to help others, don't help them directly but maybe give them some advice and let them solve their problem them self.

from a non-humanitarian, utilitarian point of view, I would say it it *necessary* to help yourself first;  in fact *only* to help others when that help comes at little cost to yourself.

to make it clear though, helping friends and family (kith and kin, your in-group, your tribe) *is* helping yourself as a mutually supporting network.  OTOH, that means being wary of helping people in your kith and kin group that never reciprocate help (or gratitude).

because once you start taking chunks out of yourself (time, energy, emotion, $), you are hurting yourself.  if you make it a habit to pull chunks out of yourself, sooner or later there will be nothing left

and if you do have the extra resources to give, and feel the need to, why not?

just be careful
+ dont help deadbeats that never help themselves, you are only creating a burden on yourself...***and on others***
+ dont help those that are ideologically opposed to you (*if you choose to help these people based on the argument that are are trying to make them allies -a) that is actually helping yourself, and b) probably wont work anyhow, refer to history*)
+ dont help the ungrateful
+ ***NEVER*** ask, or expect, others to help you with helping.  this is your decision, in particular, when you are helping deadweight.


>I think we’d see a rise in people who have been trained to believe they have to be dependent on others and can not depend on themselves. There would be more expectations and, perversely, some instances of ingratitude where the disconnect grows between the personal cost of producing value and the entitlement mentality of deserving it with no personal effort

I think the is the human norm;  most people are lazy.   See any system where welfare is employed, and you'll see a large chunk of people (I really cant tell if it's a majority or a plurality) plop down into  a cycle of dependence and resentment.

***Instead, I suggest that people look to those that need help, and recruit those that are deserving into your tribe, making it clear that they are to reciprocate when they can; building them as humans to become needed by others in turn***

I honestly think that we cannot help other effectively if we are not in peace with ourselves! We need to do good to other people, as well as nature, but at the same time we need to take care of us, one thing complements the other! :D

I think there's the good selfish and bad selfish, bad selfish being your traditional greed and thinking of only yourself, good selfish being a carer taking a break from their dependent so they can breathe, meditate and reflect so that they are not setting themselves on fire to keep others warm. 

Ultimately I think category 2 should be the focus, as a lack of category 2 can increase chances of those requiring category 1. 

Even those who might be a potential recipient of category 1, they should endure the struggle for at least a little bit, while it might be a painful journey it could still be one worth going down for a life lesson, to realise that we're not going to starve to death if we don't eat that day, sleeping on the floor won't kill us. To care for them is to deprive them of a certain discomfort, and it might be that very discomfort that they need.

It can be a lot easier to prescribe category 1 than tough love, we should be mindful of this.