The ultimate kindness cycle

The measure as written

The rule of RESPECT IS NOT COSTLY, THE INGREDIENTS ARE UNIVERSAL:

“An individual must give respect to other individuals according to their worth level, with the preference gradient being the core value.”

Under "Respect Value scale", two kinds of zero are given:

(Note that both the rebuked and the normal status have a respect value of zero, but for different reasons: the rebuked ones have a worth level of zero, while the normal ones have a positive worth level but a preference gradient of zero; hence the respect value alone does not separate them, and the worth level has to be looked at as well.)

and under "Preference Gradient for different domains", it places the negative participants at zero:

In the case of negative participants, PR is zero, i.e. a +ve value is not realistic, as they are occupied by excess desires, so they are increasing individual as well as societal burden.

Under "Theory of the ultimate kindness cycle", it states the theory:

(It states that if a society succeeds in attaining a specific combined successful respect level, then a cyclic cascade of kindness is eventually achieved.)

and gives its threshold and the measure:

Now, to understand it, let us take an example of a society that has +ve respect level individuals along with a small (relatively) group of 0 respect level bearing individuals (but there must be an overwhelming number of worthful individuals). (The specific combined respect level is reached when the resources given away by the individuals with a positive respect level exceed the resources kept back by those with a respect level of zero, i.e. more resources flow into the passing chain than drop out of it; this is why the zero group must be relatively small.) (In practice, this level can be found by starting the same gifts in a few neighbourhoods with different numbers of Caretakers and watching which of them keep cycling; the neighbourhoods where the cycle keeps going show the threshold.)

What happens is that resources are being passed over and over with virtually no one to use them, thus causing kindness to dominate the society, with this passing procedure increasing trust at every level.

It then tells how the resources pass, who passes them on and who keeps them:

To make it easy, consider that a respectful individual is caring for other participants of the society and thus gives away some of his resources (destined for him due to the participation he made) (virtually decreasing individual burden). (The first step is always taken by the voluntary worthfuls, i.e. the Caretakers, as giving without waiting to receive is their very nature; the others join the chain as the resources reach them.)

At the same time, he receives more resources from another respectful (of the same or a higher respect level), and the one to whom he gave the resources in turn gives away more resources to another respectful. If, step by step, this reaches an individual with 0 preference gradient (but +ve worth level), then he will transfer it further (as it is beyond his need). And what about the one who keeps the resources and does not pass them on? Actually, he is the one with the least resources, i.e. the eligible person who does not ask others for help; in this cycle he is taken care of, while nobody calls him a beggar. Keeping them does not make him a bad one, as he is a worthful person (see ARE YOU A WORTHFUL PERSON?), e.g. an intrinsic non-ideal who cannot reach the required participation level, and he keeps only what he needs. To understand this, let’s take an example of an old man who lives alone and never asks anyone for help: the tomatoes passing from door to door reach him too, and he keeps them as he needs them, while no one looks at him as one who begs.

This sub-section measures the threshold as it was given: the resources that flow into the passing chain from those with a positive respect level, against the resources kept back by those with a respect level of zero.

What it measures, in plain words

In the kindness cycle, a respectful individual gives away part of his own share; it passes from one to another, each passing on what is "beyond his need", until it reaches the one who needs it, "the eligible person who does not ask others for help". The cycle keeps going only while "more resources flow into the passing chain than drop out of it". The measure asks, for each society, how much flows into the chain and how much drops out of it.

Not everyone at a respect level of zero drops out. The normal status, with a positive worth level, passes on what is beyond his need, and the needy who keeps what he needs, a worthful person, is the cycle at work, not a loss to it. What drops out is what the rebuked keep back: those whose own draw is far beyond their own work, who are "occupied by excess desires" and pass nothing on.

What is measured.

· Given away. What people give directly to people in need, out of their own share: the share of their own income given in a year, as in the first half of the preference gradient (Part 4), turned into hours of work with the hours of others' work an average adult draws in a year (Part 2). Giving through charities, through religious routes and large philanthropy is not counted, as in Part 4.

· Kept back. Read from the group that Part 2 finds below zero in all seven, i.e. negative participants: the richest 1% of adults. Each of them draws the work of others far beyond his own; the hours drawn beyond his own work in a year, spread over all the adults of the society, are what drops out of the chain.

· The threshold. It is reached when the hours given away exceed the hours kept back. The result is shown as the hours given away for each hour kept back (1 is the threshold), and as the share of what an average adult draws that would have to be given away for the two to meet.

Read in hours of work. Both sides are read in hours of work a year for each adult, from each society's own shares; no money figure is used as a scale.

How to read the result.

· Below 1, more drops out of the chain than flows into it, and the cycle cannot keep going however kind the givers are; above 1, the resources go on passing and the cycle can begin.

· The cycle needs both sides: more given and less kept back. This is "why the zero group must be relatively small".

· The first step is the Caretakers', who give "without waiting to receive"; the measure counts what all the people give, not only the Caretakers.

· The counts show the balance of a whole society; the neighbourhoods where the same gifts are seeded show where the cycle keeps going.

How we measured it

Given away. The average share of their own income that adults give directly to people in need in a year, from the survey of giving in 2025 by the Charities Aid Foundation (World Giving Report 2026, 105 countries), as in the first half of the preference gradient (Part 4). It is turned into hours with the hours of work contained in what the society uses, for each adult in a year, as Part 2 counts them (the paid hours worked per adult, read through the society's Participation to Burden ratio of Part 1). A society whose adults give 1.1% of their own share, and whose adults draw 1,063 hours of work a year each, gives 11.7 hours of work a year for each adult.

Kept back. The hours of others' work that each adult of the richest 1% draws in a year beyond his own work, as Part 2 counts them: what the group draws, by its share of income after taxes and transfers, minus its own work, counted at the full-time hours of managers, the reading most favourable to the top. Multiplied by 1%, their share of all adults, it gives the hours kept back for each adult of the society: a richest 1% that draws 15,791 hours a year each beyond its own work keeps back 157.9 hours for each adult.

The threshold. The hours given away divided by the hours kept back; 1 is the threshold. The share of what an average adult draws that would have to be given away for the two to meet is the hours kept back divided by the hours an average adult draws.

The seven only. Part 2 is worked out for the seven societies, so the measure covers them alone.

Checks. Four readings kinder to the cycle were tried, all set before the first count:

· Part 2's test with the money of the top commanding only half as many hours as the average money (much of what the rich buy is costly services and assets): the lowest of its counts, about half of what is kept back.

· The hours each adult volunteers in a year (Charities Aid Foundation) added to the hours given away, as caring is given too.

· The giving share raised by 0.05 points, as the survey prints it to the nearest 0.1% of income.

· All three together, the most generous reading.

Limits of the data. Two things the counts cannot see; they limit the reading, not the cycle:

· Giving to people in need rises where the vibrators are many (see Vibrators, amplifiers and absorbers), so part of what is counted as given may be padding rather than respect.

· What the richest 1% circulate back into their society is not seen in the counts; Part 2's lowest test count stands for it.

What the seven societies show

Both sides are in hours of work a year for each adult: what is given away directly to people in need (the giving of 2025), and what the richest 1% keep back beyond their own work (as Part 2 counts it).

The threshold is reached in none of the seven. In every society, many times more drops out of the passing chain than flows into it: from 7 hours for each hour given in Nigeria to 58 in Russia. For the two to meet, an average adult would have to give away 8.9% to 17.9% of what he draws, against 0.3% to 1.2% given now.

The readings kinder to the cycle do not change this. The hours given for each hour kept back:

Even under the most generous reading, less than 1 hour is given for each hour kept back in all seven.

Nigeria comes closest. Its people give the largest share of their own of the seven (1.2%), and its richest 1% keep back the least (125.3 hours for each adult). Even so, 7 hours drop out for each hour given, and under the most generous reading 0.58 hours are given for each hour kept back. It is the picture found in The warning signs of the elastic limit: Nigeria shows the first step of the kindness cycle, not yet the cycle itself.

Russia, Brazil and the United States are farthest from it. They give the least (0.3% each), and their richest 1% keep back the most (195.4 to 249.0 hours for each adult).

So in none of the seven is the zero group "relatively small" in the sense meant: what its richest 1% keep back outweighs all that the people give away. The cycle can begin where more is given and less is kept back; the neighbourhoods where the same gifts are seeded show where it already keeps going.