We’ve surveyed a lineup of thinkers—Mill, Smith, Tocqueville, Rand, and others—each with their own spin on self-interest and its “enlightened” variants. Now, let’s stack TameFlow up against them and draw a conclusion, keeping it clear and in your thoughtful style.
Distinctive Features
TameFlow’s version of enlightened self-interest hinges on a few distinct pillars.
First, it’s relentlessly self-focused: you act only for your own interest, with no deliberate eye on benefiting others or the group.
Second, it’s transformative—the enlightenment isn’t just a tweak but a qualitative shift in how you perceive what’s good for you, driven by mental models, like Throughput Economics.
Third, the alignment with others, the Unity of Purpose, emerges as a side effect, not a goal. These mental models rewire your decision-making, so what you chase post-enlightenment isn’t just a smarter version of the old stuff—it’s a new target altogether. That’s the secret sauce: self-interest, redefined, powers a system without anyone needing to play altruist.
The Other Takes
Compare that to the crowd we’ve explored. Mill’s utilitarianism ties self-interest to collective happiness—you’re enlightened by considering others, which TameFlow explicitly rejects.
Smith’s invisible hand is closer, with self-interest unintentionally serving society, but it’s economic, not psychological, and lacks the mental-model machinery.
Tocqueville’s “self-interest rightly understood” nails the practical angle—acting for yourself in ways that happen to help others—but it’s still socially aware, not as ruthlessly self-contained as TameFlow.
Rand’s rational self-interest is the nearest kin: it’s all about you, guided by reason, with collective benefits as a byproduct. Yet her focus is a broad moral philosophy, not a system-building toolkit, and she doesn’t emphasize a transformative shift in what you want, just clarity in pursuing it.
Originality of TameFlow’s Enlightened Self-Interest
The originality of TameFlow’s take shines in two spots.
One, the mental models. No one else we’ve looked at packages enlightenment as a set of cognitive tools that flip your perception of self-interest from detrimental to effective. Smith’s baker doesn’t rethink baking; Rand’s Roark doesn’t redefine architecture—they just double down smarter. TameFlow says, “No, you were chasing the wrong thing entirely—here’s the new map.”
Two, the strictness of the self-only focus. Even Rand, for all her individualism, frames it as a virtue others should adopt; TameFlow doesn’t care what others do—it’s your game, your rules, and the system sorts itself out.
Is it wholly unique?
Not entirely. Threads of it weave through Smith’s unintended consequences, Rand’s rational selfishness, even Tocqueville’s pragmatic individualism.
But the combination - mental models driving a perceptual overhaul, locked on self-interest, with alignment as a happy accident - is fresh.
It’s not a retread of a single philosophy or school; it’s a synthesis with a twist, tailored for flow and decision-making in a way that’s more operational than ideological.
Unlike Mill’s moralizing, Smith’s economics, or Rand’s crusade, TameFlow’s enlightened self-interest is a practical method, a how-to embedded in a system.
So, yes! TameFlow’s take is quite original. It borrows DNA from the self-interest tradition but remixes it with a modern, tool-driven edge unique. It’s not just a footnote to the past—it’s a new chapter.