Winners without losers?

Usually, I try to write well thought posts with a clear message, but today I just feel like throwing some random reflections. Rather than in expressing myself, I am more interested in knowing what are your thoughts about all of this.
I read a book last summer titled "Behave: the biology of humans at our best and worst" by Robert Sapolsky, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in psychology by the way, and it was very eye-opening to me.
I want to read it again, because at the time I read it my porn addiction was out of control and so my concentration was very poor and I didn't retain as much info as I would like.
But I remember something he explained about oxytocine, sometimes called the "love hormone". The reason for this name you may already know if you are interested in psychology: we naturally produce it when we hang out with friends, laugh, hug, kiss, have sex... and it makes us bond deeper with our friends and partners.
So oxytocine milkshakes sounds like the kind of drink they would serve you at disney world when ordering a fantasy meal. But as Sapolsky repeatedly emphasizes, things are not so simple in biology as A implies B.
Oxytocine promotes social behaviour, there is no doubt about it. It is produced for example in great quantities in pregnant mammals, to prepare the mother for being affectionate towards their child. Also, their general effect is to make us more keen at making the right judgements in social situations, like wheter the other person is enjoying our conversation, remembering his facial expression, etc.
But there is a dark side to this. He mentioned an economy game whose rules I cannot exactly remember, but basically there were other players apart from you and you could choose between cooperating or going solo, you could even devise tactics against other players.
Well, oxytocine did enhance cooperation... but only when the other players were already familiar. If it was a stranger, then the opposite happened: they turned their backs on that player more easily.
There is still a lot of study that needs to be done, but it seems like the problem here is a problem about concepts. Sociality includes laughing, smiling and kissing; but also gossip, distrusting strangers, criticizing the nerd for not fitting well, countries conquering other countries, or "us" versus "thems" as Sapolsky accurately summarizes it.
At this point, my question is (and sadly Sapolsky says that he cannot find and answer neither): does it have to be like this? Always us versus thems? Fapstronauts vs fappers?
I once used to believe in god and that helped giving me a strong sense of direction in life. But as I kept thinking, I realized how different is my good from the neighbour's good, and how god was just a way to justify our personal needs when, in order to come on top, we necessarily have to let someone down, even if we don't want to.
So that's the title of the post. I would love to believe that by encouraging people to overcome porn addiction I am making the world a little better, because that sense of purpose would help me get through the tougher days. But I can't shake out of my head the feeling that, if you help many people out of their addiction and make them more competitive in real life, you are basically rasing the bar. And then many people who had a normal life up until then may become unable to keep up with the pace and end up falling in an addiction themselves.
I can easily notice that this way of thinking of mine is largely due to the manipulative behaviour of my parents, who seemed to get almost jealous every time I succeeded at something or found something I love other than them. So I have a deep feeling of guilt about which I am very aware, and quite probably it makes my reasoning in this topic biased. But if that's the case, I cannot see at which point my reasoning is mistaken, so that's why I wanted to share my opinion.
I really hope I am wrong, but nonetheless I won't believe the easy thing just because it is comfortable.

 

I am not sure about your exact opinion in this topic, but it is an interesting thing you have pointed out and I have contradictory opinions about it. On the one hand, I can easily see how such a rich social life can benefit everyone in the group by providing a sense of belonging. But as you have said the sponsee programs require a huge amount of personal time, and even though I want a healthy group in wich nobody is left behind, I also deeply dislike (and I know this is something very personal, not gonna lie) groups in which the norm is being kind of a needy person always searching the support of the group.
Don't get me wrong, I value good friends and relationships as gold, but I think it is necessary to spend plenty of time alone for personal growth, wheter it is on an emotional or professional level. My question then is where is the sweet spot between focusing on the selfish interests of the individual so we can reinforce personal growth, and between a deeply interconected group that helps individual cope with stress.
I think there is no simple answer for this, because ithere is always some conflict between the interests of the individual and those of the group. Because an individual who excels at something will tend to have a competitive character (which is perfectly comprehensible) while those who are on the average level prefer the confortness of the group (again perfectly comprehensible).
So my original question can be reformulated like this: which approach to addiction recovery would benefit people the most? A program wich focuses on empowering the individual, with the risk of placing the few more capable above the average unfairly; or a more group oriented approach, with the risk of limiting the possibilities of those who are naturally stronger?