The work you have done here on data & statistics, as well as the loose consclusions you have drawn, is very interesting to look at.
What we seem to have here is an attempt to divide SteemIt users into groups (divide-and-conquer), lay down some kinds of "rules" or guidelines regarding "good vs. bad," and then one group trying to take control over another groups' behavior - in regards to property/resources. To me, that sounds a whole lot like "government" or "mind control."
Here's the simple fact of the matter: each person on the blockchain is the owner of their own, various forms of Steem tokens. My Steem, Steem Power, and SBDs' are private property. Yours belong to you. What I do with mine is my own business. What you do with yours is your own business. But, here is the the real problem - here is the REAL question that needs to be asked:
"Is a person using their Steem tokens in a way that is hurtful or harmful to other people?"
IMHO, that is a very important question to ask. If an individual chooses to give away 100% of their upvotes - that's great! It isn't hurting anyone. If another person chooses to use all of their upvotes for their own benefit - that's great! It isn't hurting anyone. Upvoting does not matter - whether you are upvoting yourself or somebody else, the percentages of your distribution towards self or others makes no moral or ethical difference. It merely provides some kind of insight into a persons' level of self-interest, at any given point in time. This level of self-interest will fluctuate with different circumstances in each individuals' life.
Today, "Joe," may have great abundance and feel more generous towards others, while, "Jane," may have great abundance and be completely focused on increasing her own wealth. A month from now, "Joe," may start calling in favors from people, trying to control other peoples' behavior by reminding them how generous he has been to them in the past - and that his future generosity will depend upon others' conforming to his wishes. In turn, "Jane," may then begin making large donations to charitable organizations. So, what at first appeared to be one way, turns out to be a different way, given time.
Quit worrying about other peoples' tools and resources - and start evaluating the CONTENT of what they are promoting. This is not a "data set" or a "statistic." This is a judgment call. Some people follow good judgement, and other people do not.
That's a bit of an extreme reading. No one is trying to take control of anyone else, but we are trying to influence people, just as you are trying to influence me with your comment. Making an argument based on facts and statistics to show my research, and that of my friend, and continue the conversation on self voting. I am not the only one talking about this. When we disagree with someone in the strongest possible way (down voting / flagging) this is as much our prerogative as self voting is for some others. No one's property is being infringed on.
I am looking honestly to see whether there is any case to be made for whether some behavior can be considered abuse on the platform. Content is only one part of it. Votes determine what is popular, often what is seen, and what is rewarded and to whom. Just because no one is hurt does not make an issue unimportant. Violence is not the only problem possible. And sometimes effects which are harmful take study to uncover.
You mention self-interest, and this is a key point. The system has to be balanced so that self interested actions are mostly directed outward to other people. What you see in this post is the extreme other side, the people who's actions are mostly directed inward. This may not be a problem but you have to actually look to see if it is or not. And this is looking.
You are right that today's behavior does not necessarily predict tomorrow's and that people change their habits. However aggregating public information and looking at it critically is one way to understand larger trends in the population.
Thanks for answering. Personally, I try to hit my upvotes at about a 50/50 split. I honestly have no idea how successful I am at keeping it on that target. I would guess it's within 10 - 15%, probably leaning more heavily towards self-upvoting. It seems like a lot of people in your set of statistics would also fall into that category - somewhere between 51 - 65% self upvoting. If somebody decides to give their money away, 1 time out of every 3 or 4, that seems generous enough to me. I see it as them giving away 35 - 49% of their potential rewards. People who give away that much of their money to charity actually tend to get audited more by the IRS to see if they are committing tax fraud, because very few people are actually that generous. I find it alarming that a significant number of people on SteemIt seem to see it as a "problem" that people aren't giving away more than 1/2 of their money. It actually seems a little bit INSANE to me. Why do people feel like they are so entitled to be rewarded that they are actually now openly questioning and criticizing people who they feel are not generous enough?!?!