Why would a selfish intention/action be superior to a selfless one?

In [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51562/was-the-buddha-neutral-on-self-centredness-or-selfishness#comment84938_51575) it was pointed out as per [AN 4:95](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_95.html) that one who practises solely for one’s benefits is better than one who practises solely for others’ benefits. While the best of the 4 types of individuals is those who practise for theirs and others’ benefits. It seems strange that a selfless and altruistic intention is seen as lower and less refined than a selfish one by the Buddha. This [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28527/if-you-cannot-can-save-others-then-why-is-your-practice-more-worthy-than-anythin/28658#28658) proposed possible reasons why type 3 (solely for oneself) is better than type 2 (solely for others). In short, by practising for oneself, the individual indirectly confer protection to others as well as to oneself. But won’t the same effect be achieved with type 2? Is this right or is there something else? By logical extension from the above, if one is practising for oneself and others there should be additional benefits as this type is the best of all according to the Buddha. Are there additional advantages and what are they? The last question is somewhat related to [an earlier post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51562/was-the-buddha-neutral-on-self-centredness-or-selfishness) . If intentions are not to be judged on the basis of selfishness versus selflessness, what is the proper Buddhist criteria for deciding if an intention is noble/refine versus ignoble/base? Any insight is much appreciated.