Seniors and seniors, read the subject again and let's not be egoistic. Nikhil S. Gurjar asked, "Is a person with strong views an egoist?"
We tend to avoid the word "egoist" in our discussion and substitute it with "an egoistic person." Do not dwell on "strong views" and "egoist" if you understand.
From Kenya, Nairobi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
We tend to avoid the word "egoist" in our discussion and substitute it with "an egoistic person." Do not dwell on "strong views" and "egoist" if you understand.
From Kenya, Nairobi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
The topic "Is a person with strong views an egoist?"
A person with strong views cannot be straightaway considered or concluded as an egoist. The question here is whether the person having strong views is trying to force his views and ideas on others; this is what matters. This alone can decide whether a person with strong views is an egoist. The answer cannot be given in general. When a person tries to put his views and ideas forcibly on others, it is only then that he can be called an egoist. If a person's views are acceptable to others in a team, in a group, or to a mass, then he is not considered an egoist. Whether a person's views are right or wrong, whether that person is egoistic or not, depends on the people who follow him and not otherwise. So, to conclude in simple terms, whether a person is egoistic or not depends on the acceptance and concurrence of the followers or team members in accepting him without any conditions.
Also, a person may have strong views on his ideas or his understanding and may not force his ideas on others. Such persons hold onto their ideologies - they cannot be called egoists, and it is their life and way.
Hope this also addresses the concern raised by Mr. Ernest12.
Regards,
K. Ramachandra
Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
10The topic "Is a person with strong views an egoist?"
A person with strong views cannot be straightaway considered or concluded as an egoist. The question here is whether the person having strong views is trying to force his views and ideas on others; this is what matters. This alone can decide whether a person with strong views is an egoist. The answer cannot be given in general. When a person tries to put his views and ideas forcibly on others, it is only then that he can be called an egoist. If a person's views are acceptable to others in a team, in a group, or to a mass, then he is not considered an egoist. Whether a person's views are right or wrong, whether that person is egoistic or not, depends on the people who follow him and not otherwise. So, to conclude in simple terms, whether a person is egoistic or not depends on the acceptance and concurrence of the followers or team members in accepting him without any conditions.
Also, a person may have strong views on his ideas or his understanding and may not force his ideas on others. Such persons hold onto their ideologies - they cannot be called egoists, and it is their life and way.
Hope this also addresses the concern raised by Mr. Ernest12.
Regards,
K. Ramachandra
Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If everyone starts thinking positively and perceiving things positively, then I am sure no one will ever find anything that sounds or looks negative. If it sounds or looks negative, then it's your mental feeling that is making you feel negative. It's better to change our perception level if you want to see everything beautiful, even though it is a beautiful world. Learn to control your brain; it is the key to having a successful life.
With profound regards.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With profound regards.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From my point of view, dear.
Those who consider a strong viewpoint to be egotistical are actually mistaken. They never provide support to a person but instead try to undermine someone with strong convictions. They know they are not capable enough to make sound decisions that would benefit the organization. So, they spread rumors that the individual is very egotistical and they do not want to work with them.
Comments are welcome!!!!!!!!
Sulabh Gupta
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Those who consider a strong viewpoint to be egotistical are actually mistaken. They never provide support to a person but instead try to undermine someone with strong convictions. They know they are not capable enough to make sound decisions that would benefit the organization. So, they spread rumors that the individual is very egotistical and they do not want to work with them.
Comments are welcome!!!!!!!!
Sulabh Gupta
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It all depends upon the person who is viewing you. If he is a positive person, he will understand the authenticity of your views. If he is narrow-minded, he will paint you as an egoist. But always care should be taken by the people who have strong views to express them politely. They should put forward their argument without a hint of arrogance.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
In my view, if a person holds a strong opinion that is authentically right, he will always show a path. However, if a person is egoistic, he will force others to follow what he says. A knowledgeable person always shows the right course of action firmly and gives freedom to others on how to carry it out; he never tries to compel anyone to follow him. A person with a strong viewpoint will always welcome the ideas of others and, while sticking to his own perspective, will make necessary adjustments to derive the best outcome from his standpoint. Conversely, an egoistic individual will rigidly adhere to his own words and constantly believe that he is right. They hardly show respect to others and always strive to show off.
Thank you.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In my view, if a person holds a strong opinion that is authentically right, he will always show a path. However, if a person is egoistic, he will force others to follow what he says. A knowledgeable person always shows the right course of action firmly and gives freedom to others on how to carry it out; he never tries to compel anyone to follow him. A person with a strong viewpoint will always welcome the ideas of others and, while sticking to his own perspective, will make necessary adjustments to derive the best outcome from his standpoint. Conversely, an egoistic individual will rigidly adhere to his own words and constantly believe that he is right. They hardly show respect to others and always strive to show off.
Thank you.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Very interesting and thought-provoking discussion. Adding my bit of opinion, maybe in a summarized form and maybe the same as that of many other members.
Having strong views based on knowledge, wisdom, and experience is alright, but one has to be open to ideas from others and change the views if need be. Need not stonewall, ignore, ridicule, or rubbish others' views. One needs to be open to explain why he or she holds a particular view. Otherwise, you run the risk of being labeled as egoistic.
Perceptions of others matter a lot. Somebody may perceive you as a person with strong views and egoistic as well since you didn't bother to explain your views to satisfy his ego.
I feel there is good ego as well as bad ego. Knowledge, confidence, success can make you egoistic. You will have a good ego as long as you are not hurting others and their ego. The moment somebody feels hurt, he or she will perceive you as an egoistic person in a negative sense.
So there are chances that often your strong views will be perceived as ego, whereas you strongly perceive yourself as non-egoistic.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Having strong views based on knowledge, wisdom, and experience is alright, but one has to be open to ideas from others and change the views if need be. Need not stonewall, ignore, ridicule, or rubbish others' views. One needs to be open to explain why he or she holds a particular view. Otherwise, you run the risk of being labeled as egoistic.
Perceptions of others matter a lot. Somebody may perceive you as a person with strong views and egoistic as well since you didn't bother to explain your views to satisfy his ego.
I feel there is good ego as well as bad ego. Knowledge, confidence, success can make you egoistic. You will have a good ego as long as you are not hurting others and their ego. The moment somebody feels hurt, he or she will perceive you as an egoistic person in a negative sense.
So there are chances that often your strong views will be perceived as ego, whereas you strongly perceive yourself as non-egoistic.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is making it more interesting...
So, friends, is ego a 'reflective' phenomenon? Or is it 'intrinsic'?
Some of the people went on to indicate 'good' and 'bad' decisions and 'forcing' people to accept their views. Even if forcing is for the benefit of the company, especially while dealing with change management, is it still something to be factored in while considering ego? The more I read through, the more contrasting the views. SAK talked about positive and negative... You might still have ego even with positive thoughts. Am I wrong? The acid test seems to be perceptive rather than objective.
Now another question for (Cite Contribution) and Taj, is there a model using Id, Ego, and Superego in TA similar to the PAC (Parent, Adult, Child) model? Because the TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with... later delves deeper into each factor... Just curious, are we heading the same way in this discussion?
From United States, Daphne
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
So, friends, is ego a 'reflective' phenomenon? Or is it 'intrinsic'?
Some of the people went on to indicate 'good' and 'bad' decisions and 'forcing' people to accept their views. Even if forcing is for the benefit of the company, especially while dealing with change management, is it still something to be factored in while considering ego? The more I read through, the more contrasting the views. SAK talked about positive and negative... You might still have ego even with positive thoughts. Am I wrong? The acid test seems to be perceptive rather than objective.
Now another question for (Cite Contribution) and Taj, is there a model using Id, Ego, and Superego in TA similar to the PAC (Parent, Adult, Child) model? Because the TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with... later delves deeper into each factor... Just curious, are we heading the same way in this discussion?
From United States, Daphne
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,
Now this is getting deeper... maybe all of us would be vying with the great philosophers :-)
Again, YES. Every religion has a similar, if not identical, way of looking at the situations in a holistic way. There's a reason why 'TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with'. A normal/average human being can only understand what he/she can see/touch/hear/smell/taste [basically what can be measured through the 5 senses]--mind you, 'intellect' comes much later. So if one were to talk to such a person about what has been discussed in this Forum so far, would he/she understand a thing? No way.
But at the same time, the Masters who propounded the different philosophical lines of thought know it's such people who actually need the philosophy MORE--a sort of contradiction, but an unavoidable or inevitable one. The only way to make such a crowd begin to take an interest in knowing themselves would be to talk in THEIR language--what they will find easier to understand. And when they get going on that path, things get deeper and deeper... like you mentioned: "later delves deeper into each factor...". It's only now that psychologists have devised ways of measuring this aspect in human nature--through what we now call "Spiritual Quotient [SQ]", as opposed to IQ and EQ until recently.
I recollect one Master's quote: "I am giving you what you want now, in the hope that you will want what I have got to give you". Miracles form part of this process/methodology.
Maybe a bit heavy stuff--couldn't get any simpler.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Now this is getting deeper... maybe all of us would be vying with the great philosophers :-)
Again, YES. Every religion has a similar, if not identical, way of looking at the situations in a holistic way. There's a reason why 'TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with'. A normal/average human being can only understand what he/she can see/touch/hear/smell/taste [basically what can be measured through the 5 senses]--mind you, 'intellect' comes much later. So if one were to talk to such a person about what has been discussed in this Forum so far, would he/she understand a thing? No way.
But at the same time, the Masters who propounded the different philosophical lines of thought know it's such people who actually need the philosophy MORE--a sort of contradiction, but an unavoidable or inevitable one. The only way to make such a crowd begin to take an interest in knowing themselves would be to talk in THEIR language--what they will find easier to understand. And when they get going on that path, things get deeper and deeper... like you mentioned: "later delves deeper into each factor...". It's only now that psychologists have devised ways of measuring this aspect in human nature--through what we now call "Spiritual Quotient [SQ]", as opposed to IQ and EQ until recently.
I recollect one Master's quote: "I am giving you what you want now, in the hope that you will want what I have got to give you". Miracles form part of this process/methodology.
Maybe a bit heavy stuff--couldn't get any simpler.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,
I think there was some mix-up in my posting yesterday [some lines got missed out & some got jumbled]--hence reposting it again below.
Now this is getting to get more deeper.....maybe all of us would be vying with the great Philosophers :-)
To answer your queries/comments to the best of what I know/can......
So, friends, is ego a 'reflective' phenomenon? Or is it 'intrinsic'?
It's more 'intrinsic' to begin with, while what the outside world sees in that individual would be the manifestation of that 'intrinsic' quality--which you termed as ''reflective phenomenon''. Howsoever much the individual tries to mask/hide his/her intrinsic basic nature, it is bound to get externally manifested at some point of time--and the manifestation can be vocal, non-vocal or thru thought.
An example of manifestation of this phenomenon/aspect in human nature would be: quite a few of us sometimes 'feel' comfortable when we meet anyone new right from the first time--even without knowing anything about that new person. Sometimes, it's the other way round.
Some of the people went on to indicate 'good' and 'bad' decisions and 'forcing' people to accept their views. Even if forcing is for the benefit of the company, especially while dealing with change management, is it still something to be factored in while considering ego?
The more I read through, the more contrasting the views. SAK talked about positive and negative... You might still have ego even with positive thoughts. Am I wrong? The acid test seems to be perceptive rather than objective.
Yes....you are right. One can have an ego even with positive thoughts.
For example, let's take a case of a person who has the true habit/nature of helping others WITHOUT any hesitation or expectation. If he helps with the hope/motive of BEING NOTICED, then such a person always tries to place himself/herself in situations where the exposure of the 'helping act' is MAXIMUM. This is one form of EGO--even though it doesn't cause anyone any harm, it does minimize the effect/result of his/her helping nature. That's what the Bhagavat Gita means when it says: Perform action without any expectation of the result.
If this person doesn't care whether anyone notices or not his/her helping nature, or even goes one step further--making conscious efforts to ensure NO ONE NOTICES his/her acts of helping, then that's what the religious texts term as the true believer. This attitude can go still one step further: he/she can do his helping deeds in FULL PUBLIC GLARE--but yet not get effected whatsoever [in Hindu texts such a person is termed as 'karma yogi'].
Now another question for (Cite Contribution) and Taj, is there a model using Id, Ego and Superego in TA similar to the PAC (Parent, Adult, Child) model? Because the TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with... later delves deeper into each factor... Just curious, are we heading the same way in this discussion?
Again YES. Every religion has similar, if not identical, way of looking @ the situations in a holistic way. There's a reason why 'TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with'. A normal/average human being can only understand what he/she can see/touch/hear/smell/taste [basically what can be measured thru the 5 senses]--mind you, 'intellect' comes much later. So if one were to talk to such a person what has been discussed in this Forum so far, would he/she understand a thing? No way.
But at the same time the Masters who propounded the different philosophical lines of thought know it's such people who actually need the philosophy MORE--a sort of contradiction, but an unavoidable or inevitable one. The only way to make such a crowd to begin to take interest in knowing themselves would be to talk in THEIR language--what they will find easier to understand. And when they get going in that path, things get more & more deeper....like you mentioned:"later delves deeper into each factor..". It's only now that psychologists have devised ways of measuring this aspect in human nature--through what we now call "Spiritual Quotient [SQ]", as opposed to IQ & EQ until recently.
I recollect one Master's quote: "I am giving you what you want now, in the hope that you will want what I have got to give you". Miracles form a part of this process/methodology.
Maybe a bit of heavy stuff--couldn't get any simpler.
Any comments? Both bouquets or brickbats are OK with me....part of MY learning process.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think there was some mix-up in my posting yesterday [some lines got missed out & some got jumbled]--hence reposting it again below.
Now this is getting to get more deeper.....maybe all of us would be vying with the great Philosophers :-)
To answer your queries/comments to the best of what I know/can......
So, friends, is ego a 'reflective' phenomenon? Or is it 'intrinsic'?
It's more 'intrinsic' to begin with, while what the outside world sees in that individual would be the manifestation of that 'intrinsic' quality--which you termed as ''reflective phenomenon''. Howsoever much the individual tries to mask/hide his/her intrinsic basic nature, it is bound to get externally manifested at some point of time--and the manifestation can be vocal, non-vocal or thru thought.
An example of manifestation of this phenomenon/aspect in human nature would be: quite a few of us sometimes 'feel' comfortable when we meet anyone new right from the first time--even without knowing anything about that new person. Sometimes, it's the other way round.
Some of the people went on to indicate 'good' and 'bad' decisions and 'forcing' people to accept their views. Even if forcing is for the benefit of the company, especially while dealing with change management, is it still something to be factored in while considering ego?
The more I read through, the more contrasting the views. SAK talked about positive and negative... You might still have ego even with positive thoughts. Am I wrong? The acid test seems to be perceptive rather than objective.
Yes....you are right. One can have an ego even with positive thoughts.
For example, let's take a case of a person who has the true habit/nature of helping others WITHOUT any hesitation or expectation. If he helps with the hope/motive of BEING NOTICED, then such a person always tries to place himself/herself in situations where the exposure of the 'helping act' is MAXIMUM. This is one form of EGO--even though it doesn't cause anyone any harm, it does minimize the effect/result of his/her helping nature. That's what the Bhagavat Gita means when it says: Perform action without any expectation of the result.
If this person doesn't care whether anyone notices or not his/her helping nature, or even goes one step further--making conscious efforts to ensure NO ONE NOTICES his/her acts of helping, then that's what the religious texts term as the true believer. This attitude can go still one step further: he/she can do his helping deeds in FULL PUBLIC GLARE--but yet not get effected whatsoever [in Hindu texts such a person is termed as 'karma yogi'].
Now another question for (Cite Contribution) and Taj, is there a model using Id, Ego and Superego in TA similar to the PAC (Parent, Adult, Child) model? Because the TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with... later delves deeper into each factor... Just curious, are we heading the same way in this discussion?
Again YES. Every religion has similar, if not identical, way of looking @ the situations in a holistic way. There's a reason why 'TA situation actually focuses more on the circumstances rather than intrinsic character to start with'. A normal/average human being can only understand what he/she can see/touch/hear/smell/taste [basically what can be measured thru the 5 senses]--mind you, 'intellect' comes much later. So if one were to talk to such a person what has been discussed in this Forum so far, would he/she understand a thing? No way.
But at the same time the Masters who propounded the different philosophical lines of thought know it's such people who actually need the philosophy MORE--a sort of contradiction, but an unavoidable or inevitable one. The only way to make such a crowd to begin to take interest in knowing themselves would be to talk in THEIR language--what they will find easier to understand. And when they get going in that path, things get more & more deeper....like you mentioned:"later delves deeper into each factor..". It's only now that psychologists have devised ways of measuring this aspect in human nature--through what we now call "Spiritual Quotient [SQ]", as opposed to IQ & EQ until recently.
I recollect one Master's quote: "I am giving you what you want now, in the hope that you will want what I have got to give you". Miracles form a part of this process/methodology.
Maybe a bit of heavy stuff--couldn't get any simpler.
Any comments? Both bouquets or brickbats are OK with me....part of MY learning process.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.