What are your thoughts? I am curious because I am seeing the use of this term in posts often...
From United States, Daphne
50From United States, Daphne
Payroll delays kill trust. Our HRMS gets every number right, on time, every time. See It In Action - Book Your Demo
Dear Mr. Nikhil, Strong views and Ego are the two different ways. If people have no answer to our arguments they blaim our views as Ego. Regards,
From India, Meerut
From India, Meerut
I appreciate the question and would like to look at it from an organizational perspective.
I believe that having strong views can reflect knowledge, wisdom, and a definitive thought process in an individual. Such a person is likely to hold qualified views and express them confidently. However, it's important to note that a person with such pride may also be associated with ego, albeit for the right reasons.
Authority grants individuals the justification to hold even stronger views. Such individuals may be hesitant to retract or reconcile with others' viewpoints. This tendency is often rooted in the fear that withdrawing decisions or directives may be perceived as a sign of weakness on the part of the authority figure.
This is where the distinction between ego and egoism, as well as the presence of an egoist, becomes apparent. I have observed numerous instances where individuals in positions of authority persist with incorrect decisions simply due to the dread of potential humiliation if asked to retract those decisions.
While taking pride in oneself is not inherently negative, clinging stubbornly to one's mistakes in an attempt to preserve a false sense of self-worth, even at the expense of the organization's welfare, is detrimental. While ego per se may not be harmful, egoism can have adverse effects on both individuals and organizations.
I have witnessed organizations collapse when individuals possessing authority without accountability, coupled with egoism—a clear manifestation of an egoist—were at the helm.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
I believe that having strong views can reflect knowledge, wisdom, and a definitive thought process in an individual. Such a person is likely to hold qualified views and express them confidently. However, it's important to note that a person with such pride may also be associated with ego, albeit for the right reasons.
Authority grants individuals the justification to hold even stronger views. Such individuals may be hesitant to retract or reconcile with others' viewpoints. This tendency is often rooted in the fear that withdrawing decisions or directives may be perceived as a sign of weakness on the part of the authority figure.
This is where the distinction between ego and egoism, as well as the presence of an egoist, becomes apparent. I have observed numerous instances where individuals in positions of authority persist with incorrect decisions simply due to the dread of potential humiliation if asked to retract those decisions.
While taking pride in oneself is not inherently negative, clinging stubbornly to one's mistakes in an attempt to preserve a false sense of self-worth, even at the expense of the organization's welfare, is detrimental. While ego per se may not be harmful, egoism can have adverse effects on both individuals and organizations.
I have witnessed organizations collapse when individuals possessing authority without accountability, coupled with egoism—a clear manifestation of an egoist—were at the helm.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,
You raised an interesting query.
Like Dr. Ulhas Ganu mentioned, strong views come with knowledge—sometimes, sadly, with half-baked knowledge too.
Ego is absolutely different from 'strong views', yet linked to each other. Ego, to the extent I understand, has more to do with 'how one expresses' the strong views—not the content of what is being expressed/conveyed per se.
Let's assume I know a lot about a particular topic. I can share the info like I tell a movie story—plainly and simply; or I can gloat to one and all that I know this stuff—directly or indirectly pointing out that not many people know what I know; or focusing more on what the others don't know than what I know (akin to what Dr. Ulhas Ganu mentions about sticking to one's wrong decisions).
To the extent I understand human psychology, the III attitudinal response is a natural progression of the II type of response—something that develops even without the particular individual even realizing it, simply because no one attempted to point out the flaw earlier. And so he/she begins to assume that THAT attitude is the right way—and hell breaks loose if, after that stage, someone tries to point it out.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
You raised an interesting query.
Like Dr. Ulhas Ganu mentioned, strong views come with knowledge—sometimes, sadly, with half-baked knowledge too.
Ego is absolutely different from 'strong views', yet linked to each other. Ego, to the extent I understand, has more to do with 'how one expresses' the strong views—not the content of what is being expressed/conveyed per se.
Let's assume I know a lot about a particular topic. I can share the info like I tell a movie story—plainly and simply; or I can gloat to one and all that I know this stuff—directly or indirectly pointing out that not many people know what I know; or focusing more on what the others don't know than what I know (akin to what Dr. Ulhas Ganu mentions about sticking to one's wrong decisions).
To the extent I understand human psychology, the III attitudinal response is a natural progression of the II type of response—something that develops even without the particular individual even realizing it, simply because no one attempted to point out the flaw earlier. And so he/she begins to assume that THAT attitude is the right way—and hell breaks loose if, after that stage, someone tries to point it out.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Hello, Mr. Nikhil,
I believe that both the concepts of strong views and ego are entirely different yet interconnected. "Different" means that strong views and ego have nothing to do with each other. However, this difference depends on the way you express your views. Sometimes, people express their point of view in a manner that reflects their egoistic behavior. In this way, they are also interrelated.
Regards,
Maahi
From India
I believe that both the concepts of strong views and ego are entirely different yet interconnected. "Different" means that strong views and ego have nothing to do with each other. However, this difference depends on the way you express your views. Sometimes, people express their point of view in a manner that reflects their egoistic behavior. In this way, they are also interrelated.
Regards,
Maahi
From India
Greetings,
I second Sateesh. Being radical and oppressive comes with the territory in a business environment. I have seen very few leaders who earn 'buy-ins' not by pressure but by intellect; the rest rely on sheer brawn. Being open to suggestions is often viewed as a lack of preparedness combined with minimal knowledge. Consequently, protecting the 'turf' often leads to nasty ego fights.
I look forward to reading more views and experiences on this.
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
I second Sateesh. Being radical and oppressive comes with the territory in a business environment. I have seen very few leaders who earn 'buy-ins' not by pressure but by intellect; the rest rely on sheer brawn. Being open to suggestions is often viewed as a lack of preparedness combined with minimal knowledge. Consequently, protecting the 'turf' often leads to nasty ego fights.
I look forward to reading more views and experiences on this.
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
Strong views definitely represent ego as they project you as a hardliner. If you have more knowledge or better information, presenting it with clarity of thoughts is more desired than putting across strong views.
From India, Vadodara
From India, Vadodara
Interesting posts... How would one distinguish between the two? Is there an acid test?
Dr. Ulhas has raised an interesting point. If the person is not making wrong decisions, you would probably call them strong views?
Taj, the 'what others don't know' syndrome is different from wrong decisions... Did I misinterpret? Please let me know.
From United States, Daphne
Dr. Ulhas has raised an interesting point. If the person is not making wrong decisions, you would probably call them strong views?
Taj, the 'what others don't know' syndrome is different from wrong decisions... Did I misinterpret? Please let me know.
From United States, Daphne
If we look back in history, some of the rishis like Durwasa, Gautam, etc., had very extreme knowledge along with great ego. For very silly things, they cursed with horrible punishments. I think ego is a side effect of extreme knowledge, grand successes, and strong views. Only the words are different.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Only the perfect person can have a strong view.So it does not mean he is egoist. But that person should listen to others also.
From India, Calcutta
From India, Calcutta
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,
To answer your query: Taj, the 'what others don't know' syndrome is different from wrong decisions... Did I misinterpret?......
The answer is BOTH YES & NO. When I say 'what others don't know', please note that I am making an 'assumption'—I may be wrong or right...depending on how well I know the person(s) I am including in the sub-set "others". If I don't know them well [maybe just acquaintances], then the assumption I make COULD obviously be a 'wrong decision' too [since it's coming from my half-baked knowledge database], in addition to the 'ego' factor [if I didn't have any ego to begin with, I wouldn't attempt to make such assumptions at all...right?].
So what we 'are' depends a lot on the circumstances we are in at that point in time—and what we do depends on what we inherently 'are'.
A common analogy I use is: Everyone, right from childhood, says—always speak the truth. But how many ACTUALLY FOLLOW IT when faced with a situation where they have TWO choices: to speak a lie or bluff to get over with an inconvenient/uncomfortable situation OR speak the truth & face the consequences, whatever they might be? Or like the Master @ handling such tricky situations—Krishna—does: neither speaking a lie NOR telling the truth that puts me in trouble? The situation brings out the BEST & WORST in people—for all to see many times.
Regarding your understanding of the point of Dr. Ulhas: "has raised an interesting point. If the person is not making wrong decisions, you would probably call them strong views?"... I think the meaning is different.
Another analogy to clarify this point: I have very strong views about ethics in the HR area. Now, if I were to ask a politician or someone who is used to dealing with government officials regularly, he/she would say—I am wrong. For that person, the REFERENCE POINT/PERCEPTION is: whether the work is done or not. So if the work is done, then I am right—IRRESPECTIVE of the modus operandi adopted. But from my perspective, the REFERENCE POINT is on 'HOW' the work was done & NOT JUST on whether the work was done or not—BOTH ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
Not sure if I conveyed the point to your satisfaction—but as I mentioned earlier, 'strong views' are essentially the base/source [which emanate from the scale/level of knowledge one has, as mentioned by others too earlier], while 'wrong decisions' are AMONG the culminations/consequences of APPLICATION of the strong views [please note that NOT all applications end in wrong decisions].
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
To answer your query: Taj, the 'what others don't know' syndrome is different from wrong decisions... Did I misinterpret?......
The answer is BOTH YES & NO. When I say 'what others don't know', please note that I am making an 'assumption'—I may be wrong or right...depending on how well I know the person(s) I am including in the sub-set "others". If I don't know them well [maybe just acquaintances], then the assumption I make COULD obviously be a 'wrong decision' too [since it's coming from my half-baked knowledge database], in addition to the 'ego' factor [if I didn't have any ego to begin with, I wouldn't attempt to make such assumptions at all...right?].
So what we 'are' depends a lot on the circumstances we are in at that point in time—and what we do depends on what we inherently 'are'.
A common analogy I use is: Everyone, right from childhood, says—always speak the truth. But how many ACTUALLY FOLLOW IT when faced with a situation where they have TWO choices: to speak a lie or bluff to get over with an inconvenient/uncomfortable situation OR speak the truth & face the consequences, whatever they might be? Or like the Master @ handling such tricky situations—Krishna—does: neither speaking a lie NOR telling the truth that puts me in trouble? The situation brings out the BEST & WORST in people—for all to see many times.
Regarding your understanding of the point of Dr. Ulhas: "has raised an interesting point. If the person is not making wrong decisions, you would probably call them strong views?"... I think the meaning is different.
Another analogy to clarify this point: I have very strong views about ethics in the HR area. Now, if I were to ask a politician or someone who is used to dealing with government officials regularly, he/she would say—I am wrong. For that person, the REFERENCE POINT/PERCEPTION is: whether the work is done or not. So if the work is done, then I am right—IRRESPECTIVE of the modus operandi adopted. But from my perspective, the REFERENCE POINT is on 'HOW' the work was done & NOT JUST on whether the work was done or not—BOTH ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
Not sure if I conveyed the point to your satisfaction—but as I mentioned earlier, 'strong views' are essentially the base/source [which emanate from the scale/level of knowledge one has, as mentioned by others too earlier], while 'wrong decisions' are AMONG the culminations/consequences of APPLICATION of the strong views [please note that NOT all applications end in wrong decisions].
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
A person with a strong view should be nurtured and developed in an organization as they can make a good manager, at least in financial terms. They can keep their team under control by being a bit authoritative.
As a manager, if I talk on the phone, the people who work under me tend to copy it and do the same. Hence, it becomes very challenging when we try to be friendly as people take advantage and ask for a lot of favors.
To achieve better productivity, these stubborn individuals are required. After all, an employer is not a nonprofit entity.
Srini
From India, Mumbai
As a manager, if I talk on the phone, the people who work under me tend to copy it and do the same. Hence, it becomes very challenging when we try to be friendly as people take advantage and ask for a lot of favors.
To achieve better productivity, these stubborn individuals are required. After all, an employer is not a nonprofit entity.
Srini
From India, Mumbai
I totally agree with the views of Dr Ulhas Ganu. Fantastically explained. Ego is STICKING TO WRONG DECISIONS just because OF FEAR OF HUMILIATION or PROTECTING (False) SELF ESTEEM. Anoop
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
The topic is developing into a very interesting one, raising more pertinent questions.
The 'STRONG EXPRESSION' of the view is a function of CONFIDENCE the person has (to express views without fear of backlash), and LACK of STRONG EXPRESSION of his/her views goes with DIFFIDENCE (what if I am wrong & others laugh at me?).
For lawful activities, RIGHT OR WRONG is a PERCEPTION depending on the PERSON/PARTIES & HOW THEY ARE GOING TO GET AFFECTED vis-a-vis benefits or loss he/she is looking at. Hence I personally feel, ONE NEEDS to DISTINGUISH 'RIGHT or WRONG' views from STRONG VIEWS.
To see it all in the light of the current topic, we see
1. Almost all the participants in this discussion have expressed STRONG VIEWS on the Topic.
2. This is done without embarrassing anybody, means everybody's EGO has been RESPECTED. (ALL DISCUSSANTS HERE HAVE EGO for sure)
3. They also desired to know more from others (HUMBLENESS) & possibly would modify or change one's view (HEALTHY ATTITUDE)
4. The Moderator DOES NOT FORCE a VIEW (NON-DOGMATIC, A Very Healthy Website)
This brings us to refer to the dictionary meaning of DOGMA: Authoritative, Arrogant Assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
That I feel comes close to the difference between GARVA (meaning PROUD) as against ABHIMAAN (meaning SELF RESPECT, a good attribute) as perceived by us in our languages.
It indeed is becoming more difficult to define as THERE CANNOT BE a 'GOOD EGO or a BAD EGO'.
Thus like WATER, which has NO COLOUR of its own but Gets the Colour with which it is mixed, EGO cannot have its own COLOUR but WOULD TAKE THE COLOUR of HOW it is EXPRESSED by the INDIVIDUALS.
It would help if one can distinguish 'GOOD EGO & BAD EGO' with perfect single words.
Thanks to all & especially Nikhil for starting such a wonderful topic.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
The 'STRONG EXPRESSION' of the view is a function of CONFIDENCE the person has (to express views without fear of backlash), and LACK of STRONG EXPRESSION of his/her views goes with DIFFIDENCE (what if I am wrong & others laugh at me?).
For lawful activities, RIGHT OR WRONG is a PERCEPTION depending on the PERSON/PARTIES & HOW THEY ARE GOING TO GET AFFECTED vis-a-vis benefits or loss he/she is looking at. Hence I personally feel, ONE NEEDS to DISTINGUISH 'RIGHT or WRONG' views from STRONG VIEWS.
To see it all in the light of the current topic, we see
1. Almost all the participants in this discussion have expressed STRONG VIEWS on the Topic.
2. This is done without embarrassing anybody, means everybody's EGO has been RESPECTED. (ALL DISCUSSANTS HERE HAVE EGO for sure)
3. They also desired to know more from others (HUMBLENESS) & possibly would modify or change one's view (HEALTHY ATTITUDE)
4. The Moderator DOES NOT FORCE a VIEW (NON-DOGMATIC, A Very Healthy Website)
This brings us to refer to the dictionary meaning of DOGMA: Authoritative, Arrogant Assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
That I feel comes close to the difference between GARVA (meaning PROUD) as against ABHIMAAN (meaning SELF RESPECT, a good attribute) as perceived by us in our languages.
It indeed is becoming more difficult to define as THERE CANNOT BE a 'GOOD EGO or a BAD EGO'.
Thus like WATER, which has NO COLOUR of its own but Gets the Colour with which it is mixed, EGO cannot have its own COLOUR but WOULD TAKE THE COLOUR of HOW it is EXPRESSED by the INDIVIDUALS.
It would help if one can distinguish 'GOOD EGO & BAD EGO' with perfect single words.
Thanks to all & especially Nikhil for starting such a wonderful topic.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
I second Saroj. As long as a person is ready to accept others' views, as well as justify or convince others of their own views, that person is receptive in nature. A person with a receptive nature cannot be termed as egoistic.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Dear All,
It's a very interesting thread, filled with knowledgeable information. I recommend this thread for STUDENTS as a CASE STUDY. While respecting individuals' perception levels, I would like to participate to the best of my knowledge.
1) A PERSON WITH STRONG VIEWS - if views are GENUINE, BASED ON HONESTY, FACT, TRUTH, then that wise person cannot be considered as EGOISTIC unless he is open for DISCUSSIONS, should believe in convincing individuals where he may take support of examples, etc., but, should neither ARGUE nor PROMOTE ARGUMENTS.
2) A WISE PERSON will try to withdraw his presence if opponents/audience arguments are baseless, trying to deviate from the topic or there may be chances for exchanging INFORMAL VIEWS/HEATED DISCUSSIONS then, HE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EGOISTIC.
TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN EGOISTIC AND NON-EGOISTIC PERSON - ACID TEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGOISTIC PERSON
-----------------
EGO is a MINDSET (state of mind) and also known as an ATTITUDE - MENTAL PROCESS but, when it takes a PHYSICAL SHAPE, you can see people getting angry, shouting at others, arguing, losing self-control.... At times EGOISTIC PEOPLE DO SUPPORT WRONG DECISIONS.
The best friend of EGO is ANGER, SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, PROUD of KNOWLEDGE/WEALTH/EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS/ACHIEVEMENTS, and SELFISHNESS.
NON-EGOISTIC PERSON
----------------------
To my knowledge, I consider him a WISE MAN. Having total SELF-CONTROL. will never promote WRONG DECISIONS nor participate in such debates. He'll try his best to converse, convey, and communicate effectively. If he finds things getting out of control, he may compromise wisely or quit wisely, and he may also allow his opponents to win because he knows that he is not going to lose anything.
STRONG VIEWS cannot be based on SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, PROUD, REFLECTING ANGER.
VIEWS ARE VIEWS whether they are STRONG, AUTHENTIC/GENUINE, LESS-KNOWLEDGEABLE, BASELESS but again when one perceives written information, if not addressed politely, we consider and conclude that the respondent as EGOISTIC. Also, it may be one of the factors, but it cannot be taken for granted all the time.
It's better, one always remains DOWN TO EARTH, POLITE to avoid EGO and its associated factors affecting our ATTITUDE/BEHAVIOR closely and deeply associated with our CHARACTER.
The one who gains total control on ANGER can never be an EGOISTIC PERSON.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
It's a very interesting thread, filled with knowledgeable information. I recommend this thread for STUDENTS as a CASE STUDY. While respecting individuals' perception levels, I would like to participate to the best of my knowledge.
1) A PERSON WITH STRONG VIEWS - if views are GENUINE, BASED ON HONESTY, FACT, TRUTH, then that wise person cannot be considered as EGOISTIC unless he is open for DISCUSSIONS, should believe in convincing individuals where he may take support of examples, etc., but, should neither ARGUE nor PROMOTE ARGUMENTS.
2) A WISE PERSON will try to withdraw his presence if opponents/audience arguments are baseless, trying to deviate from the topic or there may be chances for exchanging INFORMAL VIEWS/HEATED DISCUSSIONS then, HE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EGOISTIC.
TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN EGOISTIC AND NON-EGOISTIC PERSON - ACID TEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGOISTIC PERSON
-----------------
EGO is a MINDSET (state of mind) and also known as an ATTITUDE - MENTAL PROCESS but, when it takes a PHYSICAL SHAPE, you can see people getting angry, shouting at others, arguing, losing self-control.... At times EGOISTIC PEOPLE DO SUPPORT WRONG DECISIONS.
The best friend of EGO is ANGER, SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, PROUD of KNOWLEDGE/WEALTH/EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS/ACHIEVEMENTS, and SELFISHNESS.
NON-EGOISTIC PERSON
----------------------
To my knowledge, I consider him a WISE MAN. Having total SELF-CONTROL. will never promote WRONG DECISIONS nor participate in such debates. He'll try his best to converse, convey, and communicate effectively. If he finds things getting out of control, he may compromise wisely or quit wisely, and he may also allow his opponents to win because he knows that he is not going to lose anything.
STRONG VIEWS cannot be based on SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, PROUD, REFLECTING ANGER.
VIEWS ARE VIEWS whether they are STRONG, AUTHENTIC/GENUINE, LESS-KNOWLEDGEABLE, BASELESS but again when one perceives written information, if not addressed politely, we consider and conclude that the respondent as EGOISTIC. Also, it may be one of the factors, but it cannot be taken for granted all the time.
It's better, one always remains DOWN TO EARTH, POLITE to avoid EGO and its associated factors affecting our ATTITUDE/BEHAVIOR closely and deeply associated with our CHARACTER.
The one who gains total control on ANGER can never be an EGOISTIC PERSON.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Well I feel ego is cognitive and strong view is based on aquired knowledge. how it is used is personal. capt sivva
From India, Madras
From India, Madras
Hi Seniors, Experts, and Readers,
I enjoyed this discussion very much. These two aspects are very dominant in our lives. A person with strong views is often presented as egoistic. The explanations given here are very enlightening. I have seen and experienced blunderous decisions people made solely out of ego and to protect their pride. Ego is a silent social evil. I'm not an expert in this case study, but I'm enjoying the knowledge shared by wonderful people here.
Hussain
From Kuwait, Salmiya
I enjoyed this discussion very much. These two aspects are very dominant in our lives. A person with strong views is often presented as egoistic. The explanations given here are very enlightening. I have seen and experienced blunderous decisions people made solely out of ego and to protect their pride. Ego is a silent social evil. I'm not an expert in this case study, but I'm enjoying the knowledge shared by wonderful people here.
Hussain
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Hello Hussain Zulfikar,
That's what CiteHR is all about - sharing just for the reason of sharing, without any expectations. Isn't it? Enjoy yourself - while at the same time, gaining and learning from others' mistakes and experiences.
There's a Quote: "The wise learn from others' experiences, while the fools don't even learn from theirs."
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
That's what CiteHR is all about - sharing just for the reason of sharing, without any expectations. Isn't it? Enjoy yourself - while at the same time, gaining and learning from others' mistakes and experiences.
There's a Quote: "The wise learn from others' experiences, while the fools don't even learn from theirs."
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Hello,
Quite an interesting reading from an HR perspective. If your strong views are pushed causing no harm to other stakeholders, then we need to take a strong, acceptable view. Someone needs to put a foot down somewhere, or else in this "let me please everyone" psyche, decisions tend to suffer. If you are pushing your strong views despite knowing that certain people will be rubbed the wrong way without deserving such an act, well, ego comes into the picture.
From India, Mangaluru
Quite an interesting reading from an HR perspective. If your strong views are pushed causing no harm to other stakeholders, then we need to take a strong, acceptable view. Someone needs to put a foot down somewhere, or else in this "let me please everyone" psyche, decisions tend to suffer. If you are pushing your strong views despite knowing that certain people will be rubbed the wrong way without deserving such an act, well, ego comes into the picture.
From India, Mangaluru
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
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
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
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
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
With profound regards.
From India, Chennai
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
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
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
From India, Hyderabad
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Strong View - it depends on person to person. Because "you are responsible for what you are, and whatever you wish yourself to be, you have the power to make yourselves. If what you are now has been the result of your own past actions, it certainly follows that whatever you wish to be in the future can be produced by your present actions; so you have to know how to act". In this statement, you are so strong and behave the way because you think it is the right path. So nobody can blame you for this strength - it is not connected with ego.
Suppose you are heading a department, because of that "position," you have the view that whatever you say is to be followed by others... that is an ego, it is "ahankara". This is sin and abuse of the position.
This is my view.
R. Pithambaran
09421248119.
From India, Kolhapur
Suppose you are heading a department, because of that "position," you have the view that whatever you say is to be followed by others... that is an ego, it is "ahankara". This is sin and abuse of the position.
This is my view.
R. Pithambaran
09421248119.
From India, Kolhapur
A very good question...!!
Despite the fact that the two mental positions are different, there is a very thin margin of difference between the two, especially when the observer cannot distinguish, mostly when you do not know the personality.
I feel this is a very good topic for an HR research.
Punya
From Sri Lanka, Panadura
Despite the fact that the two mental positions are different, there is a very thin margin of difference between the two, especially when the observer cannot distinguish, mostly when you do not know the personality.
I feel this is a very good topic for an HR research.
Punya
From Sri Lanka, Panadura
If the world has only Mr. & Mrs. perfects, then we need not be having a few things like manners, behaviors, learning, teaching, and other stuff. Life is a mix and match coming to the point of ego. I wanted to ask you all, what will a person gain if he shows ego? Is that people's attention or respect? Nope, nothing. Well, I said what was on my mind.
From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
I liked the example & quote by Tajsateesh: ‘This is one form of EGO--even though....... That's what the Bhagavad Gita means when it says: Perform action without any expectation of the result’. That is the way it should be...
However, for one person saying this, there are hundreds of modern-day consultants who insist that ‘BLOW your OWN TRUMPET or others would use it as a SPITTOON’ and THOUSANDS believe them. Hence, we see a lot of TRUMPET BLOWERS AROUND who want to push forward, and many times succeed in the corporate scenario.
The elaboration by Tajsateesh on ‘UNDERSTANDING by the MASSES based on PERCEPTION by 5 SENSES’ and its Limitation is classic. The strong believer in these 5 physical senses (as seen by him) may claim, for example, Lake Water as ‘PURE’ based on taste and vision (to the naked eye) whereas a microscopic observation (MAGNIFIED VIEW) may show the presence of harmful bacteria. In the same way, ‘SEEING BEYOND’ the 5 PHYSICAL SENSES in Life (SPIRITUAL SENSE) would serve well for the MASSES. Again, ONE MUST AGREE with Tajsateesh that to do it, ONE HAS to talk to them in a LANGUAGE UNDERSTOOD BY THEM. Thus, the PROCESS OF ‘IMPROVEMENT in UNDERSTANDING THROUGH DISCUSSIONS’ is as IMPORTANT as DESTINATION (the UNDERSTANDING itself).
Coming to the CORPORATE SCENE, we see the 4 major types of MANAGERS (Likert’s Leadership Styles) being described as ‘EXPLOITIVE-AUTHORITATIVE’, ‘BENEVOLENT-AUTHORITATIVE’, ‘CONSULTATIVE’ and ‘PARTICIPATIVE’ in nature. The FIRST THREE TYPES ESSENTIALLY RUN their OWN AGENDA. However, they are PERCEIVED DIFFERENTLY by SUBORDINATES.
Thus, EGO is indeed a matter of PERCEPTION (like BEAUTY, which Resides in the EYES of the BEHOLDER and NOT the OBJECT) and hence the Pundits wisely did not classify ‘Good Ego’ (as ‘Bona fide’ or ‘Pal’ Ego) and ‘Bad Ego’ (as ‘Mala fide’ as ‘mal-Ego’) leaving the BRANDING to the- shall we say- ‘BENEFICIARY’ or the ‘SUFFERERS’.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
However, for one person saying this, there are hundreds of modern-day consultants who insist that ‘BLOW your OWN TRUMPET or others would use it as a SPITTOON’ and THOUSANDS believe them. Hence, we see a lot of TRUMPET BLOWERS AROUND who want to push forward, and many times succeed in the corporate scenario.
The elaboration by Tajsateesh on ‘UNDERSTANDING by the MASSES based on PERCEPTION by 5 SENSES’ and its Limitation is classic. The strong believer in these 5 physical senses (as seen by him) may claim, for example, Lake Water as ‘PURE’ based on taste and vision (to the naked eye) whereas a microscopic observation (MAGNIFIED VIEW) may show the presence of harmful bacteria. In the same way, ‘SEEING BEYOND’ the 5 PHYSICAL SENSES in Life (SPIRITUAL SENSE) would serve well for the MASSES. Again, ONE MUST AGREE with Tajsateesh that to do it, ONE HAS to talk to them in a LANGUAGE UNDERSTOOD BY THEM. Thus, the PROCESS OF ‘IMPROVEMENT in UNDERSTANDING THROUGH DISCUSSIONS’ is as IMPORTANT as DESTINATION (the UNDERSTANDING itself).
Coming to the CORPORATE SCENE, we see the 4 major types of MANAGERS (Likert’s Leadership Styles) being described as ‘EXPLOITIVE-AUTHORITATIVE’, ‘BENEVOLENT-AUTHORITATIVE’, ‘CONSULTATIVE’ and ‘PARTICIPATIVE’ in nature. The FIRST THREE TYPES ESSENTIALLY RUN their OWN AGENDA. However, they are PERCEIVED DIFFERENTLY by SUBORDINATES.
Thus, EGO is indeed a matter of PERCEPTION (like BEAUTY, which Resides in the EYES of the BEHOLDER and NOT the OBJECT) and hence the Pundits wisely did not classify ‘Good Ego’ (as ‘Bona fide’ or ‘Pal’ Ego) and ‘Bad Ego’ (as ‘Mala fide’ as ‘mal-Ego’) leaving the BRANDING to the- shall we say- ‘BENEFICIARY’ or the ‘SUFFERERS’.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
Dear Readers,
Having strong views on something amounts to "ego" when somebody tries to impose their views on others. Otherwise, every individual has every right to have a strong opinion on any matter. By the way, when making decisions in organizations, the leader has to consider the opinions of other members. Otherwise, the leader will be considered an egotist and domineering.
From India, Madurai
Having strong views on something amounts to "ego" when somebody tries to impose their views on others. Otherwise, every individual has every right to have a strong opinion on any matter. By the way, when making decisions in organizations, the leader has to consider the opinions of other members. Otherwise, the leader will be considered an egotist and domineering.
From India, Madurai
Ulhas and Taj,
Thanks. It is interesting because there are a lot of people in this forum who use these terms, yet the clarity seems to differ significantly. Is ego the same as rigidity? If your subordinate doesn't want to follow (and practically works on another agenda), he is 'imposing' his view by being rigid (or lazy)... Is that also ego? I have seen this, although have never experienced it with my folks so far... Just curious. Because I am a little uncomfortable with subjective manifestations of such concepts... :-)
From United States, Daphne
Thanks. It is interesting because there are a lot of people in this forum who use these terms, yet the clarity seems to differ significantly. Is ego the same as rigidity? If your subordinate doesn't want to follow (and practically works on another agenda), he is 'imposing' his view by being rigid (or lazy)... Is that also ego? I have seen this, although have never experienced it with my folks so far... Just curious. Because I am a little uncomfortable with subjective manifestations of such concepts... :-)
From United States, Daphne
Very interesting question, on the basis of which many communication transactions occur daily.
EGOIST: sense of existence, closely related to self-esteem. Assuming there are 2 types of communication senders:
1. Those whose sense of self and esteem is linked to their views.
2. And those who are not linked.
This gives rise to the following scenarios:
Sender is Type 1 and is correctly perceived as EGOIST by the receiver.
Speaker is Type 1 and is incorrectly perceived as correct by the receiver.
Speaker is Type 2 and is incorrectly perceived as EGOIST by the receiver.
Speaker is Type 2 and is correctly perceived as correct by the receiver.
If body language/other non-verbal communication is not involved, this gives rise to a 50% probability of incorrect perception.
With other non-verbal communication being involved, the incorrect perception percentage should decrease (how much?).
From India, Mumbai
EGOIST: sense of existence, closely related to self-esteem. Assuming there are 2 types of communication senders:
1. Those whose sense of self and esteem is linked to their views.
2. And those who are not linked.
This gives rise to the following scenarios:
Sender is Type 1 and is correctly perceived as EGOIST by the receiver.
Speaker is Type 1 and is incorrectly perceived as correct by the receiver.
Speaker is Type 2 and is incorrectly perceived as EGOIST by the receiver.
Speaker is Type 2 and is correctly perceived as correct by the receiver.
If body language/other non-verbal communication is not involved, this gives rise to a 50% probability of incorrect perception.
With other non-verbal communication being involved, the incorrect perception percentage should decrease (how much?).
From India, Mumbai
Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,
You aren't alone in the confusion/misinterpretation of the words 'ego' & 'rigidity'.
Let's put it this way: 'ego' is the "cause" & 'rigidity' is the "result" or, in philosophical nomenclature, the "manifestation". Going further backwards, ego is again generated by other causes—it's sort of a chain. We just notice a few links in the chain & make our judgments/conclusions—something like the 4 blind men & the Elephant story.
While this thread has focused on 'strong views' & 'knowledge' vis-a-vis 'ego', ego doesn't necessarily have to emanate only from knowledge. The oft-repeated/used word in most religions/philosophies around the world for the cause of 'ego' in a person is: possessions.
How many of us haven't seen a rich brat showing off his riches which, not him, but his parents might have earned—as if he/she were 10 Bill Gates rolled into one? How many of us haven't seen a politician throwing his/her weight around, just because of the power he/she holds, albeit briefly? How many of us haven't seen people behaving like they own the world when they would be just owning a few thousands of acres of land? One can go on giving such examples.
The fact of the matter remains: There's nothing 100% bad or 100% good. What finally matters is the balance between the different possessions one has in life—or to put it in another way: the balance between one's wants & one's needs. Like the old saying goes: too much is too bad. Whether it's money or knowledge or land or just about any possession, if one has more than what he/she needs [which is different from 'wants'], at some point in time, it would most likely lead to 'ego' in most people—which manifests in different ways like I mentioned above. The way it manifests in one person doesn't necessarily have to match with the way it manifests in someone else—though, if we notice carefully, the underlying cause could essentially be the same.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
You aren't alone in the confusion/misinterpretation of the words 'ego' & 'rigidity'.
Let's put it this way: 'ego' is the "cause" & 'rigidity' is the "result" or, in philosophical nomenclature, the "manifestation". Going further backwards, ego is again generated by other causes—it's sort of a chain. We just notice a few links in the chain & make our judgments/conclusions—something like the 4 blind men & the Elephant story.
While this thread has focused on 'strong views' & 'knowledge' vis-a-vis 'ego', ego doesn't necessarily have to emanate only from knowledge. The oft-repeated/used word in most religions/philosophies around the world for the cause of 'ego' in a person is: possessions.
How many of us haven't seen a rich brat showing off his riches which, not him, but his parents might have earned—as if he/she were 10 Bill Gates rolled into one? How many of us haven't seen a politician throwing his/her weight around, just because of the power he/she holds, albeit briefly? How many of us haven't seen people behaving like they own the world when they would be just owning a few thousands of acres of land? One can go on giving such examples.
The fact of the matter remains: There's nothing 100% bad or 100% good. What finally matters is the balance between the different possessions one has in life—or to put it in another way: the balance between one's wants & one's needs. Like the old saying goes: too much is too bad. Whether it's money or knowledge or land or just about any possession, if one has more than what he/she needs [which is different from 'wants'], at some point in time, it would most likely lead to 'ego' in most people—which manifests in different ways like I mentioned above. The way it manifests in one person doesn't necessarily have to match with the way it manifests in someone else—though, if we notice carefully, the underlying cause could essentially be the same.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Readers,
There is a subtle difference between the two. Strong views with adamancy are called ego. One can't say one's view is always correct because our views become correct only when our objective is achieved. Our views could neither be proved nor disproved in a lab. As everybody knows, management is neither science nor art; the validity of our views depends on the result.
Chandrasekaran, Madurai.
From India, Madurai
There is a subtle difference between the two. Strong views with adamancy are called ego. One can't say one's view is always correct because our views become correct only when our objective is achieved. Our views could neither be proved nor disproved in a lab. As everybody knows, management is neither science nor art; the validity of our views depends on the result.
Chandrasekaran, Madurai.
From India, Madurai
Practically speaking, ego is universally present, and it is manifested as rigidity, the degree of which varies according to the situation. It is possible that many times a junior would tell the boss, "SIR, YOU ARE RIGHT" (half the sentence), the latter unheard part of the sentence being BECAUSE YOU ARE THE BOSS. (Situation Prevails)
Long ago, I read an interesting description of an individual's thought process about a situation or a point: There are four possible cases...
1. I KNOW (that) I KNOW
2. I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
3. I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
4. I DON'T KNOW (that) I KNOW
With "I KNOW (that) I KNOW" (Knowledgeable) and "I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW" (commenting upon everything around but seen as Stupidity by society), the individual (both types) would be clearly rigid. Here the branding of egoistic is bound to come.
In the case of individuals with acceptance of "I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW" and "I DON'T KNOW (that) I KNOW," the rigidity would be absent. Here the individual's egoistic nature would not be visible as the person doesn't flaunt it. (In fact, the "I Don't Know I Know" behavior is a stumbling block in that individual's progress).
Somehow, I feel compelled to compare it to temperature and fever in humans. A range of 97.6 F to 98.8 F (35.5 C to 37.00 C) axillary temperature is considered normal. Above this is fever or a physiologically abnormal condition.
All rich don't flaunt their wealth through jewelry. Thus, there seems to be a threshold for these things in the minds of people.
Similarly, the degree of expression of ego (which possibly is universal) makes for branding someone as an egoist.
As observed by Nikhil, the rigidity or laziness of an associate is not new.
A friend of mine always used to say, "HUMANS are PROGRAMMED to FAIL" and "to SUCCEED, they must make SPECIAL EFFORTS." Associates who do not believe in "Seniors Plans" may not launch fully into the work (ego?) or being lazy (inertia) would not participate wholeheartedly.
Thus, an egoist is a product mix of many factors and a persistent behavior pattern of an individual over a period of time (and not an isolated event), which brings the branding.
It was wonderful participating in the discussion, with opinions pouring in, and I could relate to many situations seen over 4 plus decades....
Regards,
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
Long ago, I read an interesting description of an individual's thought process about a situation or a point: There are four possible cases...
1. I KNOW (that) I KNOW
2. I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
3. I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW
4. I DON'T KNOW (that) I KNOW
With "I KNOW (that) I KNOW" (Knowledgeable) and "I DON'T KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW" (commenting upon everything around but seen as Stupidity by society), the individual (both types) would be clearly rigid. Here the branding of egoistic is bound to come.
In the case of individuals with acceptance of "I KNOW (that) I DON'T KNOW" and "I DON'T KNOW (that) I KNOW," the rigidity would be absent. Here the individual's egoistic nature would not be visible as the person doesn't flaunt it. (In fact, the "I Don't Know I Know" behavior is a stumbling block in that individual's progress).
Somehow, I feel compelled to compare it to temperature and fever in humans. A range of 97.6 F to 98.8 F (35.5 C to 37.00 C) axillary temperature is considered normal. Above this is fever or a physiologically abnormal condition.
All rich don't flaunt their wealth through jewelry. Thus, there seems to be a threshold for these things in the minds of people.
Similarly, the degree of expression of ego (which possibly is universal) makes for branding someone as an egoist.
As observed by Nikhil, the rigidity or laziness of an associate is not new.
A friend of mine always used to say, "HUMANS are PROGRAMMED to FAIL" and "to SUCCEED, they must make SPECIAL EFFORTS." Associates who do not believe in "Seniors Plans" may not launch fully into the work (ego?) or being lazy (inertia) would not participate wholeheartedly.
Thus, an egoist is a product mix of many factors and a persistent behavior pattern of an individual over a period of time (and not an isolated event), which brings the branding.
It was wonderful participating in the discussion, with opinions pouring in, and I could relate to many situations seen over 4 plus decades....
Regards,
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
"Having strong views" and being an "egoist" are two different things.
An egoist may not have strong views on anything. Here, I wish to distinguish between "pushing one's views - whether substantial or not, or wishes or whims; strongly upon others" and having dedication or commitment towards certain views.
An egoist will push his views on others; whether or not he knows much about what he believes in.
Having strong views implies that a person is committed to those views. For example, a person may have strong views about "vegetarianism," "anti-smoking," "corruption," etc.
Hope the distinction is amply clear.
I shall illustrate it further with a few examples. Anna Hazare has strong views against corruption. But is he an "egoist"? Similarly, Mahatma Gandhi had strong views on "Ahimsa (Non-violence)" and "Truth." But, can we call him an "egoist"?
There are other examples too: Adolf Hitler had strong views on the "supremacy of his race" and on "Jews," and he was also an "egoist"!! Your boss may not know about anything or any issues, but he may force you to do something out of his ego and the power he holds over you.
I hope it helps clarify the matter and puts these terms in their proper perspective. Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
An egoist may not have strong views on anything. Here, I wish to distinguish between "pushing one's views - whether substantial or not, or wishes or whims; strongly upon others" and having dedication or commitment towards certain views.
An egoist will push his views on others; whether or not he knows much about what he believes in.
Having strong views implies that a person is committed to those views. For example, a person may have strong views about "vegetarianism," "anti-smoking," "corruption," etc.
Hope the distinction is amply clear.
I shall illustrate it further with a few examples. Anna Hazare has strong views against corruption. But is he an "egoist"? Similarly, Mahatma Gandhi had strong views on "Ahimsa (Non-violence)" and "Truth." But, can we call him an "egoist"?
There are other examples too: Adolf Hitler had strong views on the "supremacy of his race" and on "Jews," and he was also an "egoist"!! Your boss may not know about anything or any issues, but he may force you to do something out of his ego and the power he holds over you.
I hope it helps clarify the matter and puts these terms in their proper perspective. Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Good question, dear.
A strong view from a person is not an ego. If others think his view is good, then it looks good. If it is not liked by someone, it's called ego. It really depends on the thoughts of others and how others understand.
From India, Guntur
A strong view from a person is not an ego. If others think his view is good, then it looks good. If it is not liked by someone, it's called ego. It really depends on the thoughts of others and how others understand.
From India, Guntur
Strong views, ego, and rigidity often go hand in hand, although they each have different meanings and the context of the situation will also matter a lot. These words need to be used very carefully.
Chances are that a person with no views can also be egoistic. Somebody has already suggested it.
One never calls oneself egoistic. It is often the opinion of others about the individual based on their perceptions, experiences, and circumstances.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu has brought up a very important point of 'threshold'. Based on individual threshold levels and other circumstances, someone is labeled as egoistic. However, as Dr. Ganu mentioned, there will be a lot of variation in individuals' threshold levels.
From India, Pune
Chances are that a person with no views can also be egoistic. Somebody has already suggested it.
One never calls oneself egoistic. It is often the opinion of others about the individual based on their perceptions, experiences, and circumstances.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu has brought up a very important point of 'threshold'. Based on individual threshold levels and other circumstances, someone is labeled as egoistic. However, as Dr. Ganu mentioned, there will be a lot of variation in individuals' threshold levels.
From India, Pune
Interesting discussion. Taj and Ulhas have provided a lot of perspective, and Raj has helped refine it.
I had a discussion with a client, and he called me a 'sophisticated bully!' He said that I never entered into verbal fights, but I had such strong views and even stronger substantiation that the other person felt 'bullied' as they had limited choice but to accept the strong logic. I guess I am on a thin line after re-reading the posts :-)
From United States, Daphne
I had a discussion with a client, and he called me a 'sophisticated bully!' He said that I never entered into verbal fights, but I had such strong views and even stronger substantiation that the other person felt 'bullied' as they had limited choice but to accept the strong logic. I guess I am on a thin line after re-reading the posts :-)
From United States, Daphne
Hello Nikhil,
I can understand what the client feels and why.
You must be a person with a well-modulated voice, a strong tone of a confident person who knows his subject well, and has the art of preparing evidence-based presentations (with references) so that no one can nullify the argument or proposition. Since yours is a client relationship and not an employer-employee relationship and still he wanted to continue with you, to me it is like his wanting to have a rose without the thorns.
As a scientist, we were always encouraged by our boss to speak on topics of discussion openly and fearlessly and express our opinions.
As a consultant in corporates, I found that the CEOs, MD, or chairman have their own hidden agenda (as we never know the real prices or profit margins). If they propose a point which is opposed by honest and committed people primed by being brought up from prime institutions, they get uncomfortable. The insult many times is not so much in failing but rather it being known by people, who may laugh.
We had similar problems with our customers. I had a discussion with my colleague, Gopal Iyer, on this and we branded the syndrome with a mnemonic as 'ACHES' (A: Ability, C: Commitment, H: Honesty, and E for that uninhibited expression by us which was sometimes uncomfortable to clients in open meetings but not so when talked one to one as his/her ego is not attacked in front of juniors). The S represented success for which to accrue, the ache is necessary.
Then we decided a policy to have a personal brief with top management (CEO or MD) before a group meeting to refine the agenda.
In medicine, pain is a non-parametric parameter as thresholds of different people vary. They cannot be analyzed statistically. These can be converted to parametric (measurable) by a scale. There are many visual analogue scales (VAS) to express pain or heat by patients.
This discussion and your observations of borderline ego prompted me to try and develop a scale for ego. I have used Prof. Ravi's Poovia's (IIT) signage for it. They are fantastic (great job). I don't know if all symbols I used are apt in the ego scale but could be closer to the meaning. There is no copyright on it.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
I can understand what the client feels and why.
You must be a person with a well-modulated voice, a strong tone of a confident person who knows his subject well, and has the art of preparing evidence-based presentations (with references) so that no one can nullify the argument or proposition. Since yours is a client relationship and not an employer-employee relationship and still he wanted to continue with you, to me it is like his wanting to have a rose without the thorns.
As a scientist, we were always encouraged by our boss to speak on topics of discussion openly and fearlessly and express our opinions.
As a consultant in corporates, I found that the CEOs, MD, or chairman have their own hidden agenda (as we never know the real prices or profit margins). If they propose a point which is opposed by honest and committed people primed by being brought up from prime institutions, they get uncomfortable. The insult many times is not so much in failing but rather it being known by people, who may laugh.
We had similar problems with our customers. I had a discussion with my colleague, Gopal Iyer, on this and we branded the syndrome with a mnemonic as 'ACHES' (A: Ability, C: Commitment, H: Honesty, and E for that uninhibited expression by us which was sometimes uncomfortable to clients in open meetings but not so when talked one to one as his/her ego is not attacked in front of juniors). The S represented success for which to accrue, the ache is necessary.
Then we decided a policy to have a personal brief with top management (CEO or MD) before a group meeting to refine the agenda.
In medicine, pain is a non-parametric parameter as thresholds of different people vary. They cannot be analyzed statistically. These can be converted to parametric (measurable) by a scale. There are many visual analogue scales (VAS) to express pain or heat by patients.
This discussion and your observations of borderline ego prompted me to try and develop a scale for ego. I have used Prof. Ravi's Poovia's (IIT) signage for it. They are fantastic (great job). I don't know if all symbols I used are apt in the ego scale but could be closer to the meaning. There is no copyright on it.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
Hi Ulhas,
Interesting post. I was referring to a one-to-one with the CEO/MD, and this was his observation :-)
But I liked the framework. Let me see if I can use it effectively. Thanks for sharing that.
Regards,
Nikhil
From United States, Daphne
Interesting post. I was referring to a one-to-one with the CEO/MD, and this was his observation :-)
But I liked the framework. Let me see if I can use it effectively. Thanks for sharing that.
Regards,
Nikhil
From United States, Daphne
Dear Nikhil,
I converted this page into a PDF. It's a white paper now. If you want to access the same for any other threads, here's the path: Go to the printable option, get the content on one page, save the HTML version on Desktop, and then convert it to PDF!
Congratulations to everyone who contributed!
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
I converted this page into a PDF. It's a white paper now. If you want to access the same for any other threads, here's the path: Go to the printable option, get the content on one page, save the HTML version on Desktop, and then convert it to PDF!
Congratulations to everyone who contributed!
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
That was a beautiful idea (Cite Contribution). But the flow could have been more consistent if irrelevant postings, like that of kavitabhatia30 - asking 'how to post a new thread,' could have been deleted in the PDF.
Nevertheless, a nice thing to save for the future, I would say :-)
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Nevertheless, a nice thing to save for the future, I would say :-)
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
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.
10 Tips For Building A Strong Relationship.pd f
7 Power Skills that Build Strong Relationships.d oc
Amazing views.pps