All of your arguments focus on one thing. A possibility. A possibility that an evolutionary trait is either a neutral trait or an outdated trait. None of these

All of your arguments focus on one thing. A possibility. A possibility that an evolutionary trait is either a neutral trait or an outdated trait. None of these arguments prove that Ego is an ineffective or negative trait. First off people need to list examples about how a big Ego can be a neutral trait or an outdated trait as a supporting argument. If the ego is outdated at some point in time it must have been a positive trait, how can this be? If the ego is a neutral trait there should be an example about how a big ego can be inconsequential to the overall group or positive to the individual. Of course we are talking in terms of possibilities but the absence of examples of the above possibilities makes for weak arguments in my humble opinion. My argument offers that the ego exists because humans need self delusion. They need to lie to themselves and see their existence as consequential in order to be happy. Why has everyone ignored this statement? No argument is completely effective until every point is addressed. Perhaps it's because none of you could come up with a counter retort to the self-delusion argument so you chose to ignore it. Isn't that a form of self delusion? Are we all participating in an argument or are we just trying to win? Perhaps the participants in this argument is not us per se, but our egos. Perhaps all arguments are a meeting of egos.