5 ms·

> Ego is a mind-killer. It is selling smoke. I think you might be misunderstanding ego. That's like saying, "The engine in your car is bad." It's not good or

> Ego is a mind-killer. It is selling smoke. I think you might be misunderstanding ego. That's like saying, "The engine in your car is bad." It's not good or bad, it's a part of your car. Ego is part of the triad of the Freudian model of the human mind. When people use ego the way you are using it, they are usually referring to a narcissistic personality disorder. Instead, cognitive behavioral therapists will refer to "ego strength". Which is important for healthy functioning. "Ego strength" is what the author is referring to. It is how we act assertively, instead of aggressively (bad) or passive-aggressively (also bad). This is a widespread confusion on HN, people think being assertive is the same as being aggressive, or being a narcissist. A person with low ego strength will act in a passive-aggressive way rather than be forthcoming, they will allow their boundaries to be ignored. Ego strength is how we hang on to ourselves. Ego strength is critical for a mental well-being. That is what this article is about.

hinkley 5y ago
As I read this I kept finding my mind pulled toward metallurgical concepts. A rigid ego gets people into lots of trouble. They lead people down dark alleyways. They break instead of bend, leaving sharp edges everywhere that hurt everyone around them. Flexible people can either be door stops or assertive, and which they are has to do with how much they think of their own opinions and abilities. Strength doesn't have to mean rigid, and there are multiple neuroses depending on which mix you're discussing. 'Ego-strength' suggests one dimension which IMO simply muddies the waters.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  The difference is "ego strength" is a real term used by real mental health professionals, and your analogy to metallurgical concepts is something you invented. Ironic, that in a discussion about ego and narcissism you would dismiss medical terms as "muddying the waters" and try to replace them with your own beliefs to benefit your opinion.
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
> I don't think you understand what ego is. Be kind. I thought we weren't supposed to do this stuff, 'round these parts; but I'm often wrong. Actually, I know about the Freud stuff, and the scientific meaning of "ego." Basically, the meaning that almost no one actually ever attributes to the word. Words tend to adapt to the meaning that is most often applied to them. Dictionary be damned. It's how people actually use the word, that defines it. For example, look up the etymology of "nice." (It made me change "be nice," to "be kind"). > This is a widespread confusion on HN, people think being assertive is the same as being aggressive, or being a narcissist. My take on "the Modern Societal Zeitgeist," so to speak, is that aggressiveness, narcissism, avarice, arrogance, and just plain ol' bein' cruel, are traits to be admired, and emulated; especially amongst the types of people that run businesses. Those of us that speak to being kind, empathetic, or generous, are often attacked, and mocked as being "weak."
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  > Be kind. Would "I think you might be misunderstanding ego" have been a better way to phrase it? > are traits to be admired Oh I agree, I am not making a claim about what HN-types revere, I was addressing how two very distinct psychological terms are often misused. Like, for example, if I kept calling C an interpreted language; or claimed there's no difference between TCP or UDP; that's the same as equating assertiveness and aggression that I quite frequently see here.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    > Would "I think you might be misunderstanding ego" have been a better way to phrase it? No. "The way that I understand the word 'ego,' is thus..." If you really can't live without applying a slap, may I suggest: "I feel that this word is often misused. The way that I understand the word is ... If it is applied in the way that I understand it, then ..." I'm a fairly decent chap. I have some experience and knowledge, relevant to the OP. I'm not at all interested in being a bloviatasaurus, and, if presented with corrections, or alternative points of view, I'm always more than willing to concede the point. I'm not really interested in being a foil to someone's strawman.

hinkley 5y ago

As I read this I kept finding my mind pulled toward metallurgical concepts. A rigid ego gets people into lots of trouble. They lead people down dark alleyways. They break instead of bend, leaving sharp edges everywhere that hurt everyone around them. Flexible people can either be door stops or assertive, and which they are has to do with how much they think of their own opinions and abilities. Strength doesn't have to mean rigid, and there are multiple neuroses depending on which mix you're discussing. 'Ego-strength' suggests one dimension which IMO simply muddies the waters.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
The difference is "ego strength" is a real term used by real mental health professionals, and your analogy to metallurgical concepts is something you invented. Ironic, that in a discussion about ego and narcissism you would dismiss medical terms as "muddying the waters" and try to replace them with your own beliefs to benefit your opinion.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

> I don't think you understand what ego is. Be kind. I thought we weren't supposed to do this stuff, 'round these parts; but I'm often wrong. Actually, I know about the Freud stuff, and the scientific meaning of "ego." Basically, the meaning that almost no one actually ever attributes to the word. Words tend to adapt to the meaning that is most often applied to them. Dictionary be damned. It's how people actually use the word, that defines it. For example, look up the etymology of "nice." (It made me change "be nice," to "be kind"). > This is a widespread confusion on HN, people think being assertive is the same as being aggressive, or being a narcissist. My take on "the Modern Societal Zeitgeist," so to speak, is that aggressiveness, narcissism, avarice, arrogance, and just plain ol' bein' cruel, are traits to be admired, and emulated; especially amongst the types of people that run businesses. Those of us that speak to being kind, empathetic, or generous, are often attacked, and mocked as being "weak."

SavantIdiot 5y ago
> Be kind. Would "I think you might be misunderstanding ego" have been a better way to phrase it? > are traits to be admired Oh I agree, I am not making a claim about what HN-types revere, I was addressing how two very distinct psychological terms are often misused. Like, for example, if I kept calling C an interpreted language; or claimed there's no difference between TCP or UDP; that's the same as equating assertiveness and aggression that I quite frequently see here.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  > Would "I think you might be misunderstanding ego" have been a better way to phrase it? No. "The way that I understand the word 'ego,' is thus..." If you really can't live without applying a slap, may I suggest: "I feel that this word is often misused. The way that I understand the word is ... If it is applied in the way that I understand it, then ..." I'm a fairly decent chap. I have some experience and knowledge, relevant to the OP. I'm not at all interested in being a bloviatasaurus, and, if presented with corrections, or alternative points of view, I'm always more than willing to concede the point. I'm not really interested in being a foil to someone's strawman.