Seniors and Seniors, read the subject again and lets not be egoist. Nikhil S. Gurjar askd Is a person with strong views an egoist?
We tend to avoid the word egoist in our discussion and substitute with an egoistic person. WRONG dwell on "strong views" & "egoist" if u do understand.
From Kenya, Nairobi
We tend to avoid the word egoist in our discussion and substitute with an egoistic person. WRONG dwell on "strong views" & "egoist" if u do understand.
From Kenya, Nairobi
Dear All
The topic "Is a person with strong views an egoist"
- A person with a strong views cannot be straightaway considered or concluded as egoist. The question here is, whether the person having strong views is trying to force his views and ideas on others is what matters. This alone can decide whether a person with strong views 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 he can be called an egoist. If a persons views are acceptable to others in a team, in a group or to a mass, then he is not considered as egoist. When 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 concurence of the followers or team members in accepting him without any conditions.
Also a person may have strong views on his own ideas or his understanding and he may not force his ideas on others. Such persons hold on to their own idealogies - such persons cannot be called as egoists and it is their life and way.
Hope this also gives the answer to concern raised by Mr rnest12
Regards
K.Ramachandra
Bangalore
8The topic "Is a person with strong views an egoist"
- A person with a strong views cannot be straightaway considered or concluded as egoist. The question here is, whether the person having strong views is trying to force his views and ideas on others is what matters. This alone can decide whether a person with strong views 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 he can be called an egoist. If a persons views are acceptable to others in a team, in a group or to a mass, then he is not considered as egoist. When 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 concurence of the followers or team members in accepting him without any conditions.
Also a person may have strong views on his own ideas or his understanding and he may not force his ideas on others. Such persons hold on to their own idealogies - such persons cannot be called as egoists and it is their life and way.
Hope this also gives the answer to concern raised by Mr rnest12
Regards
K.Ramachandra
Bangalore
If everyone starts thinking POSITIVE and perceiving things POSITIVE then, i am sure no one will ever find anything that sound's or look like NEGATIVE..If it sounds or look like NEGATIVE then, its your mental feeling, MAKING YOU FEEL NEGATIVE.
Better we change our PERCEPTION LEVEL if you want see everything beautiful, though it is a beautiful world.
LEARN TO CONTROL YOUR BRAIN.......THE KEY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL LIFE
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Better we change our PERCEPTION LEVEL if you want see everything beautiful, though it is a beautiful world.
LEARN TO CONTROL YOUR BRAIN.......THE KEY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL LIFE
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
From my point of view dear.
Those who considered a strong view to be egoist are actually insane, they never give a person support but only try to pull legs of a person who is having strong thought. They know that they are not capable enough to give and take good decision which will fruit-full for the organization. SO they said every where that the guy is very egoistic in nature and they dont wont to work with him/her.
Comments are welcome !!!!!!!!
sulabh Gupta
From India, Delhi
Those who considered a strong view to be egoist are actually insane, they never give a person support but only try to pull legs of a person who is having strong thought. They know that they are not capable enough to give and take good decision which will fruit-full for the organization. SO they said every where that the guy is very egoistic in nature and they dont wont to work with him/her.
Comments are welcome !!!!!!!!
sulabh Gupta
From India, Delhi
It all dpends upon the person who is viewing you. If he is a positive person, he will understand the authentisity of your views,if he is narrow minded, he will paint you as a egoist. But always care should be taken by the people who have strong views to express them politely. They should put forward their arugment without a tint of arogance.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Dear All,
In my view if the person is having a strong view with authentically right, he will always show a path but if a person is egoistic he will force others to walk on what he said.
Knowledgeable person always show the right thing to do firmly and give freedom to the person how to do it he never tries to force anyone to walk behind him.
Person with strong view will always welcome the ideas of the others and sticking to his own view will make necessary changes to gain the best from his view.
While egoistic person will always stick what he said and always thing that he is right.Hardly gives respect to others & always tries to show off.
From India, Ahmadabad
In my view if the person is having a strong view with authentically right, he will always show a path but if a person is egoistic he will force others to walk on what he said.
Knowledgeable person always show the right thing to do firmly and give freedom to the person how to do it he never tries to force anyone to walk behind him.
Person with strong view will always welcome the ideas of the others and sticking to his own view will make necessary changes to gain the best from his view.
While egoistic person will always stick what he said and always thing that he is right.Hardly gives respect to others & always tries to show off.
From India, Ahmadabad
- Very interesting and thought provoking discussion. Adding my bit of opinion, may be in a summarized form and may be 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 other's views. One needs to be open to explain why he or she holds a particular view. Otherwise you run a 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 explains 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 be having a good ego as long as you are not hurting others and their ego. Moment somebody feels hurt, he or she will perceive you as a 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 a 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 to get more deeper.....maybe all of us would be vying with the great Philosophers :-)
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--thru 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.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Now this is getting to get more deeper.....maybe all of us would be vying with the great Philosophers :-)
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--thru 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.
Rgds,
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 eg, 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--thru 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.
Rgds,
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 eg, 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--thru 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.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Chapter XI - The Mangers as Person.ppt
Pronunciation of Third Person Singular.doc
10 Tips For Building A Strong Relationship.pd f