“Stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way.” – Chris Lowe
Contents:
1.) The Building Blocks of Reinvention
2.) Of Ego & Humility
3.) Of Adaptability & Authenticity
4.) Of Learning
5.) In Closing
1.) The Building Blocks of Reinvention:
Whether they’re aware of it or not, everyone has an opinion on narcissism, and a value system based on a preference for its presence or absence. Some respect only the boldness of grandiosity, whereas others are repelled by the lack of grace exhibited by unadulterated id. As such, those looking to reinvent themselves are typically confused about the degree of ego they should aspire toward in the pursuit of their idealised self. Is ego good, or is it bad? This is a context dependent question, but in the grand scheme of things it is neither, rather it is a tool.
One’s mental visualisation of their ideal persona changes in accordance with their life experience. The arrogant self-aware intellectual can see where arrogance has cost him, and may as such aspire to a more stoic life. Should a man’s failure be associated with passivity on the other hand, he will view egotism as the answer.
It is a fallacy of instinct to believe embodiment of the egotistical opposite is a solution to the floundering personality of current. Balance is necessary in all things, and ego is no exception. To maximise one’s success, you must be plural rather than singular, not the stoic OR the narcissist, but rather the stoic AND the narcissist. Many, many people disagree with this premise out of distaste, but nonetheless, its utility is incontestable.
The egotistical should practice humility, as the humble should egotism. Each is necessary and neither is sufficient, for finesse requires the ability to wield both. The ability to exercise finesse is more a product of trial-and-error than it is an innate competency, and so the area you’re weak in is the one that requires the most focus. In short, do not pick a side, develop your weaker one.
2.) Of Ego & Humility:
Some scenarios require ego where others necessitate humility, finesse is an awareness of the ego-humility spectrum, and the ability to be as humble or egotistical as a given situation demands. Expressing anger or ingratitude when you win at something demonstrates hubris, which in turn detracts from the beauty of your accomplishment by infecting it with crudeness. Be humble in success and egotistical in struggle, for ego is attractive in struggle, but redundant in achievement. Context is of course key to this maxim, and a man of the nuanced competency necessary to practice finesse understands this.
In matters of women ego always pays, women admire dominance and thus reward ego irrespective of their protestations. In sales, whether or not ego pays is contingent on who you’re selling to. If you’re targeting the lower end of the market, it pays well. If you’re targeting the upper end, it will not. At the upper end you need passion devoid insolence and servility, a single-minded belief in the thing you’re pitching rather than an overt desire to persuade; the exact gradient of finesse you’re looking to embody here is one of passionate humility.
The influential are viscerally repulsed by the forceful crudeness with which a less accomplished egotist proclaims and dismisses. They want to see vision shining through struggle, enough ego to get the job done, but not so much you act like you’re better than they are. To understand the level of ego necessary to get what you want from a person and adjust your behaviour accordingly is ultimately to exercise finesse. Finesse is both diplomacy and narcissism, sophistication when diplomacy pays and arrogance when it doesn’t; an effective strategist puts neither off the table.
A man adept at wielding power is a man of finesse, he is neither stoic nor egotistical, but a compartmentalisation of each, a dual personality proficient in recognising the needs of a situation and unleashing or restraining his ego as necessary. To be able to summon egotism or humility at will rather than embody one or the other is an abnormal state. Most are confined to an identity rooted in one or the other, unable to adapt as required and thusly suffering because of it. As such, like most things the average person cannot do, learn this and you gain a distinct edge.
The contrast of ego and humility is incredibly attractive, and together blurs into a kind of “humble confidence” that makes you difficult to read. The difference between the confident man and the arrogant one is the arrogant lacks the civility to express humility. Confident people can make very narcissistic remarks, but their sporadic demonstrations of humility dissuade people from shunning them as egotists. People make value judgements based on your level of overt egocentrism, and so by switching between overt narcissism and thoughtful humility, your inconsistent complexity fascinates them.
3.) Of Adaptability & Authenticity:
Learning people and adapting to them is fundamental to the practice of effective Machiavellianism. In the pursuit of finesse, almost everything you do will come down to getting better at understanding people from scarce information. As you learn more about them, you adapt to them, conducting yourself in a manner they’ll appreciate.
You do not talk to the egotistical in the way you do the reserved, nor the intelligent in the way you do the dim. By being able to correctly identify personalities and their attendant traits (eg: egocentrism for narcissists, scepticism for rationals and simplicity for dumb people) you learn to talk to people in the way that makes them most receptive.
The foolish and uncontrollably vainglorious are big on the idea of authenticity, that a person should always behave in the way most natural to them irrespective of all else. Strategically speaking, this advice is complete hogwash. It implies artifice is quintessentially negative, unnecessary and that simply “being yourself” is enough to succeed.
This is a lie that everybody wants to believe, that they are innately enough, and that they don’t need to behave in ways that don’t suit them in order to succeed. Be yourself only if you’ve given up on life, or are already a highly developed person and thus “being you” entails a capacity for finesse. Otherwise, whatever you do, do not be yourself, this is the worst advice anyone could give you.
For those of you interested in logic, “be yourself” is a social personification of the naturalistic fallacy, the assumption that the artificial is bad and the natural is good. This assumption is amusing, considering we spent thousands of years developing the unnatural indoors in order to escape the perfectly natural outdoors, however, I digress.
If “being yourself” means the self can adapt to a multitude of various personalities, I’m all for it, but if it means “behave in the way that comes easiest rather than the way that’ll improve your chances of winning” then I am not. Mark my words, authenticity is an indulgence of the accomplished narcissist trying to build rapport by sharing his struggles. This inspires people, quells jealousy and ultimately, makes money. It’s a good strategy – for him, but for you, it’s misinformation. There is authenticity in dedication, but beyond that, everything is political.
Those who tout the horn of authenticity are often some of the smoothest social chameleons you’ll ever meet; they had to be to get where they are. They are playing the game, they are exercising finesse, and in buying into the romance of their struggle and taking their advice on authenticity to heart, you severely cripple yourself.
One does not grow and build relationships with diverse people without trying on styles unnatural to them. People are told to be themselves even when their selves are insufficient, because supposedly artifice is so undesirable it’s better to be a natural loser than an artificial winner. Yes, you should accept yourself, but no, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use social finesse. Most who convincingly endorse authenticity do so from a position of power, power is rarely obtained, and is never sustained in the absence of finesse.
If you talk to everybody in the same way, your inability to tailor your attitude and speech stylistic will leave many doors closed. This is not so much “being fake” as it is “being dynamic”, a person able to converse with a multitude of people rather than a mere subset is vastly more effective than one who cannot.
Caveat: if you cannot convincingly tailor your demeanour to a person and the stakes are high, do not emulate them at all. Your inability to convincingly complement them will be seen as an affront, and rather than be respected for being alike, you will be disrespected for appearing false. In this instance, your go to strategy should be to employ passionate humility. Flexibility is only falsity when its unsuccessful, falsity is no more than the failure of finesse, an inadequate attempt at mimicry that results in ostracisation.
4.) Of Learning:
If you are not very good at something and want to get better at it, ego is your worst enemy. It will render you impervious to constructive criticism, robbing you the introspection necessary to fix your flaws. If you want to develop your knowledge or refine a methodology, take the position you are clueless and seek feedback from observers to discover what you did wrong.
The key reason people don’t alter failing strategies is because they’re prone to personifying them. If you become too ego invested in how you do something rather than see your actions as tools, you won’t want to change method as it’ll hurt too much to acknowledge your failure. When you see your actions as a means to an end rather than as a value judgement against yourself, you’re able to do what must be done. By being humble in learning you not only become adaptive, but you escape your worst critic – yourself.
In short, when you’re trying to improve, humility is the path to competence and ego will cause you to suffer. Do not trust your ego when you’re struggling to get something right, it’ll deceive you; be rigorous and ask yourself “is this logical?” followed by “is it true?”
5.) In Closing:
Always use the least amount of power necessary to convince or destroy, never excess. Excessive use of power is sloppy, indicative of one who knows not how to wield it. An overuse of power can result in unforeseen consequences detrimental to the wielder, hence law 47’s “in victory, know when to stop.”
As a final note, heed this: the stoic is a bore and the narcissist but a fool, the wise man knows what he must be, and is what he must be when he must be it.
Summary Notes:
– Fine tune your ego to complement the person you’re dealing with.
– Use stereotypes to form a baseline assumption of a person’s expectations, and if they disprove the assumption (eg: you thought they’d respect a humble person, but they only respect the egotistical) then switch.
– Passionate humility is more effective than supplication or arrogance when they have the upper hand. Supplication is transparently manipulative, arrogance is grating and insolent.
– You can go all in with ego, bluff, and try to reverse value perceptions in negotiation, but ultimately if they’re the one taking on the risk, you need them more than they need you.
– Authenticity is how the accomplished build rapport with the unaccomplished, it does not mean they don’t play the game. All successful people are playing the game.
– Humility and ego are not binary, passionate humility aka “nice narcissism” is the mid-point.
– Passionate humility defined: you’re obsessed with what you do and you talk it up, but you credit others and defend with passion rather than attack with vitriol.
– Ego is a tool to be used when beneficial and put away when it is not. If you want to attract a woman, be egotistical. If you wish to learn a thing, be humble.
– “Be yourself” is an empty nonsensical platitude, be what you must be to maximise your chances of success.
– Sporadic demonstrations of humility and grandiosity make you appealing and difficult to morally judge.
– And ultimately: don’t identify with either ego or humility, both are tools, use them.
Excellent post. I’m glad that your blog exists.
As an aside:
Hypergamy in Africa
https://youtu.be/9Yci_h7P4gc
Something to consider:
https://youtu.be/-1yFwEsPKsY
Brian
Embracing social chameleon-ism is of major importance in an ever-changing and ever-evolving social marketplace. Ego is both an enemy and an ally. The ability of the individual to discriminate between the two and determine the applicability ego can have in various settings and scenarios will determine one’s capacity to prevail.
Embracing social nuances in an attempt to elevate your stature is a process that must not be left to chance. Balance is key in that process and as you said: “The stoic is a bore and the narcissist but a fool, the wise man knows what he must be, and is what he must be when he must be it.”
p.s. the Patreon link is not working.
Indeed, finesse takes self-awareness and a fair bit of practice, but with time, one will be able to schmooze with the best of them.
How odd, thanks for the heads up, fixed!
Amazing, simply amazing.
Thanks for the great reading!! Enjoyed it!
Great article, I enjoyed reading your prose.
If you perceive yourself as a product, the ability to convince the prospective buyer to purchase that product is conditional on his perception of that product solving a problem he has. Your goal is two-fold, identifying the problem, and offering the solution. If you do not know him, you cannot identify the problem, if you do not know yourself you cannot propose the solution.
Your ego will be your enemy in adopting the customer’s perception, just as it will be your enemy in adapting your product perception to their perspective.
To quote your essay:
“A man adept at wielding power is a man of finesse, he is neither stoic nor egotistical, but a compartmentalisation of each, a dual personality proficient in recognising the needs of a situation and unleashing or restraining his ego as necessary. “
Thanks!
Yes, your ego will say “why should I have to work around them, they should work around me”. Thought you were saying two different things here at first, but actually looks like you said the same thing in two different ways. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, if I am, please clarify the latter.
Thanks for another knowledgeable post IM! I need some serious work with this. I lean on humility because it’s comfortable and comes natural for me. But, it’s not always useful. To echo your thoughts, it definitely seemed more productive during the times in my life when I was on top. People were surprised at how noble and humble I was while winning. Really, I wasn’t attempting to play the game at the time. It was just dumb luck, as I defaulted to humility by nature.
As I expanded my interests however, I found I was not always a winner and, in these instances, humility was not as effective. People just thought, “of course he’s humble – he doesn’t belong with the winners.” Not saying overbearing ego would’ve been the right call in those times, but something more than blatantly humble could only have helped perceptions of me.
I’m relatively new to the red pill, but have found much wisdom in the thoughts communicated here. I have been soaking up your articles after work (going half-monk, if you will) and have begun to internalize them, turning what I’ve learned into practice little by little. Your articles have helped shed light on what is going on around me, bringing clarity by helping me read between the lines in my interactions. That understanding has certainly inspired more confidence because I don’t feel as confused about people’s (especially women’s) behavior anymore. Anyway, thanks again for all your insight.
Another highly prescient article. Pennies from heaven because this is exactly the problem I’ve been experiencing. Coincidentally I started watching “Mad Men” and I feel that Don Draper embodies this balance very well whereas Campbell struggles to find the balance(i’m a big fan of visual examples regardless of their inherent lack).
You’ve turned me onto Robert Greene and as I’m reading “the art of seduction” I’m trying to connect it with red-pill philosophy. I feel this article perfectly demonstrates the value and power of seduction and it’s intersection point with dominance. While being a cocky Alpha may get you laid, embodying that attitude is most likely a disservice in other aspects of our life.
I’ve been studying the manosphere religiously for about eight months now and I keep feeling that something is missing. I truly believe this topic is a linchpin to creating the complete masculine.
I found your blog because of my frustration with dating but I’ve benefited even more from your expanded worldview.
IM if you have a minute please take a look at my blog which is still in the infant pre-launch stage. Or just any tips in general about running a blog and being a part of the conversation. I’m running on inspiration not knowledge. For instance I would like to run with this subject because it’s been heavily on my mind but I’m not sure if that would be a compliment or an insult to you. I look forward to your next article.
I recommend becoming a recognised voice in a community that discusses topics you’re interested in. Once you’ve gained some profile there, launch your blog off the back of that. This is a far more effective strategy than simply launching a blog into the ether, because by having some measure of popularity, you know your thoughts carry value and there is a market for them.
A busy writer is a voracious reader, the more you read, the greater your knowledge, the greater your knowledge, the more you can write. Positive feedback loop. Reading is enlightening, writing is cathartic – do both. Becoming a writer lead me to buy more books, which in turn gives me more ideas for writing. You are really on the money when you are able to identify patterns from texts which are vastly different but embody the same phenomenon manifested in a different way. This is some very high consciousness thinking and won’t happen all the time, but when it does, it will allow you to come up with incredibly unique content.
You don’t need to have a doctorate or be a worldly and successful old man to be a writer (even though those things are great selling points if you have them), you merely need to know more than the average person. With the advent of the internet and the tendency of the average person to use it look at cat pictures and celebrity gossip rather than self-educate, its easier than ever to become knowledgeable and turn that knowledge into the thoughts which form your writing.
Being a thinker is part and parcel of being a writer, a good writer thinks with a level of profundity that surpasses even the most emotive diary keeper. There are some things you don’t talk about unless you have the authority of personal experience to back up your view (eg: medical treatments), but nonetheless, know that reading is a great boon for ones writing output. You want to write? Then you better start reading, its essential. Stick to high quality blogs, elite forum posters and books. Nobody else is saying anything worth listening to. Addendum: people you find mentally stimulating will give you great ideas simply by talking with you. When you find these people be it online or offline, cultivate relationships with them and you will suffer no shortage of ideas to write about.
I don’t own the topic. If you are inspired and want to write on the same topic, do so by all means.
Thank you, good luck with your new blog.
Thank you for the lengthy and concise response. It’s very good advice. As the initial luster of the red-pill wears off, I find my way to your blog. My life has never revolved around females and I suspect you have a similar notion. I will continue to try and turn people onto your blog. Thanks for your time Brother!
Hi IM,
As always great article.
I find myself at a sort of “social dilemma” whenever I read articles you post that relate to game. Not because there isn’t truth to them, but because If there’s one part of TRP I gravitate to most, it has to be anything related to grinding. The problem with this is that I am extremely obsessive and as such, tend to not act on the wisdom found in such articles. Truthfully speaking, I have somewhat of a disconnect to people. I don’t consider myself to be at all psychopathic, but if I were to do a sort of self diagnosis, I’d assume that I may be or may have had autistic tendencies.
I recall vividly being in first grade and having my teacher tell my folks I be transferred to a school ‘for my kind’, lol. Bear in mind that I have never had any kind of physical ailments that made it obvious I could’ve been autistic. I have always been unfathomable for the most part, even by my parents, and I assume that this was the results of my disinterest in people. Throughout high school, I went through some serious social awkwardness, having no kind of sensitivity for social cues. Instead I would throw myself whole-heartedly in my obsession at the time:basketball. Now in adult life, AND POST TRP, I realise how far behind I am socially because of this and how greatly it has cost me of some social opportunities. The default assumption is that since I have/have had a disinterest in people, I shouldn’t care about such: this is most untrue. A most recent example would be when I had notice a certain girl take a serious liking to me. It would cross my mind to text her before she flakes on me only to find myself not caring to log onto whatsapp because the thought of having to pretend to care or entertain someone seems too tedious. Then, of course, she would flake on me when another guy does what I couldn’t have feel bothered to.
I know that the scenario I have described seems like a regular occurrence for most dudes, but for me it’s been happening for as far back as I can remember. Knowing I should’ve acted but just not caring to. And when it backfires, it can get pretty fucking lonely down there. Of course there’s an upside to not giving a fuck, as we all know. I am able to generate great confidence from it, i just lack the finesse to complement it. Really this thing is like a double-edged, it brings with great highs(confidence) and even bigger lows(depression, self-loathing) which has admittedly resulted in some drug use on my side.
I have just taken up on a new hobby, sewing. I have been able to make a buck from it, even launching my own streetwear brand, which I see great potential in. It’s the one thing I live for.
Given my history and my ‘social dilemma’, would you suggest I go all in? How can I start making room for people in my life without feeling annoyed by it? Should I give myself the time to be more social? Really I’d appreciate any thoughts and recommendations.
Only commenting because your paradoxical combination of frustration and apathy re: social skills mirrors my own situation. Recently discovered I’ve been suffering under a horrendous one-two punch of severe sleep apnea caused by a fucked up nasal airway system, basically boiling down to a varying level of depression and mounting chronic fatigue day-to-day for decades. Causes a whole bunch of shitty symptoms; reduced oxygen intake leads to low energy and short-term memory problems; forced mouth-breathing leads to mild speech pathology issues (which obviously interferes with game) plus many others.
Some days I’d be ‘on’ and I could conquer the world, others I’d want to tackle 20 different tasks I had up in the air but couldn’t muster the energy I needed to push myself forward. I literally slept 11 hours one night last week and woke up feeling like I’d climbed a mountain.
I never identified as ‘depressed’ and absolutely hate playing that card, so I’m glad what I have is a physical ailment that’s fixable. Just something to think about in case your sleep is the thing that’s messing you around.
RD
2 things you could try:
– Dubeyko Method
– http://www.nosebreathe.com/index.html
IM – Nice post. Hey – the dynamics you speak of ….. humility/ego; stoicism/narcissism; adaptability/authenticity – and all the strategies and tactics that flow from said gradients, and of course the appropriate flavoring of which is contingent on context, – all flow from a particular underlying mindset that has, surprisingly, been much misunderstood and therefore denigrated by virtually all. The egalitarian mindset.
If you are interested I could outline my thoughts on the elements of this mindset, here in the comments, if you like – let me know.
By all means, feel free to elaborate.
IM – thank-you for extending the opportunity to elaborate. I believe the egalitarian mindset puts the self-agency of the individual at the center of the ontology. What are the precepts of any ontology so arranged? 4 elements. High self-respect + respect for others (i.e. – we are the same in “design”, but different with respect to nuances around the “design” parameters) + golden rule provides for exponentially synergistic benefit + as long as the many perspectives is sought and appreciated:
1) High-self-respect: We have self-agency. We believe we have the ability to make meaningful non-deterministic decisions. We call this choice. This power to choose implies personal responsibility for the choices. Down deep everybody believes this. However it is common for people to sometimes pretend this doesn’t apply to them in some circumstances (which they then pretend absolves them for any responsibility). But it always applies. The environment around us may constrain the options for choice, but the basic drive – the basic “decider instinct” is always the same even in dire circumstances, we can always choose something. We are not automatons despite that delusion that may persist in some circumstances. But it is a delusion. Choosing to refuse choice, is a choice.
2) Respect for others: As a universal generality, do you believe the empirical evidence shows that other people are subject to the same conditions around self-agency and high self-respect, as you are (despite the nuances of our other differences)? The empirical evidence favors the affirmative to that question. As such, a psychic field of possibility for mutual respect is so formed.
3) Golden rule: – do onto others – provides for exponential synergistic benefit – this occurs when the conditions are met which allow this to flourish – trust among other considerations.
4) Seeking the many perspectives: Implied as a necessary condition of the golden rule as motivations and focus are not always precisely aligned.
From the birdseye perspective, the dynamics you speak of ….. humility/ego; stoicism/narcissism; adaptability/authenticity – are aspects of the interplay of the above mentioned conception of human reality (as a reality comprised of singular agentic individuals among a manifold of agentic individuals), and the implied interplay of this agency across the singular/manifold gradient.
The dynamics you speak of ….. humility/ego; stoicism/narcissism; adaptability/authenticity, …..and all the contextual strategies and tactics that flow from said gradients, can be seen as manifestations of the primary underlying dynamic ….the dynamic of agentic interplay among singular agentic individuals among a manifold of agentic individuals.
This primary underlying dynamic (the dynamic of agentic interplay among singular agentic individuals among a manifold of agentic individuals, and the implications thereof) is the egalitarian in basic form. However this basic conception of the egalitarian has been perverted everywhere by those that wish to fashion it as a delusion, and therefore a source of unnecessary problem-production by way of half-truth. Do you agree?
If you disagree – can you tell me where then is the error with respect to the logic of this basic ordering of human reality?
@ Jozi Red Pill
I hope you are reading Rollo Tomassi’s blog. The comments under each article of his blog are literally dripping with gold from an amazing following of intelligent, learned and very socially experienced men. They give a lot of “field report” stories that are anecdotal, but very useful accounts of their interactions with the opposite sex and their feelings/thought regarding how much they like to invest themselves with other people (particularly women).
I think nature has seen fit to equip men genetically with a kind of autism – which can be overcome at least to some degree with red pill knowledge. Women are of course equipped with solipsism; and the two traits are complimentary. It is the responsibility of persons of each sex in isolation to overcome these “deficits” to become better/stronger human beings. From an evolutionary psychology perspective these two respective gender traits are complimentary to the propagation of our species. Men being “autistic” are good at doing things and extracting resources from the environment due to their ability to obsess and focus on specific tasks. This autistic tendency in men also makes men easy to deceive and manipulate by women. Women being solipsistic and therefore natural Machiavellians, are good at manipulating men by using Meta Game and frame awareness for the provision of resources in order to assure the survival of their offspring.
A women’s solipsism allows her to apply Meta Game as a tactic of winning what is important to her. An example of this would be that famous televised presidential debate between Nixon and Kennedy. Richard Nixon may have won the televised debate in terms of the specific debate points scored, but because JFK came off better on camera, he ended up in the Oval Office. This is why you never want to argue politics or religion with a woman. She will make you go round and round until you say something sexist or politically incorrect which will allow her to “win the debate” by shaming you and making you feel guilty. Once you apologize to her you acquiesce to her frame. That is Meta Game. It is because of this Machiavellian awareness and their inherent lack of appreciation for honor and truth that women naturally have better frames then men do.
It’s all about perception for a women. Beyond perception there is no actual objective truth or reality for a solipsist (think of the dialogue b/t Obrien and Winston Smith in 1984). That is the essence of solipsism IMO. Once men learn red pill knowledge they can enhance their Machiavellian awareness and play the “game of frames”. This allows men to turn the table on women and people in general by controlling/managing perception.
“is this logical?” followed by “is it true?”
Damn, this brought to my consciousness something so obvious I’ve been overlooking…..How I want other people to see me……I often have taken it for granted, like an “autopilot”, yet not having a “what’s good for me” or “what’ll achieive results” mentality……To play the humble man is to be overlooked and forgotten (which might be good at times), and terrible for others. Thanks!
We live in a time where everyone wants a reality that is soft and where nothing hurts. Much of the “self improvement” movement out there is merely fluffing people’s sad life but giving them new delusions to put on it. Hence, why the attitude of “That’s just your opinion, bro” is so popular; it allows one to retreat to a world where reality is subjective and everyone is successful…as long as we bend the term “success” to whims of one’s ego.
The funny part is that very few realize the grandiose narcissism involved in making everything “Just your opinion.” I know quite a few of the “Be yourself” people, and as one would expect, they fail horribly in nearly all aspects of life. Their academics are mediocre, money is always sparse, and so on.
Reality is the ultimate determiner of our quality of life. It is flexible and ever-changing, and thus so should we.
Most certainly, to use an allusion, this is the social equivalent of science’s natural selection and survival of the fittest principles.
Excellent content as usual. I do have a minor disagreement about the value of authenticity, or more a caution against those who become inauthentic to extremes. Some of the most gifted and successful actors and comedians suffered major mental problems while playing to the crowd and burying their authentic selves for decades. Two recent ones that come to mind are Chris Farley and Robin Williams, who hid their anger and sadness from the public so much that they lost touch with their true selves and suffered for it.
No man was ever wise by chance. -Seneca
I’m glad you mentioned self-acceptance since that is the first thing you should do if you are going the path of boosting your ego. Otherwise, there could be emotions like self-contempt(http://www.rebornmasculinity.com/self-contempt/) and self-hate. Boosting your ego before you self-accepted is just going to create cycle you can’t get out from. Thank you for this wonderful article.
Stupid is as stubborn does.
Stubborn does as stupid is.
I don’t remember where I read it, but I remember a stoic philosopher said not to be offended by negative criticisms, because the original intent of all criticisms is to improve yourself. If it is not true, disregard it.
“When you go into a forest, expect the mosquitos.” – proverb. In any field, there will be people who are dissatisfied by you. They are usually just stating an observation or opinion.
I thought of these because of how you mentioned humility helps us improve ourselves, but too much degradation of the ego can be detrimental whether it’s arrogance or self defeating.
An excellent piece on your part. I could not agree more. Nevertheless, you mention that one should aspire to be able to change their identity as need be. Humans tend to be very good at recognizing insincerity. As such, what would you recommend to adapt yourself as is needed, while still appearing authentic? Keep up the good work!
This is one of the best articles I have read. Are there books on different personality types and how you should interact with them?
Amazing article IllimitableMen, our generation thanks you!
“Authenticity is an indulgence of the accomplished narcissist trying to build rapport by sharing his struggles. This inspires people, quells jealousy and ultimately, makes money” This is exactly what celebs do in interviews and talk shows. I’ve always known this. to appear more relatable but it is only building oneself.