Posts by Dennis Cook78

ruggedtinker9 said:People seem driven by this relentless desire to be wealthy, attractive, and charismatic. It’s as if anyone who fails to meet those specific standards is automatically deemed inferior.
These are societal expectations that have existed for ages, though they seem to resonate with much more intensity in today's world.
I suppose I won't even get started on the insatiable thirst for power, or how modern science continues to ravage the natural world.
Perhaps the most difficult task one can undertake is the pursuit of self-knowledge, whereas offering unsolicited advice to others remains an incredibly easy pastime.
This implies that cultivating a true sense of self is an arduous journey, primarily because most people lack such a core identity—they haven't actually discovered who they are.
One's identity is often experienced through the lens of external perception, which aligns with what Aaron Allen5 was saying—people are far more concerned with their public image than with their internal reality.

Aaron Allen5 said:At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how you perceive yourself; what truly matters is whether "society" decides to accept you. Whether they want to admit it or not, in order to be "recognized" by this social circle—a group that will never actually do anything for you in your life—you find yourself doing whatever it takes! You dress specifically to be noticed, regardless of whether YOU feel satisfied in those clothes or if they are even comfortable. It’s all about how OTHERS see you! It is vital that when you walk into a crowd, people don't turn their backs on you, but instead shout out, "Hey, look, there goes Aaron Allen5!" or "Hey, there's Dennis Cook78!" They run toward you, they hug you, they greet you... you listen to all their nonsense. But the moment you try to speak your mind or share your own perspective on things, they’ll jokingly ask if you have a fever just to mock your ideas!

You find yourself picking fights with your parents—who might just have different plans for you—simply because you want to fit in with the crowd! For instance, if they suggest you do something, you start an argument because your brain has been so thoroughly conditioned to please "society" that you’ll do anything to ensure they approve of you. It can even reach the point where you're disrespecting your parents right in front of your friends while everyone else just laughs! Not a single one of them has any respect for your parents or your home, even if they claim to respect you!

Picture this: parents let their child stay out until 11:00 PM just to satisfy the peer group, and then the kid stays out until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. Meanwhile, back at home, the parents are absolutely dying of worry!

hollowdrifter5 said:Life isn't built solely on logical debates, and I wasn't just talking about that. Take, for instance, the gut feeling you have about someone—what kind of argument can disprove the fact that you just don't vibe with them? Or consider deciding to quit a job you hate (what's the counter-argument there?), or choosing to marry someone because you feel they're the right partner for you.

All three of those scenarios involve subjective opinions or decisions where some outsider can't provide a valid argument against you, simply because they aren't looking at things from your perspective.

... needlessly imposing "oneself" and refusing to respect someone else's viewpoint ...

It's just as useless to respect everyone's opinion. Honestly, who has the energy for that? It’s exhausting, pointless, and gets you absolutely nowhere.

The person you're describing is just creating their own shortcomings. There’s no reason for them not to change their convictions if they encounter demonstrably better arguments.

What exactly would constitute a "demonstrably better argument" in the examples I gave?

hollowdrifter5 said:What's the bolded part supposed to mean?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the messenger actually matters. When some random nobody—someone whose opinion carries zero weight—decides they know what's best for me without being asked, I'm not going to listen. I simply don't have the bandwidth or the interest. It would be pretty strange if I viewed myself as arrogant or rude for ignoring them, while simultaneously failing to see that they're just being tactless, overbearing, and way too comfortable. 🤷

Of course, this doesn't apply to my inner circle, but they know me well enough to realize I have zero patience for unsolicited advice.

hollowdrifter5 said:In the first instance, my thought is that the person clearly lacks a sense of self; in the second, I see an interloper trying to force themselves into spaces where they aren't wanted.

Since the phrase "having a sense of self" is usually code for having a solid character, I don't see any reason to go out of one's way to announce it. To me, it feels like something people say when they aren't actually confident that their own character is as firm as they claim.

It isn't always just about the weight or validity of an argument, though. Sometimes decisions or opinions are shaped by intuition, subjective stances, or gut feelings that might not align perfectly with a logical syllogism. And frankly, those decisions—when paired with a bit of common sense—are often the right ones. They aren't universal, either, which makes judging someone else's choices difficult since we rarely grasp the full context or the background circumstances behind them.

I would define someone who possesses a "sense of self" as someone capable of making their own decisions regardless of how heavy someone else's arguments might be—someone who trusts themselves enough to shoulder whatever risks come with those choices. Such a person is also willing to admit when their own self was wrong, and simply move on.

fadedbear92 said:"Quote:"

I truly believe there’s a massive distinction between standing your ground and just being plain old rude.

Collaboration is absolutely essential. I couldn't agree more.

fadedbear92 said:I didn't actually say that, but I absolutely agree.

Why do you think a worker's "reputation" would somehow put them on equal footing with their boss during a conflict?

It won't make them equal, but it certainly makes things easier—at least, that's been my experience.

Why is the concept of having a "sense of self" usually tied to how people extract some kind of benefit?

Personally, I really value people who actually stand their ground.
I'm not sure why there needs to be a "benefit" involved—what specific kind of gain are you implying?

For me, the benefit is simply feeling good about myself because I stayed true to who I am. If I went against my own principles, I definitely wouldn't feel right—though, obviously, that doesn't mean I'd stubbornly dig my heels in regardless of the cost; you have to read the room and assess the actual situation.

It might be helpful to share some concrete examples—maybe from your own life? What do you think?

fadedbear92 said:Having a sense of self means refusing to just follow the crowd—don't let other people's opinions dictate who you are; stay true to yourself

When it comes to the workplace, you first need to establish yourself as an indispensable asset—once you’ve earned that reputation, you won't feel as much pressure to back down when you disagree with the boss

If you happen to report to a narcissist with a massive ego, though—someone who thinks they're God's gift to the office and threatens everyone with a pink slip if they don't fall in line—standing your ground becomes a whole different beast

In personal relationships, like a solid friendship, you’re usually already on the same wavelength anyway. Because the communication flows better, it's actually much easier to be authentic and speak your mind during a deep conversation

We could go on forever listing different types of connections: romantic partners, family dynamics

And so on, and so forth...

I'll circle back to my opening point: being yourself is vital, but you also have to be smart enough to read the room—know when voicing an opinion might cause serious damage, and sometimes, just play it smart and adapt

analogwalker8 said:It’s honestly pretty sad how people who actually have a backbone—you know, folks with a real sense of self and a deep commitment to honor—often end up catching heat in life. They aren't afraid to push back, speak their minds, or tell someone off to their face, but honestly, that kind of grit is exactly what defines true nobility.
Look, there’s always the practical side of things. Say you’ve got a boss at some big firm like Goldman Sachs who’s constantly belittling you or treating you like garbage, but hey, the paycheck is massive and the benefits are killer. Do you just suck it up and stay quiet—basically becoming a total pushover—or do you walk away? On one hand, it might be smarter to just tune them out, as long as they aren't totally destroying your soul or your reputation in the community. I mean, let's face it, humans are built to adapt. You choose the "smart" route for your bank account. But then there’s that other side—the honorable, spiritually grounded, but "practically foolish" side. That’s when you look your boss in the eye, tell him exactly where he can shove it, and quit on the spot. Of course, it really depends on the context. But in those moments, you feel this sense of transcendence because you simply refuse to tolerate being treated poorly. It reminds me of that line in a movie where a guy says a nation needs to realize they shouldn't just endure any kind of miserable existence.
In my book, that second option—walking away—is the right move if you do it because you have a line in the sand that you won't cross for money, rather than making it your entire personality.
This logic works fine when we're talking about individual stuff, but when it comes to larger scales—like an entire nation being oppressed—sometimes you just have to endure. It all boils down to the situation, but by enduring, you’re essentially chipping away at your true self. People who hold onto their core identity despite everything are rare; they’re special. Most people will either admire them from afar or secretly envy them, even while they stick to the more "practical" path for the sake of convenience.
Even though people might call these types "unreasonable" sometimes, they possess this deep spiritual strength and a certain loftiness that just shows through.
But then again, what is a human being, really? Just a collection of matter and DNA. We aren't all that much more "noble" than anyone else, and maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on pride, except in specific circumstances. At least, that's how I see it.
It’s the same deal with a country being dominated. Like, say, a foreign power is stripping all the resources out of the US, and you have to ask how much an individual should be expected to sacrifice. Yet, people will jump at the chance to give their lives for their country. I just think it’s a mistake when people frame that kind of thing through a lens of extreme, misplaced ego.

Jack Smith5 says:
Yeah, you can definitely overdo it when it comes to emphasizing someone's ego. If you're doing it to yourself—constantly talking up your own "self"—that’s usually just bragging or trying too hard to project some sort of hyper-masculine image. But if someone else is the one highlighting your ego, say a close friend pointing out your strengths, then that's actually a sign of good character, though sometimes it can be a polite way of calling someone egocentric.

But honestly, in my view, the strongest character belongs to the person who stays hungry to learn, who's always willing to try something new, experience something fresh, and actually take advice to heart after sitting with it for a bit, provided they find it genuinely useful. At the same time, you have to follow your own inner compass and listen to what feels right to you personally, rather than just following what everyone else tells you is "positive" or "logical" or "normal."

From the outside, it might look like you don't have much of an ego at all. People might perceive you as being indecisive or even a bit flighty because you aren't set in your ways, but those kinds of people, I truly believe, tend to navigate life most successfully and get along best with everyone, b>

Being open to everything while still maintaining a clear sense of purpose and a guiding vision for your life—that’s the perfect balance of ego, if you ask me. What I mean is I KNOW what I want, but I'm not rigid about how I get there; I think you can achieve your goals in a million different ways, some better than others, so I prefer to adapt to the situation so I can reach my goal without hurting anyone or making unnecessary enemies along the way..

Jack Smith5 said:You’re confusing stubbornness with having actual character. There's a massive difference.

Stubbornness is when you know—deep down, you *know*—that you're wrong, but you keep digging your heels in just because you can't stomach looking like an idiot. It's pure ego and pride refusing to admit a mistake.

Character, on the other hand, is having a core set of principles that guide how you move through life. For some people, their word is gospel. If they tell you they’ll be at your place at 8:00 PM tomorrow to handle a specific task, they’ll show up and get it done, period. No excuses. And if something truly unavoidable pops up, they aren't going to ghost you; they'll reach out immediately, explain the situation, and reschedule.

That’s just one way to look at it. It applies to things like a handshake deal or respecting an agreement without needing a thirty-page legal contract from a firm in Manhattan. You deal with people where a simple handshake means the job is as good as done, and you don't need extra insurance because you know they'll follow through.

Having a sense of self also means that when you're at the office, you don't let a manager talk you into working unpaid overtime or picking up tasks that weren't part of the job you actually signed up for. That wasn't the deal.

It can mean living life on your own terms—like owning a ranch out in Montana and doing things your way. You build, you plant, and you live by your own rules, regardless of what the neighbors have to say about it.

The line between being stubborn and having character is drawn the moment you realize you're wrong. A stubborn person keeps charging blindly into the wall. Someone with character? They listen to reason and take the advice.

analogwalker8 said:You’re spot on. Honestly, people are just so incredibly vain—it's like everyone is obsessed with their own little ego. You hear these people throwing around all these "tough guy" clichés, you know? Like, "I have my own opinions," or "I don't care what anyone else thinks." Or that classic one: "I live my life my way, I do what I want, and frankly, I couldn't care less about anyone else." It’s always the same stuff, too. They’ll say things like, "I don't forgive," or "I walk my own path," acting like they’re some kind of lone wolf out of a movie. It’s just a lot of noise to make themselves feel important.
It’s just those classic, textbook ego flares, you know? Like, sure, there’s plenty of upside to having a strong sense of self—you need that to function—but the real issue is when "having a personality" turns into being totally stubborn, acting like you're the center of the universe, and basically shutting down the second anyone offers even a tiny bit of critique. It’s that whole "my way or the highway" vibe where you just don't care about anyone else's perspective. It’s all about inflating the "I" in the room. And honestly, it’s exactly what keeps us stuck. Nobody wants to step outside their own little bubble or question their own reality, right? It’s almost like a societal design flaw—everyone’s just busy reinforcing their own little kingdom. But hey, I guess that’s a whole different rabbit hole for another day.
I’ve been thinking about how this whole "ego" thing ties directly into honor and revenge—you know, that deep-seated need to settle the score. It feels like in more traditional, old-school societies, that instinct is just way more dialed up. Like, if you go back five hundred years, if one guy insulted another, you couldn't just let it slide or post a snarky comment online; you had to settle it with a duel. There was no middle ground. If you were the first one to offer forgiveness—and someone always has to be the bigger person first—you’d basically be a laughingstock. In those days, protecting your sense of self was worth more than staying alive. Fast forward to today, and I feel like that same energy hasn't disappeared, it's just mutated into something else. We aren't reaching for swords anymore, but we're still fighting. To me, though, the ego nowadays isn't really about that old-fashioned "honor" or social standing... it's more about being stubborn about your own opinions and having that unshakable grit regarding your principles. It's less about looking tough in front of the neighbors and more about whether you actually stand by what you believe in when things get messy.
People are always going to gravitate toward that "strongman" type—you know, the guy with the massive ego who acts like he’s made of granite. And honestly, I get why. It looks impressive, right? He seems like this unshakeable force, someone with this noble sense of self that feels almost untouchable. But here’s the thing—it’s a total trap. When someone builds their whole identity around being "right," they lose any ability to actually look in the mirror and admit when they’ve messed up. There’s zero self-criticism involved. Instead, they just dig their heels in. They feel this intense, almost heroic pressure to defend their position at any cost, because if they back down, it feels like their whole world is collapsing. It becomes this weird, desperate mission to protect an image of themselves that isn't even real. It’s basically a vicious cycle. You end up stuck in this loop where you're fighting to defend a version of yourself that’s fundamentally flawed, but if you actually stepped outside that bubble and tried to be humble or realistic, society would probably just stomp you underfoot. It’s a tough spot to be in, really.
Look, you don't even need to get all academic about this—forget the theory, it’s just basic common sense. It’s all about the practical side of things. Like, say someone totally screws you over or treats you like garbage—let's say your partner cheats on you or something—and you decide, "Nope, I'm not forgiving this." You're gonna hear people chirping in your ear immediately. They'll be like, "Man, good for him, he’s got dignity. He knows his worth and isn't gonna let someone drag his name through the mud." It's just how people react when you set a boundary.
Look, I get where you're coming from—it makes sense on paper, sure. But if we’re talking about real life—the actual day-to-day grind—there’s a massive gap between what looks good in a textbook and what actually works when you're out there in the world. Theoretically? Yeah, you should probably just let it slide. It’s like that whole "taking the high road" thing people always talk about—showing everyone you’ve got the strength and the moral backbone to move past it. It makes you look untouchable, right? But practically speaking... man, that's a risky game. If you just swallow it every time, you're basically leaving the door wide open for someone to walk all over you again. You end up getting played twice, and then you're just sitting there looking like a sucker to everyone around you. It's that classic divide between theory and practice—kind of like how a coach can draw up a perfect play on a whiteboard, but once the players are actually on the field under the stadium lights, everything changes. This might be a bit of a clunky example, but you know what I mean—it’s all about whether that logic holds up when things actually get messy.
Look, at the end of the day, having a bit of a "moderate" ego isn't actually a bad thing—not by a long shot. I know, people love to call it a theoretical weakness, but honestly? It’s more like a practical necessity for keeping society from spinning out of control. Think about it like a seesaw—you've got everything from the federal government down to the guy living next door to you. If one side just keeps giving and giving without any pushback, the whole balance gets wrecked, and that side is eventually going to get stepped on. I mean, sure, we should all work on tempering our own egos—kind of dialing back that "me first" instinct until we hit a point where we can actually coexist peacefully with others. But there’s a huge difference between being reasonable and totally crushing your own identity. You shouldn't let your ego take up so much space that you start acting like some untouchable dictator. We've all met those people, right? The ones who act like their word is absolute law—like, "I say it, so it's final," or "When I decide to walk away, that's that." That kind of "my way or the highway" attitude is exactly what throws everything off whack. Just find that sweet spot, you know?
So, that’s my take on being moderate with myself—just keeping things balanced, you know?
But man, when it comes to being stubborn... that’s a whole different beast. It’s this specific kind of narcissism where a person just can't—for any reason at all—admit they messed up. And honestly? That kind of mindset is just toxic for everyone else involved.

analogwalker8 said:That’s what I call having an actual backbone—having a real sense of self and a solid character that doesn't just flip-flop the second someone looks at you funny.
But, look, you’ve gotta draw a line somewhere, right? There’s a difference between just being yourself—which is usually fine and totally valid—and being that one person who is impossibly stubborn and refuses to budge even when they're clearly wrong. Like, having a personality that evolves is healthy, but if you're just being difficult or getting all defensive and sensitive over every little thing, then yeah, that's where it gets messy.

Paul Thompson3 said:Hold on a second—if you’ve already decided someone is sharp and actually knows their stuff, their word is naturally going to carry more weight than someone you don't trust. It's just basic bias; we tend to assume the smart ones are usually right.
It’s true that people who constantly brag can be incredibly grating—usually because they're overcompensating for some deep-seated insecurity, or they feel like their peers aren't giving them enough credit as an expert, so they try to force the recognition themselves.
Regarding what I said earlier—I wasn't suggesting that constantly bringing up your own identity is the same thing as "having a sense of self." There's a massive difference between being a pushover and actually having a backbone.

Paul Thompson3 said:I think you might be missing the point—when people talk about "having a sense of self," they mean having a backbone, a clear perspective, and actually thinking for yourself.
I definitely saw myself in the part about overusing "I" and "me"—it’s a habit of mine.