What does it actually mean to "find yourself"?

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

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

I generally agree with the core principles of what you wrote. It’s definitely not a good idea to stop thinking for yourself and just blindly follow the crowd.
I have a few questions, though, so I'll tackle them in the order you laid them out:🙂

Why shouldn't we value someone else's opinion if it actually aligns with common sense and sound logic?

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

And why does the concept of "having a sense of self" so often get tied to people just trying to look out for their own interests?

Dennis Cook78 said:I generally agree with the core principles of what you wrote. It’s definitely not a good idea to stop thinking for yourself and just blindly follow the crowd.
I have a few questions, though, so I'll tackle them in the order you laid them out:🙂

Why shouldn't we value someone else's opinion if it actually aligns with common sense and sound logic?

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

And why does the concept of "having a sense of self" so often get tied to people just trying to look out for their own interests?

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: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?

When you mentioned not being too suggestible and just being yourself, I took it to mean a general resistance toward anything anyone suggests, whether they're a friend or a stranger, regardless of how good the idea is. If that's not what you meant, then I am honestly thrilled to be talking to someone so objective!

You really ought to avoid conflict at all costs, unless you're dealing with survival situations or constant, direct attacks. Take that situation with the manager, for example; trying to push back could easily result in you getting saddled with even more work just so they can shut you down and shift the blame onto you. Of course, there is a massive difference between speaking up as a high-performing teammate
and being someone who just dodges any kind of responsibility. This is most noticeable when a solid employee is trying to climb the corporate ladder in a US firm; they want to do it through cooperation rather than friction, because leadership roles demand collaborative skills, not combative ones. Anyone can learn how to be rude.

When I brought up the concept of "benefit," I was referring to ...having your own identity and being yourself, while still knowing how to assess where that might cause serious damage, weighing the options, and adjusting accordingly.I only asked because it felt like the phrase "being yourself" was being used here merely as a way to extract some sort of advantage or to dodge unpleasant consequences in the moment.

That last point is tied pretty closely to the example involving the manager we already discussed. Cooperation in a professional environment is absolutely vital for success, because there isn't a single valid excuse that justifies an employee or a boss behaving rudely or arrogantly. If we're discussing this from the perspective of teamwork, then we're talking about a subjective approach, rather than the broad concept of "finding oneself," which I still maintain is completely unnecessary and potentially even harmful.

"Quote:"

Dennis Cook78 said:When you mentioned not being too suggestible and just being yourself, I took it to mean a general resistance toward anything anyone suggests, whether they're a friend or a stranger, regardless of how good the idea is. If that's not what you meant, then I am honestly thrilled to be talking to someone so objective!

You really ought to avoid conflict at all costs, unless you're dealing with survival situations or constant, direct attacks. Take that situation with the manager, for example; trying to push back could easily result in you getting saddled with even more work just so they can shut you down and shift the blame onto you. Of course, there is a massive difference between speaking up as a high-performing teammate
and being someone who just dodges any kind of responsibility. This is most noticeable when a solid employee is trying to climb the corporate ladder in a US firm; they want to do it through cooperation rather than friction, because leadership roles demand collaborative skills, not combative ones. Anyone can learn how to be rude.

When I brought up the concept of "benefit," I was referring to ...having your own identity and being yourself, while still knowing how to assess where that might cause serious damage, weighing the options, and adjusting accordingly.I only asked because it felt like the phrase "being yourself" was being used here merely as a way to extract some sort of advantage or to dodge unpleasant consequences in the moment.

That last point is tied pretty closely to the example involving the manager we already discussed. Cooperation in a professional environment is absolutely vital for success, because there isn't a single valid excuse that justifies an employee or a boss behaving rudely or arrogantly. If we're discussing this from the perspective of teamwork, then we're talking about a subjective approach, rather than the broad concept of "finding oneself," which I still maintain is completely unnecessary and potentially even harmful.

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:"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.

There’s definitely a difference, and if anything, we should be drawing even sharper lines between them since those two traits seem to bleed into one another more and more every day. Have you ever noticed how people who claim they "don't care what anyone thinks" often come off as incredibly self-assured, while everyone conveniently forgets to mention they're actually just being arrogant and obnoxious? It doesn't take much brainpower to tell someone exactly what you think of them, and honestly, that’s usually the go-to move for people with limited intellectual depth. What's funny is that the higher up someone climbs on the corporate or academic ladder, the more people tend to misinterpret that attitude as someone simply being a strong, independent individual with a "real personality."

I think I see where most people struggle. They are terrified of becoming "irrelevant" or losing their sense of "purpose," and that’s really where the insecurity kicks in. They can't quite wrap their heads around the brutal simplicity of life because it doesn't fit into this manufactured sense of purpose or the endless checklist of goals they feel forced to hit. They're scared of what might happen if everyone finally realized that none of those arbitrary rules actually hold any weight. They worry about what "everyone else" will say.

At the end of the day, we have to stick to the basic rules of civilized behavior; it’s essentially the only social contract we have to live together in a functional society. That’s why I’m not questioning core values like accountability or decency—those are non-negotiable.

Dennis Cook78 said:There’s definitely a difference, and if anything, we should be drawing even sharper lines between them since those two traits seem to bleed into one another more and more every day. Have you ever noticed how people who claim they "don't care what anyone thinks" often come off as incredibly self-assured, while everyone conveniently forgets to mention they're actually just being arrogant and obnoxious? It doesn't take much brainpower to tell someone exactly what you think of them, and honestly, that’s usually the go-to move for people with limited intellectual depth. What's funny is that the higher up someone climbs on the corporate or academic ladder, the more people tend to misinterpret that attitude as someone simply being a strong, independent individual with a "real personality."

I think I see where most people struggle. They are terrified of becoming "irrelevant" or losing their sense of "purpose," and that’s really where the insecurity kicks in. They can't quite wrap their heads around the brutal simplicity of life because it doesn't fit into this manufactured sense of purpose or the endless checklist of goals they feel forced to hit. They're scared of what might happen if everyone finally realized that none of those arbitrary rules actually hold any weight. They worry about what "everyone else" will say.

At the end of the day, we have to stick to the basic rules of civilized behavior; it’s essentially the only social contract we have to live together in a functional society. That’s why I’m not questioning core values like accountability or decency—those are non-negotiable.

For sure—I don't personally see them that way, but unfortunately, that's exactly how they tend to climb those social and professional ladders.

Dennis Cook78-Hey, sorry I'm a bit late to the party, I haven't been keeping up with this thread lately.
Anyway, I'm pretty much on board with what you were saying in your last reply. I guess I just wanted to hint at the idea that we shouldn't get too carried away with being proud of our "Self," because honestly, even that ego stuff is baked right into our DNA. Whoever possesses that sense of Self is just wired that way—it’s their character. And like we talked about before, everything boils down to the specific traits of that individual Self. If everyone could just dial back their egos a notch, life in this fluid, flexible world would be a whole lot easier. But in this rigid, "hard" reality we live in? You actually need that Self to function. The trick is making sure it stays easy to shift when needed. For me, the hardest part is being elastic—being able to adapt, forgive, or just take a hit—because that takes way more mental muscle. It’s so much easier to just grab onto one thing and stubbornly push through it.
If I had to pin down a definition for having your own "Self," it would be this: essentially, having a Self means holding a certain subjective stance (which can be either flexible or rigid) that carries real value and doesn't just flip-flop the second circumstances change in a distracting direction.
Of course, it's basically impossible to live by a principle like that and always be on the "right" side of things, but man, you still gotta aim for it.
At the end of the day, having a sense of Self isn't just about fighting, refusing to change, or standing your ground; it's also about receiving, being adaptable, and so on. Even that monk who retreats from the world and refuses to let anything bad touch his heart—he doesn't cling to a single opinion, yet he has a "Self" which is defined by the core principle of being adaptable.
A "hard" Self is fine, too, provided you aren't stepping on your own toes or everyone else's—and I mean *really* emphasizing that "not too much" part.
Like, say you promised a friend you'd help them out with a gig that's worth $500 to them, but then someone else comes along and offers you $1,000 for the same job. In a purely "elastic" world, you should probably jump on the better-paying deal. But honestly? To me, that feels like the wrong kind of flexibility.
Just do the work for the first guy, even if it blows up in your face, because a person needs to strive for self-control and sacrifice, even when there isn't a paycheck waiting at the finish line. There’s nothing worse than being nothing more than your own selfish interests.
On the flip side, when it's about your own well-being, you shouldn't be a brick wall. Like, if someone has screwed you over twice already and comes knocking a third time with an offer that actually matters to you—and you genuinely believe they won't screw you over this time—you shouldn't be overly stubborn. Only idiots refuse to change their minds.
That logic applies to a ton of other exaggerated scenarios, too.
But like we've already established, the issue is how people tend to over-abstract a person with a strong "Self." They see them as this fearless figure charging through life, totally indifferent to what others think (especially those petty, envious types). They act like they're always right, solid as a rock.
And that... well, that's just massive narcissism.

Dennis Cook78 said:This is my first time starting a thread on this subforum. I’m curious to hear what you all think when you run into people who constantly go out of their way to emphasize that they have a "sense of self," or when they start lecturing others on how they need to find their own "identity." Why bother stressing one's own existence when it should be a given? What's the point of such constant self-referencing? I’ve never quite been able to wrap my head around what someone is actually trying to achieve when they feel the urge to mention themselves in any context other than just being present. Does this kind of behavior grate on your nerves too?

If it isn't just a blatant pursuit of attention, then constantly highlighting oneself in contexts where it isn't necessary is definitely a red flag that there are some deep-seated issues regarding how that person perceives their own identity. In all my time, I have never met anyone who uses "I" in that specific way as a rational expression of genuine self-confidence.

These types of people also seem to have this compulsive need to weave themselves into every single story they tell, just to make sure we don't accidentally miss their "expert" take on whatever topic is being discussed. Usually, in one of these monologues, you'll hear "I" mentioned five times, "me" ten times, and then a dozen or more variations of "myself" or "my own" tossed in just for good measure.

To me, it feels like a sign of extreme insecurity. It's like they try to manufacture confidence by aggressively attaching their persona to every positive argument they make, hoping people will eventually associate them with those ideas. Honestly, they can be exhausting to deal with, which is why I usually just find an excuse to step away.☕

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.

Dennis Cook78 said:What exactly did I get mixed up?

I feel like I follow what you're getting at, but I don't see how personality traits tie into self-affirmation. To me, "thinking for yourself" means building an argument based on logic and purpose, where the strength of the point shouldn't change just because you add your own personal bias to it. If an argument passes the "sanity test" and holds its own through quality alone, then it stands strong regardless of who happens to be saying it.

That’s why I don’t quite get the need to constantly emphasize one's own identity beyond the normal way we speak; nothing suddenly becomes "more valuable" or "smarter" just because you attach your name to it.

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.

Dennis Cook78 said:There’s definitely a difference, and if anything, we should be drawing even sharper lines between them since those two traits seem to bleed into one another more and more every day. Have you ever noticed how people who claim they "don't care what anyone thinks" often come off as incredibly self-assured, while everyone conveniently forgets to mention they're actually just being arrogant and obnoxious? It doesn't take much brainpower to tell someone exactly what you think of them, and honestly, that’s usually the go-to move for people with limited intellectual depth. What's funny is that the higher up someone climbs on the corporate or academic ladder, the more people tend to misinterpret that attitude as someone simply being a strong, independent individual with a "real personality."

I think I see where most people struggle. They are terrified of becoming "irrelevant" or losing their sense of "purpose," and that’s really where the insecurity kicks in. They can't quite wrap their heads around the brutal simplicity of life because it doesn't fit into this manufactured sense of purpose or the endless checklist of goals they feel forced to hit. They're scared of what might happen if everyone finally realized that none of those arbitrary rules actually hold any weight. They worry about what "everyone else" will say.

At the end of the day, we have to stick to the basic rules of civilized behavior; it’s essentially the only social contract we have to live together in a functional society. That’s why I’m not questioning core values like accountability or decency—those are non-negotiable.

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.

It’s possible some people act that way because they’re doubting their own inner strength. I definitely agree there are people like that, and if you’ve read any of the recent takes on the impression these types leave on others, it’s easy to see how exhausting they can be.

When we argue something, we generally shouldn't trivialize it. People who rely on mere opinions instead of actual arguments during a debate—especially when they want to be taken seriously—regularly face a justified sort of pushback. Then, they act surprised when they get labeled as "boring," a "know-it-all," a "fraud," or just "that guy who thinks he knows everything."
There is a clear distinction between an argument and an opinion. They should never be treated as the same thing.

Exactly! Context is everything, which is something we've established here. That’s why insisting on "one's own self" is just as pointless as rejecting someone else's perspective for that same reason. Communication has to be a two-way street; otherwise, it’s just a monologue.

The person you’re describing is basically imposing flaws on themselves that they don't even need to have, because there’s absolutely no reason to cling to old beliefs if they run into better, proven arguments. If they keep stubbornly sticking to their "ego system," they end up burdened by that rigidity and have to deal with consequences that aren't always easy to handle. These types of people often brush off their mistakes too easily, which is why they end up repeating them. Downplaying errors is almost always a recipe for disaster because of that cycle.

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.

The bolded part can describe the extreme arrogance found in most people who adopt that kind of attitude.
Sure, who is talking to you is important, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor. I'll say it again: there isn't a single person on this planet who knows everything about everything.
People who are rude, arrogant, and intrusive act exactly the way you described. Keeping your distance from folks like that is ultimately your responsibility, along with
deciding for yourself how much weight to give someone's opinion. It's a purely subjective judgment in any case.

Fair point! And I certainly hope you aren't handing out advice in a way that you wouldn't want to receive it yourself.

Dennis Cook78 said:It’s possible some people act that way because they’re doubting their own inner strength. I definitely agree there are people like that, and if you’ve read any of the recent takes on the impression these types leave on others, it’s easy to see how exhausting they can be.

When we argue something, we generally shouldn't trivialize it. People who rely on mere opinions instead of actual arguments during a debate—especially when they want to be taken seriously—regularly face a justified sort of pushback. Then, they act surprised when they get labeled as "boring," a "know-it-all," a "fraud," or just "that guy who thinks he knows everything."
There is a clear distinction between an argument and an opinion. They should never be treated as the same thing.

Exactly! Context is everything, which is something we've established here. That’s why insisting on "one's own self" is just as pointless as rejecting someone else's perspective for that same reason. Communication has to be a two-way street; otherwise, it’s just a monologue.

The person you’re describing is basically imposing flaws on themselves that they don't even need to have, because there’s absolutely no reason to cling to old beliefs if they run into better, proven arguments. If they keep stubbornly sticking to their "ego system," they end up burdened by that rigidity and have to deal with consequences that aren't always easy to handle. These types of people often brush off their mistakes too easily, which is why they end up repeating them. Downplaying errors is almost always a recipe for disaster because of that cycle.

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: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?

It definitely helps when you clarify what you meant, and I appreciate you doing that. I just assumed anyone reading my anecdote within the context of a reasoned debate would realize that was what I was getting at.

The workplace example can actually be very objective in situations where, say, employees are working but haven't been paid by their employer for months. Now, the reasons for changing working conditions under those circumstances might be harder to pin down as purely objective.

As for choosing a spouse, that's a matter of the heart, and diving into those levels of decision-making would probably just be going off-topic.

Of course, everything comes down to perspective, and that's exactly why people who overemphasize their own "ego" try to force their view on others—which isn't exactly a great personality trait, is it?

I agree that it’s draining and hard to stomach, but taking a moment to think through it every now and then is actually a good exercise for rational thinking.👍

If defining what constitutes "better arguments" is limited to just the examples you provided, then it's a pretty tough thing to explain, since we're clearly talking about completely different things here.

p.s. multitasking is a struggle...☕

Dennis Cook78 said:It definitely helps when you clarify what you meant, and I appreciate you doing that. I just assumed anyone reading my anecdote within the context of a reasoned debate would realize that was what I was getting at.

The workplace example can actually be very objective in situations where, say, employees are working but haven't been paid by their employer for months. Now, the reasons for changing working conditions under those circumstances might be harder to pin down as purely objective.

As for choosing a spouse, that's a matter of the heart, and diving into those levels of decision-making would probably just be going off-topic.

Of course, everything comes down to perspective, and that's exactly why people who overemphasize their own "ego" try to force their view on others—which isn't exactly a great personality trait, is it?

I agree that it’s draining and hard to stomach, but taking a moment to think through it every now and then is actually a good exercise for rational thinking.👍

If defining what constitutes "better arguments" is limited to just the examples you provided, then it's a pretty tough thing to explain, since we're clearly talking about completely different things here.

p.s. multitasking is a struggle...☕

I offered an entirely different example, yet you’re ignoring it to stick to your own preconceived notions and assumptions. It seems like you aren't really interested in listening or weighing someone else's perspective, even in a debate like this.😬

Choosing a life partner is a matter of the heart, and discussing the decision-making process behind that would just be off-topic.

Not necessarily. A partner can absolutely be chosen through rational thought. I don't see how that qualifies as off-topic.🤷

Of course, everything is a matter of perspective, which is exactly why people who overemphasize their "ego" try to force their view on others—it isn't exactly a charming trait, is it?

It sounds like you're just imposing your own view—that having an ego is inherently bad—regardless of what anyone else actually said.

I agree it's exhausting, but reflecting on it every once in a while is good mental exercise for staying rational.👍

Maybe that's a useful exercise for someone whose primary occupation is analyzing every trivial opinion they encounter.

If defining what constitutes a superior argument is limited only to the examples you've provided, then it's hard to explain because we clearly aren't talking about the same things.

For someone who places such high value on logically superior arguments in every aspect of life, this shouldn't be particularly difficult to explain. 😁

@hollowdrifter5
Look, everything is fine; I think we just had a bit of a misunderstanding. Honestly, getting hung up on semantics and nitpicking every single word doesn't really get us anywhere. I feel bad that our discussion turned into this because you started throwing labels around. Everything I wrote was intended to be taken at face value, plain and simple. If my point hasn't come across clearly by now, then perhaps I just haven't done a good enough job explaining myself in a way that resonates with you. On the bright side, I'm glad to see that most other people on this forum don't seem to have this issue.
Only you can truly know who you are or what defines your character, and regardless of all the assumptions being made—which, let's be honest, are largely self-imposed—our conversation would become completely pointless if I decided to fire back at you using those same kinds of definitions and assumptions.

If this whole thing is just an exercise in ego or someone trying to assert their "self," then I am more than happy to make the choice to step away from a debate like this.
I tried to walk you through my reasoning, it didn't click, and that's okay. I respect your perspective and wish you the best.👋

Dennis Cook78 said:@hollowdrifter5
Look, everything is fine; I think we just had a bit of a misunderstanding. Honestly, getting hung up on semantics and nitpicking every single word doesn't really get us anywhere. I feel bad that our discussion turned into this because you started throwing labels around. Everything I wrote was intended to be taken at face value, plain and simple. If my point hasn't come across clearly by now, then perhaps I just haven't done a good enough job explaining myself in a way that resonates with you. On the bright side, I'm glad to see that most other people on this forum don't seem to have this issue.
Only you can truly know who you are or what defines your character, and regardless of all the assumptions being made—which, let's be honest, are largely self-imposed—our conversation would become completely pointless if I decided to fire back at you using those same kinds of definitions and assumptions.

If this whole thing is just an exercise in ego or someone trying to assert their "self," then I am more than happy to make the choice to step away from a debate like this.
I tried to walk you through my reasoning, it didn't click, and that's okay. I respect your perspective and wish you the best.👋

I’ve genuinely tried to wrap my head around your perspective here, but you haven't actually addressed a single one of my questions. All you've done—in several different ways, really—is insist that we aren't communicating and then effectively walk away from a debate that hasn't even actually happened yet. 🤷😁

Dennis Cook78 said:@Aaron Allen5
I really felt what you were saying when you mentioned how people dodge compromise and meaningful dialogue altogether. It’s honestly shameful, but it’s the truth. People steer clear of it because real conversation requires actual effort, and let's be honest—most people will avoid any kind of mental heavy lifting unless it provides them with immediate gratification. It’s much easier to just shut down without checking your own biases or assumptions at the door. Instead, you get these attitudes like, "I've said my piece, deal with it," or "If you don't like it, that's your problem," or even that classic "I'm just looking out for number one" mentality. It all boils down to a certain kind of blatant rudeness.

The thing is, this kind of arrogance is often viewed as an advantage because it falls under a socially acceptable category of aggression. Throughout history, society has built up layers of civilization to suppress our more primal instincts, but those impulses are still there, buzzing just beneath the surface. Since we aren't exactly walking around with weapons in our hands in modern America, people have pivoted to using verbal weapons and psychological traps instead. There’s also this incredibly passive-aggressive form of rudeness where someone will just stay silent or keep talking over you, completely ignoring your points. It’s incredibly sneaky because they exploit the basic etiquette of a polite conversation—letting you speak freely—to create the illusion of a real debate. In reality, the other person becomes a victim of this calculated dismissal without even realizing it, and if they finally snap or lose their cool, they're the ones branded as being "difficult" or "rude."

At the end of the day, this type of bravado, much like any verbal assault, is usually pretty calculated. It’s almost always directed at people perceived as weaker or those who aren't likely to push back hard, all designed specifically to cause maximum damage while maintaining plausible deniability.

That hits the nail on the head!

The masses definitely have a warped perception nowadays regarding fulfillment and what it means to have a "self." I have a cousin currently finishing her third degree—truly, hats off to her—but I’ve gotten the impression she isn't finishing it for herself, but rather just to fuel some vision of whether someone else is JEALOUS of her or not!

Another example is the crowd that views everything through the lens of money. They obsess over status, prestige, or a certain level of wealth they’ve never actually attained, and they suffer because of it. Some people try to satisfy that void in short bursts by hanging out with someone "famous," but the moment they aren't with that person, you can see it clearly—whether they want to admit it or not—that they are spiritually hollow.

I believe this spiritual dissatisfaction is a dangerous ailment. It breeds envy, jealousy, resentment, rage, spite, and at certain moments, these individuals become capable of doing absolutely anything...

Or take Facebook friends as a third example. I laugh at the people who think having 50 friends is enough, while they look up to those "high-level" individuals who have several thousand IDIOTIC FRIENDS. These people know perfectly well that if they actually sat down to count and evaluate them, they wouldn't find a single true friend among those thousands. But hey, who cares, right?

What matters is how OTHERS PERCEIVE YOU. It isn't about how YOU see yourself! In reality, very few people possess a true sense of self today. If you actually have a real, authentic sense of self, you’re considered a weirdo! The crowd avoids you. If you value genuine human qualities or view the world differently than the MAJORITY does, then you are treated like a social outcast. People will laugh at you... why? Because you don't look like a clown, but still... you have a different perspective than them. You aren't part of the herd, and so on...

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!

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!

That hits close to home. Society simultaneously imposes strict norms and dictates exactly how much "individuality" someone is actually allowed to have. You have people working high-pressure jobs that guarantee them a certain status in the hierarchy. Everything looks perfect; everyone praises them, they work twelve-hour days, they earn great salaries, and they feel perfectly aligned with societal standards, never daring to question if any of it is actually logical.
Of course, society will encourage people like that, and there's a very specific reason why.
It happens purely to keep the system of artificial values alive. Let me explain what I mean by artificial values.

Reward systems are the first thing that jump out at me. Most people crave rewards, prestige, applause, or public recognition. But what is a reward, really? Usually, a reward is just a piece of paper—or rarely, some extra cash—whose appearance and purpose were decided by a few people who wanted to acknowledge someone's various achievements. That is the foundation of every award, which makes them essentially meaningless, yet they remain socially necessary to satisfy the vanity of the masses. True achievement is its own reward. Getting a result is a reward. Seeing that you actually helped someone is a reward. That fascinating journey you had to endure to create something is the real reward. Those are the tangible values; everything else is just an artificial construct based on conformity and social status, which itself depends entirely on the whims of the environment assigning it.

Very few people are actually capable of being satisfied with themselves without seeking "permission" from the society they live in.