[Onward2wards]

I used to get confused when people talk about "the Ego". Some people seem to be describing this annoying, insecure, self-doubting thing that has a mile thick perimeter of defenses and overcompensations and whatnot, the kind of construct that would say "My dad can beat up your dad! Anything you can do, I can do better! I have a TON of friends, cos I'm cool like that!" like an elementary school kid trying to prove themselves socially and assure themselves that they are competent and likeable. I hear advice like "feed the soul and slay the ego", as if "The Ego" is a completely dysfunctional alternate self that gets everything wrong.

Clinical psychologists' version of "The Ego" seems to be a self-concept that is absolutely necessary. Without THAT ego, we couldn't function. A strong ego according to psychologists seems to be a self-image that is comfortable with itself and doesn't NEED to prove anything or need those childhood reassurances anymore.

I think the psychologists are right. If we have a healthy ego, it just means we have self-acceptance and an optimally functioning idea of who we are and what we stand for. We are neither perfect nor irredeemably flawed. If there are things we don't like about ourselves, that's fine too, because a healthy ego knows it has the right, the responsibility and the capacity to effect internal and external change, given enough time and effort. A healthy ego wouldn't need to beg for affection or acceptance, or angrily defend itself, or worry incessantly, or push anyone around, or feel irrational guilt or shame. An unhealthy ego is the same as the ego most people refer to as just "the Ego", whereas what psychologists call a healthy ego corresponds to the layperson's concept of "Soul" or "Authentic Self".

What do you think?

[glok]

Hello, Onward2wards. I found this article interesting:

Ego Versus Ego-Strength: The Characteristics of a Healthy Ego and Why It?s Essential to Your Happiness | Neuroscience and Relationships