Nah, unless you're using some overly narrow definition of "ego", I don't think this is true at all.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Conversation
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
That many egos then go rogue is a sort of social cost of reifying this tool as an identity. It is *not*.
You need your ego for safety. It is not you, will never be you, and you don't need to take it so seriously when it's not doing its primary job.
1
A properly assigned ego is a very small thing.
It shows up occasionally to offer feedback ("this offends me") or guidance ("that would hurt"), but does not pretend at agency.
1
1
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I understood it to be a sort of "ego is enemy" framework, common when rubbing up against outsize egos (one's own or that of others).
My idea is that this is giving ego a lot more power and importance than it merits, and is also an unfair dismissal of a useful tool.
1
1
The contention is that a hostile framing of ego is more harmful to one's self (well, one's body and personal interests) even than rank egoism.
Ego is useful, and ought not do more harm than good when properly understood. When misunderstood, however, it's a menace.