I read something somewhere that those who would control us, (as in bosses, preachers, government, etc.)
don't much care for those of us who have a self sufficient ego.
This was a casual statement with little elaboration, and I think it needs some.
So, what does it mean to you? and have you ever experienced a problem with it?

Pardon my niavety, but what is a self-sufficient ego?

A self sufficient ego, I think, is someone with a strong will, a strong personality who's hard to intimidate or manipulate.

Like I said, the author did not elaborate enough and I am not at home with my library or I would add more. But if I remember correctly, it means that your ego is sufficiently strong enough on its own that you don't need someone trying to manipulate or flatter you in order for you to value your own self worth.
Or, your self esteem is not based on the esteem (real or phony) of others.

Yeah, what Billy Jean says....

A person who feels comfortable without constant reassurance from another person will not succumb to cronyism, is more apt to tell the unvarnished truth, and is not easily blackmailed. Hence, that person is a potential threat to his/her boss.

If the boss is smart enough though, s/he will realize what an asset this person can be to the organization.

Over the last 35 years, I have worked for a few bosses who appreciated the ability of employees to function alone and many others who felt that they were being bypassed or made to look bad when an employee did something right without his (the boss) involvement. I guess it would be politically expedient to always get the boss involved and even let him have the credit if it means getting the right thing done, but sometimes (backshifts or other cases where time is critical) that is not possible. Most often, it is one of those deals where it is easier to get forgiveness after the fact than to get permission before.
In those cases, it seems to be the fragile ego of the boss that is the problem.

If you do a google search on "self-sufficient ego," the first few hits are from Ayn Rand sites.

Rand was a novelist around the turn of the 19th century. She proposed a philosophy of Objectivism, and this philosophy enjoyed a resurgence in the boom times of the 1990s.

You know, when we were all going to become rich?

Anyway, the psychology goes something like this: Everyone acts out of their own self-interest. If anything gets done that benefits society, that's just a nice byproduct of the fundamental motivation.

I know there's a lot more to it than this, but maybe that piques your interest.

My preference is the psychology of self-actualization and self-determination. I can work for a boss but would prefer to create my own living and have control over my own time. That's because I have lots of projects in mind that don't necessarily fit into a mission statement someone else conceived.

As a result, I'm naturally critical of a lot that goes on within corporations. But so are a bunch of other folks who may not care to do what I do, and so there you go.

I think psychology is a lot more complex than Rand's philosophy lets on to. It is reflected in her fictional cardboard characters, and by gosh, some people are just so enwrapped with themselves that we can consider them to be criminals (like Ken Lay)!

Huh, how about that.

I don't know. IF the ego in question is self-sufficient enough to be resilient, but not so much that it doesn't quite LIKE positive and DISLIKE negative external input, then I'd say that was probably quite an asset to bosses, politicians, and so on.

Adn if it's smart enough to have worked out that some endeavours necessarily work much better when resources are pooled to achieve a common objective, rather than being self-sufficient to the point of militancy, so much the better.

AuthorMusician- As someone who is currently studying Ayn Rand, your description most certainly does not encompass all of her philosophy. You are probably following a number of her ideals by working and doing as you have described for your own personal life. I think you would enjoy her work should you choose to persue it. You may be interested in reading this: Ayn Rand & Alan Greenspan

As for the topic... I have not yet come up with a proper way to state my thoughts.

O.

OM,

I'm not really a student of Rand. I don't admire her novels and have rejected the philosophy, but I did acknowledge that there's a lot more to it.

Jung beats the nickers off her, if you ask me.

But, if the "self-sufficient ego" is really the achievement of self-actualization (which I suspect it is), then there are at least two more levels to attain in the growth of self. The next level would be the realization of the interdependence of everything, and the one after that is an attainment of universal consciousness, i.e., being one with everything. It's a Zen thing.

Going back to the original thread subject, I don't think leaders like the competition from a self-actualized, self-sufficient person. This leads to lots of leaders and too few followers. How can you get any pyramids built that way? Or automobiles, computers, TVs, etc. and so on.

Looking at the surface of things, we usually have just a handful of leaders, and these leaders, through various means, keep the competition down. But if the competition is truly self-actualized, it won't stay down for long.

Then again, if the competition grows sufficiently, the need to lead goes away. So the pyramids get built, but the former competition no longer gives a hoot.

Due to there being much bigger fish to fry.

So, that's my take on the whole schtick.