https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/4/17989224/intellectual-humility-explained-psychology-replication?fbclid=IwAR15ZQUsKbfOpMxV3_VEPSV-k74j6JIcNeFdDst26lAHhw4xpWpG5r_Gvjs

“The ultimate leave taking is the idea of God for God.”
–Meister Eckart

Eckhart von Hochheim OP, commonly known as Meister Eckhart or Eckehart (1260 – 1328), was a German theologian, philosopher and mystic, born near Gotha, in the Landgraviate of Thuringia in the Holy Roman Empire. Wikipedia

Heinrich Robert Zimmer (December 6, 1890 – March 20, 1943) was a German Indologist and linguist, as well as an historian of South Asian art, most known for his works, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization and Philosophies of India. He was the most important German scholar in Indian Philology after Max Müller. Wikipedia

The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

by Mark Manson (Goodreads Author) 

In this generation-defining self-help guide, a superstar blogger cuts through the crap to show us how to stop trying to be “positive” all the time so that we can truly become better, happier people.

For decades, we’ve been told that positive thinking is the key to a happy, rich life. “F**k positivity,” Mark Manson says. “Let’s be honest, shit is f**ked and we have to live with it.” In his wildly popular Internet blog, Manson doesn’t sugarcoat or equivocate. He tells it like it is—a dose of raw, refreshing, honest truth that is sorely lacking today. The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k is his antidote to the coddling, let’s-all-feel-good mindset that has infected American society and spoiled a generation, rewarding them with gold medals just for showing up.

Manson makes the argument, backed both by academic research and well-timed poop jokes, that improving our lives hinges not on our ability to turn lemons into lemonade, but on learning to stomach lemons better. Human beings are flawed and limited—”not everybody can be extraordinary, there are winners and losers in society, and some of it is not fair or your fault.” Manson advises us to get to know our limitations and accept them. Once we embrace our fears, faults, and uncertainties, once we stop running and avoiding and start confronting painful truths, we can begin to find the courage, perseverance, honesty, responsibility, curiosity, and forgiveness we seek.

There are only so many things we can give a f**k about so we need to figure out which ones really matter, Manson makes clear. While money is nice, caring about what you do with your life is better, because true wealth is about experience. A much-needed grab-you-by-the-shoulders-and-look-you-in-the-eye moment of real-talk, filled with entertaining stories and profane, ruthless humor, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k is a refreshing slap for a generation to help them lead contented, grounded lives.

(Goodreads.com)

According to The Tibetan Book of the Dead (and my friend Melissa Goodnight, H.W., M.), we are all enlightened at the moment of death and, if we can handle it, we can choose to stay enlightened or to hang on to some aspects of our ego and therefore get reborn.

I don’t know if this is true or not, but it’s a wonderful thing to meditate on especially as it relates to Releasing the Hidden Splendour (RHS).

Imagining everybody in our lives (past or present) as being enlightened is really therapeutic. If you’re enlightened, then you can no longer be my bully, be my victim, be my shitty parent or be my shitty boyfriend. And neither can I.

–Mike Zonta, H.W., M., editor of the BB

“Where your pain is, that’s where you life is.”
–Joseph Campbell

“The eyes are the scouts of the heart.”
–Joseph Campbell

“Voyeurism: Delight in the manifestation of the divine in another person”
–Joseph Campbell

“T.S. Eliot’s “wasteland” is the world of people living inauthentic lives, doing what is expected of them.”
–Joseph Campbell

“Marriage starts in the spirit and is fulfilled in the flesh.”
–Joseph Campbell

“The God in us is the one that gives the laws and makes the laws and it is in us.”
–Joseph Campbell

“Space and time are what gives us separateness.”
–Joseph Campbell

Why quieting the ego strengthens your best self.

Scientific American|getpocket.com

• Scott Barry Kaufman

Photo by Hudzilla / Getty Images.

We live in some times. On the one hand, things are better than they’ve ever been. Overall rates of violence, poverty, and disease are down. There have been substantial increases in education, longevity, leisure time, and safety. On the other hand… We are more divided than ever as a species. Tribalism and identity politics are rampant on all sides of everything.

Steven Pinker and other intellectuals think that the answer is a return to Enlightenment values—things like reason, individualism, and the free expression of as many ideas as possible and an effective method for evaluating the truth of them. I agree that this is part of the solution, but I think an often underdiscussed part of the problem is much more fundamental: all of our egos are just too damn loud.*

Watching debates in the media (and especially on YouTube) lately has been making my head explode. There seems to be this growing belief that the goal is always to win. Not have a dialectical, well-intentioned, mutual search for overarching principles and productive ways forward that will improve humanity—but to just win and destroy.

Now, don’t get me wrong—I find a good intellectual domination just as thrilling as the next person. But cheap thrills aside, I also care deeply about there actually being a positive outcome. Arriving at the truth and improving society may not be explicit goals of a WWE match, but surely these are worthy goals of public discourse?

There is also an interesting paradox at play here in that the more the ego is quieted, the higher the likelihood of actually reaching one’s goals. I think we tend to grossly underestimate the extent to which the drive for self-enhancement actually gets in the way of reaching one’s goals—even if one’s goals are primarily agentic.

Since psychologists use of the term ego is very different ways, let me be clear how I am defining it here. I define the ego as that aspect of the self that has the incessant need to see itself in a positive light. Make no doubt: the self can be our greatest resource, but it can also be our darkest enemy. On the one hand, the fundamentally human capacities for self-awareness, self-reflection, and self-control are essential for reaching our goals. On the other hand, the self will do anything to disavow itself of responsibility for any negative outcome it may have played a role. As one researcher put it, the self engenders “a self-zoo of self-defense mechanisms.” I believe we can refer to these defensive strategies to see the self in a positive light as the “ego”. A noisy ego spends so much time defending the self as if it were a real thing, and then doing whatever it takes to assert itself, that it often inhibits the very goals it is most striving for.

In recent years, Heidi Wayment and her colleagues have been developing a “quiet ego” research program grounded in Buddhist philosophy and humanistic psychology ideals, and backed by empirical research in the field of positive psychology. Paradoxically, it turns out that quieting the ego is so much more effective in cultivating well-being, growth, health, productivity, and a healthy, productive self-esteem, than focusing so loudly on self-enhancement.

To be clear, a quiet ego is not the same thing as a silent ego. Squashing the ego so much that it loses its identity entirely does not do yourself or the world any favors. Instead, the quiet ego perspective emphasizes balance and integration. As Wayment and colleagues put it, “The volume of the ego is turned down so that it might listen to others as well as the self in an effort to approach life more humanely and compassionately.” The quiet ego approach focuses on balancing the interests of the self and others, and cultivating growth of the self and others over time based on self-awareness, interdependent identity, and compassionate experience.

The goal of the quiet ego approach is to arrive at a less defensive, and more integrative stance toward the self and others, not lose your sense of self or deny your need for the esteem from others. You can very much cultivate an authentic identity that incorporates others without losing the self, or feeling the need for narcissistic displays of winning. A quiet ego is an indication of a healthy self-esteem, one that acknowledges one’s own limitations, doesn’t need to constantly resort to defensiveness whenever the ego is threatened, and yet has a firm sense of self-worth and competence.

According to Bauer and Wayment, the quiet ego consists of four deeply interconnected facets that can be cultivated: detached awareness, inclusive identity, perspective-taking, and growth-mindedness. These four qualities of the quiet ego contribute to having a general stance of balance and growth toward the self and others:

• Detached Awareness. Those with a quiet ego have an engaged, nondefensive form of attention to the present moment. They are aware of both the positive and negatives of a situation, and their attention is detached from more ego-driven evaluations of the present moment. Rather, they attempt to see reality as clearly as possible. This requires openness and acceptance to whatever one might discover about the self or others in the present moment, and letting the moment unfold as naturally as possibly. It also involves the ability to revisit thoughts and feelings that have already occurred, examine them more objectively than perhaps one was able to in the moment, and make the appropriate adjustments that will lead to further growth.
• Inclusive Identity. People whose egos are turned down in volume have a balanced or more integrative interpretation of the self and others. They understand other perspectives in a way that allows them to identify with the experience of others, break down barriers, and come to a deeper understanding of common humanity. An ability to be mindful, and the detached awareness that comes with it, can help facilitate an inclusive identity, especially under moments of conflict, such as having one’s identity or core values challenged. If your identity is inclusive, you’re likely to be cooperative and compassionate toward others rather than only working to help yourself.
• Perspective-Taking. By reflecting on other viewpoints, the quiet ego brings attention outside the self, increasing empathy and compassion. Perspective taking and inclusive identity are intimately intertwined, as either one can trigger the other. For instance, the realization of one’s interdependence with others can lead to a greater understanding of the perspective of others.
• Growth-Mindedness. A concern for prosocial development and change for self and others over time causes those with a quiet ego to question the long-term impact of their actions in the moment, and to view the present moment as part of an ongoing life journey instead of a threat to one’s self and existence. Growth-mindedness and perspective taking complement each other nicely, as a growth stance toward the moment clears a space for understanding multiple perspectives. Growth-mindedness is also complementary to detached awareness, as both are focused on dynamic processes rather than evaluation of the final product.

These qualities should not be viewed in isolation from each other, but as part of a whole system of ego functioning. Curious where you lie on the quiet ego continuum? Here are 14 items that will give you a rough estimation. If you find yourself nodding in strong agreement to most of these items, you probably have a quiet ego:

1. I often pay attention when I am doing things.
2. I don’t do jobs or tasks automatically, I am aware of what I’m doing.
3. I don’t rush through activities without being really attentive to them.
4. I feel a connection to all living things.
5. I feel a connection with strangers.
6. I feel a connection to people of other races.
7. Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.
8. When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to put myself in his or her shoes for a while.
9. I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision.
10. I find it easy to see things from another person’s point of view.
11. For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth.
12. I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how you think about yourself and the world.
13. I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time.
14. When I think about it, I have really improved a lot as a person over the years.

Those scoring higher on the Quiet Ego Scale tend to be more interested in personal growth and balance and are more likely to seek growth through authenticity, mastery, and positive social relationships. While a quiet ego is positively related to having a healthy self-esteem, resilience, and healthy coping strategies for dealing with life’s stressors, it is also related to humanitarian attitudes and behaviors. This is consistent with the idea that a quiet ego balances compassion with self-protection and growth goals. Indeed, a good indication that one is growing is that the ego is quieting. A quiet ego is also associated with humility, spiritual growth, flexible thinking, open-minded thinking, the ability to savor everyday experiences, life satisfaction, risk-taking, and the feeling that life is meaningful. It’s clear that a quiet ego is very conducive to living a full existence.

In my own research, I found a zero relationship between having a quiet ego and scores on a measure of “self-sacrificing self-enhancement”, which is a actually facet of narcissism. Self-sacrificing self-enhancement is measured by items such as:

• Sacrificing for others makes me the better person.
• I try to show what a good person I am through my sacrifices.
• I like to have friends who rely on me because it makes me feel important.
• I feel important when others rely on me.

It seems that the quiet ego is related to a genuine concern for the growth and development of self and others. In line with this, I found that the quiet ego was positively related to measures of compassion and empathy that were negatively correlated with self-sacrificing self-enhancement. Consistent with prior research, I also found a positive relationship between a quiet ego and self-compassion. It appears then that those with a quiet ego tend be loving, giving people, but also take care of themselves just as compassionately as they tend to take care of others.

These results underscore the centrality of growth and balance values to the quiet ego construct, and make clear that quieting the ego does not quiet the self. In fact, I would like to put forward the following equation:

The quieter the ego = The stronger one’s best self emerges

I think it’s time for our society to realize (and put into practice) the fact that you don’t have to choose either concern for the self or concern for others. In fact, intentionally practicing to maintain a healthy balance between these fundamental concerns is most conducive to health, growth, well-being, high performance, creativity, and actually arriving at the truth.

Imagine if in addition to learning math, reading, and sex education in school, we also learned how to cultivate the four characteristics of the quiet ego? Or imagine if before any potentially heated public debate, the ground rules included at least an attempt for all participants to practice these characteristics? Better yet, how about instead of the goal of the debate being “who won?”, the debate concludes by having each participant state the things they learned from the other person as a result of the discussion? Would that really be so boring? If so, then I think the problem cuts even deeper than I thought.

Instead of destroying each other how about we learn from each other?

Scott Barry Kaufman is a psychologist at Columbia University exploring intelligence, creativity, personality and well-being. In addition to writing the column Beautiful Minds for Scientific American, he also hosts The Psychology Podcast, and is author and/or editor of 8 books, including Wired to Create: Unravelling the Mysteries of the Creative Mind(with Carolyn Gregoire) and Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined. Find out more at http://ScottBarryKaufman.com.

Footnote

*I say “all of us” because I really do believe that all of us (including me!) can benefit from cultivating a quieter ego. This is a lifelong practice, and one that each of us are capable of committing to and moving toward in our daily lives. Recent research (see Discussion section of this paper) suggests that there are activities that do in fact enhance people’s quiet ego functioning.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

This article was originally published on May 21, 2018, by Scientific American, and is republished here with permission.

What makes people who seem so good in public act so bad in private?

Nautilus|getpocket.com

• Abbas Panjwani

Oscar Wilde. Photo from Wikicommons.

Oscar Wilde, the famed Irish essayist and playwright, had a gift, among other things, for counterintuitive aphorisms. In “The Soul of Man Under Socialism,” an 1891 article, he wrote, “Charity creates a multitude of sins.”

So perhaps Wilde wouldn’t have been surprised to hear of a series of scandals in the U.K.: The all-male charity, the President’s Club, which raised money for causes including children’s hospitals through high-valued auctions, was forced to close after the Financial Times uncovered sexual assault and misogyny at its annual dinner; executives of Oxfam, a poverty eradication charity, visited prostitutes while delivering aid in earthquake-stricken Haiti, and were allowed to slink off to other charities, rather than being castigated for their actions; and ex-Save the Children executives Brendan Cox and Justin Forsyth stepped down from their roles at other charities, after allegations of sexual harassment and bullying toward junior female colleagues resurfaced.

You might wonder how people who seem so good by occupation could be so bad in private. The theory of moral licensing could help explain why: When humans are good, it says, we give ourselves license to be bad.

In one paper, economists at the University of Chicago reported that working for a socially responsible company motivated employees to act immorally. In one experiment, people were hired to transcribe images of short German texts and paid 10 percent upfront, with the remaining payment being delivered if they completed the transcriptions, or if they declared the documents too illegible to transcribe. When they were told that, for every job completed or marked illegible, 5 percent of their wages would be donated to Unicef’s educational programs, the instances of cheating rose by 25 percent, compared to where no charitable donation was offered. Cheating manifested in both workers not completing jobs (taking the 10 percent upfront fee and running) and also workers saying that documents were too illegible to transcribe (and so receiving the full fee).

“The share of cheaters [was] highest when we frame corporate social responsibility as a prosocial act on behalf of workers,” the researchers, John A. List and Fatemeh Momeni, found. When the workers felt a greater sense that their own actions would lead to charitable donations, like Robin Hood, they in turn felt enough license to steal, essentially, from their employer to give to charity. “The ‘doing good’ nature of [corporate social responsibility] induces workers to misbehave on another dimension that hurts the firm,” List and Fatemeh concluded.

When humans are good, we give ourselves license to be bad.

A parallel might be drawn between the transcribers cheating in order to give more money to charity, and the organizers of the male-only dinner hiring hostesses for titillation, in order to increase the appeal of the event and drive up donations. But there are problems using this theory to explain instances of sexual assault. Moral licensing only applies when the bad behavior can be self-rationalized as good—or, at least, ambiguous.

In a 2011 study, researchers at the University of Oklahoma asked students to complete mental math tests on a computer, simple arithmetic problems only involving numbers one through 20. They were told that they would be shown a math problem, and needed to press the spacebar to bring up the response box. If they failed to do that quickly enough, the answer would automatically appear, ostensibly due to a bug in the computer program, still in its piloting phase.

Students were given either 10 seconds or 1 second to press the spacebar, on the working assumption that, while students who failed to press the spacebar in 10 seconds were deliberately cheating, those who failed to press the spacebar within 1 second, could “rationalize their failure to do so as incidental rather than immoral.” After the test, the students were then asked how many times they had failed to press the spacebar quickly enough, thereby seeing the answer. The prevalence of lying was significantly higher amongst the 1-second group.

But generalizing that moral licensing only occurs when bad behavior can be “rationalized” or “prosocial” overlooks the nuance of moral license theory, argues Daniel Effron, of the London Business School, who specializes in organizational ethics. “There are two versions of moral licensing theory,” he says. “One is the ‘moral credentials mechanism,’ which is more to do with rationalization. Basically it states, ‘I’ve done some good stuff. I’ve shown that I’m a good enough person. Now I can act ambiguously, because, as a good person, I know that my behavior is more likely to be good than bad.’ The other is the ‘moral credits’ mechanism, which works like a bank account. You do good stuff, you put a deposit in your bank account. You do bad stuff, you take a withdrawal. In that case, the bad deeds don’t have to be rationalizable.”

The latter version explains—though, obviously, does not excuse—the bad actions of Forsyth, Cox, and company. They had built up enough “moral credit” to justify taking some withdrawals, at least in their minds. This isn’t to say that the theory can determine or predict whether a good action will lead to bad behavior, Effron says.

He also stresses that the “charity sector isn’t any more vulnerable” to instances of moral licensing than any other sector. Humans are very good, he says, at finding reasons to be bad and making “mountains of morality out of molehills of virtue.” Studies have shown that trivial acts, including buying environmentally friendly cosmetics, can give consumers a moral license to behave badly. But, he adds, “You could make the argument that in the charity sector, you don’t have to work as hard to find your moral license for being bad.”

Abbas Panjwani is a journalist at Full Fact, the UK’s leading fact-checking charity. He has previously written for the Sunday Times. Follow him on Twitter @abbas_panjwani.

This article was originally published on February 5, 2019, by Nautilus, and is republished here with permission.