Talk:Egocentrism

message: I agree, You cannot just think that egocentrism is where everyone has the same feelings, as this guy said, you can't for one second really think that an autistic person thinks, feels or believes the same as even a little girl. This definately needs some distinction, it just isn't distinctive enough. (Arsenalboi19 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement 

message: I'm not sure about the neutrality of the last paragraph (Egocentrics are compulsive). Specifically the use of phrases such as "suffer" and "fragile ego" - the whole thing reads more like a horoscope than an unbiased statement.
01:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The section entirely lacks citations or references to studies, and even reads as if it had been copied from some kind of psychological propaganda, what with inserted quotes and all. If anyone has the sources and education to improve the section, please go ahead! In its current state, I feel it brings nothing to the article and should perhaps be removed entirely. 83.183.116.114 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behaviors 

message: i really can't get my head round how this article is worded - no the very content of what it says, like the author[s] have a tremendous vendetta against an ex boss or something. i would suggest a massive rewrite tbh - suggest here for now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.210.76 (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: pathology or amorality or shitty article?

message: I think the first sentence is ok, then the rest mixes egotistical in with it. in the definition anyhow. I believe the two are seperate otherwise why have egocentric and egotistical. i think if that is clearly seperated then it will also sort out the autism issue. in that egocentric is self centered but needen't be selfish, that would be egotistical and egocentric together, egotistical is selfish egoentric is not egotistical, egotistical is egotistical. thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.78 (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed; i'll look into the published Piaget literature in particular later, but my Psych. professor explained it very differently - that -centrism is specific to being simply unaware of others' interpretations (in the absence of being told by the others); her examples are also far more mild than referencing careless/criminal acts when it comes to children - like a child seeing/hearing that an adult is upset, and giving the adult a doll because that is what the child knows to have a calming/soothing effect... TheNuszAbides (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  egotistical 

message: that's a bold statement.  is it not meant to merely state that his formal declaration of the (not at all subtle or shocking) phenomenon was one of the earliest?  TheNuszAbides (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "David Elkind was one of the first to discover the presence of egocentrism in adolescence and late adolescence." 

message: The article seems to define egocentrism in absolute terms, i.e. you have it or you don't. For example the lede statement: "The [egocentric] individual fails to acknowledge any perspectives other than their own." We are all egocentric to some degree because we understand the world in our terms, so I doubt authoritative definitions would define egocentrism in the simplistic way this Wikipedia article has. Egocentrism is a relative condition rather than absolute.  Furthermore egocentrism is not as conscious as the lede to the article implies. People tend to be blind to their egocentric behaviour which is part of why it is egocentric. Empathy is the mode by which egocentrism is broken down, but it would be wrong to claim that egocentrism is something only other people have, or that it is a pathological condition of the sick rather than something found in all of us to a lesser or greater extent. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutist definition 

message: An edit was made which resulted in most references being removed and replaced with numbers in square brackets (apparent copy and paste of rendered, not source, text). I reverted so the edit can be discussed and/or the formatting repaired. Samsara 02:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large malformatted edit 

message: I don't understand what the illustration at the top shows. What, if anything, do distance and direction from the centre mean? -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: I'm told:
:A person who is egocentric believes they are the center of attention, like a narcissist, but does not receive gratification by one's own admiration.
First, is "A person who is egocentric believes they are the center of attention" even true? (I hadn't thought so.) Secondly, who is "one"? -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: * person: any self aware being (not necessarily biologically human or matter-based) who fulfils the criteria for personhood (Mary Anne Warren)
Hominocentrism, human-centeredness, metaphysical hominocracy is the same but specifically for humans.
personocrat (adherent of metaphysical generalized [omniprevailing] personocracy), personhood-biased generalist, false-attributer/imputer to personhood: One who considers the first cosmic cause and supreme power a person, his (god's) power over everything absolute and eternal, personhood and its values the criterion and purpose/goal of everything, and the personhood of god prevailing over his divine essence/substance/ousia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:88AD:A100:94C9:3C0C:F946:480E (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: ''make page'': [[personocentrism (metaphysics)]], person-centeredness, personocentrism, metaphysical personocracy (not leftist personocracy); generalized and permanent [omni]attribution to [a] person[s] and/or personhood