The desire to self-raise at the expense of others is inherent in many people. Where does it take its roots and why do we need it? Even a small child understands the benefits of high status and tries to prove to everyone that only he "has the right to everything." And indeed most of the rights and benefits belong to the "kings" in the direct and figurative sense. And since nothing human is alien to anyone, it can be assumed that every "cook dreams of becoming president." There are few facts in the history of the renunciation of wealthy people from their capabilities. Probably, there are enough fingers on the hand to count them. And all famous personalities have long been canonized as saints or the best. Paradox, isn't it, the person refused the privileges of the status of the “best” and was given this status exactly?
No one will ever support someone else’s personal desire to trample on everyone else. It is understandable - who is pleased when they tread on it? The desire to be the best is too selfish in nature. It does not take into account the interests of other people, and blindly pursues its own. However, there is an age at which egocentrism is considered a healthy manifestation. Psychologists believe that such models must exhaust themselves by 12 years. Next, a person begins to attend to the needs of other people. The figurative norm in the model of self-consciousness of a self-sufficient individual can be defined as: "I am among all, but I am the only one who I am."
The best is not the one who has proved his own predominance over all others. The true "best" is a state of mind full of itself, a full cup, which is ready to give its interests to others. And the question is not how to convince someone that "I am the best." The question is how to feel the desired state within yourself. And so that it is its own and independent from others: "I am among all, but I am the only one who I am."
However, quite often an adult person “gets stuck” in infancy, when “there is only me,” and there is no one else. This is manifested as “give me”, “consider me”, “pay attention first of all to me”, etc. Nobody, of course, is recognized in this way of thinking. However, if you carefully observe, you can see how all the "omissions" in relation to Me (the author deliberately puts emphasis on this pronoun, starting it with a capital letter) are explained only in terms of my own priority interests. All other interests are irrelevant.
The inexplicable experience of the hero, indignant at such minor omissions as: “You could warn Me!”, “I had to agree with the changes!”, “How is it - did not agree with Me ?!” - most likely indicates the presence of a "disease". “If they don’t ask me, advise or warn me,” it’s as if “they don’t respect me, they don’t put me in anything!”, “They behave as if I were worse or lower or less significant than others”. That is, I am not important.
In itself, the definition of "best" implies a comparison with other people. So, the competition for certain rights. And here the healthy model is broken. Instead of: "I am among all, but I am the only one who I am" turns out: "I am the best among you, I am the only and inimitable." In the second case, all the behavior is built on the "evidence" and "refutations" of my predominance over others. This model implies the position of "sublime" (best) and "humiliated" (worst). This will be continued in the next article.
But where do legs grow from such behaviors? If in childhood it is considered normal, and then it has to grow itself, then it is logical to assume that somewhere on the way from childhood to adulthood there was a failure?
Causes from childhood
At first there was selfishness "I am" a child - the navel of the world. And then, being satisfied, he sees others, and egoism turns into empathy - the ability to understand the feelings of other people, respect and see them, take into account in some cases their needs and then theirs.
Suppose the hero had no opportunity to be the healthy center of everything. For example, he did not feel the center of love of mom and dad. The parents could not convey to the little man the sincere conviction that each person is an inviolable, even sacred individuality that must be seen, appreciated and respected. Many teachers and parents make irreparable mistakes by comparing children to each other, producing the need to be the best (which is impossible, because everyone has the right to be the best!). And this, in turn, leads to constant dissatisfaction. Just as often, parents who did not realize themselves put their life expectations on children, overloading them with duty and responsibility.
Imposing one's own world perception, constant cramming of a small participant in events into the framework of another's understanding and other people's values, not the ability to hear the main thing, when a child frantically, loudly shouts, accusation and not fair judgments, and most importantly, not understanding the motives of the child’s actions can kill everything in him.
Belt punishment is the cruelest example of not hearing and ignoring a child’s feelings. The parent, with his harsh reactions, gives the message: "Your feelings are not - there are only mine!". And the perception works: "If your feelings and actions are there, but mine is not, then yours are better? In order for my more important thoughts and judgments to appear, you need to prove that they have a greater right to life?" (here's a parent proving it with a belt). Here it is, the competition! In order to begin to feel it, you need to crush others: "If I am better than you, then I have the right to my own feelings, actions, actions." And the need to feel is fundamental in life.
Here it is important for every person to learn a "simple" thought. It lies in the fact that another individual (the child is an individual person, not you) is guided by his judgments, desires, needs and worldview. And not at all yours! And should not be yours! Because he is a separate, different person, not you!
Here is a very important element: He is not me! Consequently, there is no point in building relationships within oneself through his intended reaction to me. This topic of separation from others has been very much developed in the famous book series “People from the Cabinet” - the author recommends its reading in case the reader is not satisfied with the theory presented in these articles.
In fact, parents do not know their children and do not want to know them. Individuality pushed into a clear pattern. And everything that is not clear is interpreted as bad, or simply ignored. Here, the meaning and desire for development begins to get lost. It is easier to do nothing, because your impulses either do not understand, or criticize. So lives a child, forever not understandable. Not heard. The theme of parent-child relationships is also quite widely disclosed in the books mentioned. Through understanding himself the hero begins to understand others.
Let yourself grown up, finally, eat selfishly, childish, delicious, the best cake. In the literal and figurative sense. But translate this idea in an adult way. In a healthy model of behavior - within your own space (about personal space in which everything is allowed to you, it was narrated in previous articles), so that it does not significantly disturb the state of the people around you. Ruthlessly throw away all past prohibitions and restrictions. And enjoy the best, but only yours. Allow yourself to be the lord of everything within your territory (without affecting the same rights of others). Try to sincerely enjoy the state you received and fix it for the future: do not ask other people for satisfaction of your “only interests”, but satisfy yourself with everything and, if possible, yourself.
However, the negative childhood experience of relationships does not exhaust all the root causes of the described behavior, but only touches on some minor aspects. In this sense, allowing oneself to "be an egoistic child" (trying to get enough of this state) will not give a complete cure, but only gather strength for the next, more serious steps that are taken throughout all parts of the book.
Note: The books ("People from the Cabinet") describe how to work with feelings without analyzing them! In these articles on books, the author makes an attempt to analyze and systematize, open experiences. However, the author does not have a specialized psychological education and does not claim to conform to all the classical canons described by the canons. However, the author allows himself to make all the assumptions for one simple reason: the book worked! (The results of all the studies are confirmed by positive practical changes of several individuals).