July 2001
K says I have a big ego. Whatever.
I tend to believe that my ego reflects naturally on my abilities. I know that I am not a very good leader, I would not do well in marketing. Those roles take too much hype. However, I am studious, and do better academically than most of my peers. So if I presume that I know more than my peers it is because for a long time, in a variety of situations, this has been the case. There are fields where I do not know as much as those around me. Atari is much better at influencing people than I am. Rachel has a much greater view and appreciation of history than I do.
Probably the biggest thing that convinces people of the size of my ego is that there are issues that are just so obvious to me that people taking other tracts to me seems utterly absurd. Atheism obviously is the only sensible point of view when it comes to religion. Larry's essay is a sufficient explanation. (Well, honestly, Agnosticism is the only perfectly defendable view, but that's basically just for weak-minded atheists.) I also have strong views on my fraternity's future and policies that are unpopular, but which I believe important and necessary. If by ego, one equates the strength of one's convictions, fine, I have an ego. I think it necessary. I'm no siddhartha - if you're removed from the world and see it perfectly as it is, but detached, you are no longer part of it. I would rather be part of it; hold some beliefs, make some mistakes, and learn, than just sit back and watch it go by.