By design, we can only see others, we cannot actually see ourselves. Our biology is about connecting with the outside world. We are one of the only animals who can recognize themselves in the mirror; we are the only animal that falls in love with our reflection. Then it only makes sense when this extreme love of the self causes our brain to haywire. So unnatural is this want to see the self that we needed to invent ways to look at ourselves because it wasn't conveniently provided in nature. (Other than obscured portraits against water or warped silhouettes from our shadows). How much have we adapted to this intervention? Our eyes can see miles out on a clear day yet we still have no sense of what we look like without a mirror.

The "selfie" used to be a photo we took of ourselves, but now it is any photo with just ourselves in it. (Here, let me take a picture only of me.) Me only taking a picture of me, for you to enjoy me.

It used to be a rare sight, now for many human beings, it's done at least once a day. What is interesting with the "selfie" is it is not a mirror, it is this idealized self. No longer how we actually look but how we want to look. We don't take it for ourselves, we want others to see it. A photo of ourselves that we are telling others to enjoy. We want them to participate in our new construct of ourselves. To take part in this fictionalized self-image, to validate its reality. It's almost as if it is not real unless others recognize it. But it does not bring us closer together, it pushes people away, damaging relationship and intimacy[15].

This is not the same as it was in the past, where someone invited you to their home to look at their travel photos, and you had the free-choice to accept or decline. This is more like someone going to your home and plastering your walls with their photos without your consent, and doing it every day. One could say many things about this process, even that it somehow helps with identity and confidence, but few could argue that it is altruistic.

One could argue this behavior has been around, pointing to a few similar instances in our history. But it was not this accessible, and not at this magnitude where it is shaping how we think about ourselves. Qualities are not what create an issue, many of us have some obsessive qualities for instance, yet it is not a problem. The problem arises in the severity. It is that subtle act of balance. In the right balance you have medicine, in the wrong balance you have poison. Saying this is how it always was is to say nothing changes; therefore, nothing more needs to change. (Untrue and oppressive; imagine if during the Civil Rights Movement, if everyone said, there are always complainers, nothing needs to change. And some people did, they were the opposition.)

The pinnacle of recognition is fame, yet fame has been a better guarantor for misery than for happiness. With those who are famous and happy, they claim their happiness is independent of recognition. (The rich claim the same about money.) It is not that fame brings joy, it is that famous people are in a better position to tell us about their joy because they are famous. However, sometimes fame is so detrimental to their happiness, many leave their fame for a higher calling[16].

Isn't trying to be important an attempt at connecting to as many people as possible? Yet thoughtfulness and kindness are more long lasting and special. Seeking to be unique is not all that unique, that is the default. In a world growing smaller through digital information, it pays to be kind.

Ego Blocks Happiness

A leader needs a cause, a business needs a mission, an artist needs a message, and a workaholic needs loved ones to work for. Something that tethers them to shore.

Researcher Paul Harvey[17] who studies the attitudinal change in the workface said: