Talk:Egocentrism

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:CUNY, Hunter College/Human Development (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. You can help with this article: The references should be checked to make sure they are reliable and appropriate for the topic.

egocentrisism can be difined in many ways The scope of egocentrism is not clearly defined: believing one's views to be more important than another's is different from not knowing what others are feeling. An autistic may not know what another person's feelings are, but does not necessarily hold them to be of little importance. Some distinction should be made.

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))[reply]

I also think there is too much emphasis on egocentrism in children. Surely there are many teen and adult cases, and such cases need more explanation here. --173.52.11.184 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs work, but I do think that egocentrism in children is an important section to retain, as long as someone fixes it. Children make mistakes about others' beliefs (see Perner's false-belief work) that seem to reflect egocentrism, and what these errors reveal about development has received a lot of attention by developmental psychologists. Piaget's position is really only relevant as a historical note, and if that's all the section will contain, it would be more honest to strike it entirely. 128.2.66.107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent1022 (talk • contribs)

It says in the second part that a popular view is to consider egocentrism as a negative component when it comes to the thinking ability of adolescent - I'm not sure about the neutrality of this prompt and I think it needs citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenads (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. EnquiredMindJB219 (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

to break that down a little further, ones own internal world may be filled with things that, other than being internalized, bare very little reference, if any, to the self. e.g. copious amounts of information on trains — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.78 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm trying to remember the sentences in the description, but the first one is ok, the second one needs appear to be added, the next it is the opinion of or the observatoion of and the last sentence is incorrect and not even cited so should be dropped.

references are also really bad, selfish, narcissim etc... should just be replaced with one reference to egotistical, by way of comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.78 (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]