On Leadership, Age and COVID-19 Surge

 

                                      (photo: youtube,com)

Iska tuig na ta di makalihok! The Philippines’ quarantine measures reached overseas publications, citing the country being placed under one of the world’s longest lockdowns. Time Magazine and Vice Asia published reports on March 15, which is considered the “lockdown anniversary” in Metro Manila. On March 12, 2020, President Rodrigo Duterte imposed 30-day community quarantine over the National Capital Region to help contain the transmission of the virus which causes COVID-19.

Catalina Ricci S. Madarang of the Philippine Star reported: The quarantine, which others considered as a lockdown, was supposed to only run from March 15 to April of last year. The Philippines is still under such restrictions in different phases—the general community quarantine and the modified version.

But is this measure helpful in preventing the spread of the virus?

In the World Health Organization Wester Pacific’s tally on March 16 of this year, Philippines still tops the highest new infections in 24 hours with 5,395 cases and also the highest in total number of cases with 626,893 on record. The Philippines is followed by Malaysia with 1,208 new cases. In the total number of cases, second place goes to Japan with 448,688.

Over a year into the pandemic, the country has broken its record of highest number of new COVID-19 cases in a day with 7,103 infections on March 19, 2021, the Department of Health reported. CNN Philippines reported: The last record was on Aug. 10 with 6,958 infections.

The total surged to 648,066 with 11.3% or 73,264 active or currently ill patients. It is also the highest active case count since August. At least 93.9% of the active cases have mild symptoms, 3.3% have no symptoms, 1% are in critical condition, 1.1% are in severe condition and 0.59% are moderate cases.

In performing basic research especially in the implementation of certain laws and mandates, the researchers correlate the profile of the implementers to the level of implementation of the orders. With such, recommendations for policy making and even decisions are anchored to the scientific way dealing with crafting them. Also, implications are studied through an array of literature so to better the study.

Yes, the profile of the leader can be correlated to the outcomes of his leadership.

Let us start with gender. It is important to understand variables relevant to effective leadership. Gender is one such variable that must be examined with regard to optimizing leadership effectiveness. The topic of gender and leadership deserves serious and thoughtful consideration and discussion because of professional, political, cultural, and personal realities of the twenty‐first century. Women and men have been, are, and should be leaders.

With the rigid study this writer had on “The Implementation of R.A. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act” it was found out that there is no significant relationship between the sex/gender of the implementer and the implementation itself.

What about age? We see the president as ageing and he oftentimes accept this fact. Robert Smither, PhD (2020) posited that age doesn’t seem to impact a leader’s willingness to step up, issue directives, and provide rewards for performance.  In contrast, however, age does seem to affect a leader’s openness to change. As leaders grow older, they become less willing to make changes and are less interested in innovation.

A study by Vincent Barker and Geroge Mueller (2002) found that older leaders spent less on research and development than younger ones.

Research also suggests that older leaders are more likely to take a passive approach to their leadership role—for example, delegating many duties and becoming actively involved only in crisis situations. They are also more likely to maintain the status quo rather than respond to new opportunities that arise. In some situations, maintaining rather than innovating would be a positive; in others, a negative (Smither, 2020).

Data analyses are important in decision-making. If older leaders spend less on research, it implies that they are not that interested with the data which are glaringly telling the people something. A set of proactive advisers who are credible to the leader must do the research tasks for them to “influence” his decisions.

And who are “delegated” by the leader to do the leading among the people? A delegating leadership style is a low task and relationship behavior approach to leadership where a leader empowers an individual to exercise autonomy. Employing this approach entails providing the individual with the big picture, then trusting them to deliver agreed-upon results.

This discourse is focused NOT on the age of the president but how his age allowed him to pick the people he delegates to do some important tasks. The Philippine Inquirer reported on May 2020: President Rodrigo Duterte’s decision to retain Metro Manila police chief Maj. General Debold Sinas, who was recently embroiled in a “mañanita” controversy, “erodes” the public’s confidence in the government’s ability to enforce quarantine measures, Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said.

The palace needs a set of young researchers who connect the dots, delve deeper into data and allow analyses to take place. They have to be listened since data (quantitative and qualitative) matter.

Squaring the Circle

                                      (image: youtube.com)

Dili malingin an kahon. People justify their actions. Sometimes, others whitewash their deeds with lies for them to look correct. But again, you could not make a circle become square. Lying and covering up for your wrong actions won’t allow you to be changed. Development is then hampered. That is why we’d rather accept our mistakes and grow than remain stunted for the rest of our lives.

A reason is said to be a “normative reason” for acting because it favors someone’s acting. But what does it mean to say that a reason “favors” an action? One way of understanding this claim is in terms of justification: a reason justifies or makes it right for someone to act in a certain way. This is why normative reasons are also called “justifying” reasons.

The term “normative reason” according to Alvarez (2007) derives from the idea that there are norms, principles or codes that prescribe actions: they make it right or wrong to do certain things.

In the society we are living, there are set of norms directly or indirectly prescribed by it. Conforming on them can cause order and demeanor. But once we break the norms we sometimes become the subject of ridicule or tagged as the person who creates chaos and confusion in the community s/he belongs.

The existence of these norms or values depends on a variety of things: logical and natural relations, conventions, rules and regulations, etc. And the norms or values may be moral, prudential, legal, hedonic (relating to pleasure) or of some other kind. There are normative reasons, therefore, corresponding to the variety of values and norms: normative reasons that are moral, prudential, legal, etc.

But what if moral norms are the ones broken?

Moral norms are the rules of morality that people ought to follow. An evolutionary explanation of the emergence of moral norms proceeds in stages. There are different norms for different kinds of social interaction: norms of justice, norms of cooperation, and norms prescribing various kinds of altruistic behavior (Ruse, 2008).

Morality is the belief and understanding of what is right and what is wrong. It refers to the set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. It’s what societies determine to be “right” and “acceptable.”

Sometimes, acting in a moral manner means individuals must sacrifice their own short-term interests to benefit society. Individuals who go against these standards may be considered immoral (Morin, 2020).

But it is always human nature to justify their actions to perform self-preservation. Yet whatever justifications one can muster if the act is glaringly wrong, the justifications will fall flat. It is somewhat similar to an exercise in futility.

Some scholars don’t distinguish between morals and ethics. Both have to do with “right and wrong.” But some people believe morality is personal while ethics refer to the standards of a community. For example, your community may not view premarital sex as a problem. But on a personal level, you might consider it immoral. By this definition, your morality would contradict the ethics of your community.

Morin continued: Both laws and morals are meant to regulate behavior in a community to allow people to live in harmony. Both have firm foundations in the concept that everyone should have autonomy and show respect to one another.

Legal thinkers interpret the relationship between laws and morality differently. Some argue that laws and morality are independent. This means that laws can’t be disregarded simply because they’re morally indefensible.

Still, we go back to the main discourse: What is wrong is always wrong. If the justification you are arguing benefits the universal values and universal norms, then be it be placed on the table.

Ideas about whether certain behaviors are moral—such as engaging in pre-marital sex, entering into same-sex relationships, and using cannabis—have shifted over time. While the bulk of the population once viewed these behaviors as “wrong,” the vast majority of the population now finds these activities to be “acceptable.”

Some morals seem to transcend across the globe and across time, however. Researchers have discovered that these seven morals seem somewhat universal: Be brave; Be fair; Defer to authority; Help your group; Love your family; Return favors; Respect others’ property.

Let us not just find justifications. Let us live consistent to the universal peace.

Like a Driftwood

                                    (photo: theguardian.com)

Di maka tiner. Sige mibalhin. Sige motapwak bisan hain. It has always been interesting to note that there are people who cannot stay in a job for long. There are those who transfer from one place to another. There also persons who cannot finish a project. And even with friends, they cannot stay from one circle but will then move or create another. They are the drifters.

Drifters, according to Bell Leadership Institute, have difficulty making themselves do things that require order, discipline, planning or follow- through. They often live a chaotic life: lose things; go to the wrong places on the wrong dates; or forget to pay their bills. They are often late.

Those who develop the Drifter extreme personality pattern begin life with the same genetic need for play, freedom, fun, and creativity as do Creators. But typically they grow up in families with little structure and few processes or rules. They just float from one event to another. They build the extreme need to do whatever they feel like and an extreme fear of being confined or restricted or not having fun. They develop the belief that the only way that they can ever be successful and happy is to be uncommitted.

Dr. Gerald Bell (2019) mentions that most Drifters’ parents and other early influence trained him/her to believe that the highest value in life is freedom and fun. Thus Drifters develop extreme personality patterns to do whatever they feel like all the time. Almost all Drifters grew up in a family with few rules or consequences. Most Drifters had parents who had a craving for freedom and play. Their parents were disorganized, messy, and permissive. In some cases, Drifters had parents that were extremely controlling, domineering, and closed-minded causing the Drifter to vow not to be anything like them.

In 1938, Napoleon Hill published “Outwitting the Devil”. Hill attempts to uncover the secrets to freedom and success by evaluating the greatest obstacles that humans face in order to attain their personal goals in life.

He then theorized that drifting includes: Eating wrong sort of food or in a wrong quantity; Money matters in marriage leads to conflict;  Working in a job he doesn’t like or have passion in;  Impulsive spending; Fear of poverty; Other negative thoughts; Procrastination; and Flattery.

He also identified that Drifters: Lack of major purpose in life; Lack of confidence; Overspending; Little or no imagination; Lack of enthusiasm; Doesn’t have control over his emotion; Not attractive personality; Have a lot of opinions, but no knowledge; Jack of all trades but master of none; Neglect to cooperate; Make the same mistake over and over again; Narrow minded and intolerant; Begin many things but complete nothing; Criticize a lot without giving solution; Indecisive; Eat too much, exercise little; Gambling, drugs, liquor; They have to work harder than other to have something; Criticize others in the back but flatter to their faces.

One can identify some of the people in their surrounding who manifest these traits. But then, it is also a necessity for us to evaluate whether we are like them or not. You see, a lot of problems will be encountered personally and with our relationships if we drift.

The inability to complete a task is generally considered a fundamental form of failure. It means that the person who is supposed to complete the task came up short and was not able to fulfill the set standard for completion of the task. The fact that the task remains incomplete connotes a lack or deficiency, not only in the state of the task itself (i.e., because it is unfinished), but also in the person who was unable to complete it.

Drifters often have social anxiety. This often makes it hard to think rationally. Instead of enjoying the moment, they might feel preoccupied with what the other person is thinking. Instead of feeling confident with themselves, they might be worried about looking silly or dumb. Social anxiety can also affect the desire to spend time with other people. For example, they might avoid certain events or turn down invitations. Over time, this pattern can negatively affect their friendships (Arzt, 2020).

 

If we feel incomplete and want to move from one place, task, group of friends to another, it is time for us to ponder. Am I manifesting the traits of being a drifter? If so, how can I improve myself from being a person with no identity or no tangible proof of creating/finishing something?

People who have tried goal-setting in the past without success often think that having goals is useless. But here’s an important truth: The problem is not goals themselves but our attachment to outcome instead of our commitment to process.

Because when we focus on the process, the outcomes take care of themselves. A great way to keep this top of mind is to ask yourself “Who do I need to become in order to achieve my desired outcome?”

Let us stick to our plans and allow them NOT to be drowned by too much longing for FUN. Life is boring. The only thing to make it meaningful is to realize our goals and be of service to others not just to ourselves.

Unliked

 

                                       (image: youtube.com)

Uman jaon may tawo na di ta ganahan? In reality, persons who are acting against our values are most of the time repelled by us. When our own definitions of moral issues would be disturbed, we raise our eyebrows and have this repulsion towards the culprit.

Our negative feelings toward someone get stronger as bad experiences with them pile up, and these negative thoughts trigger the fight-or-flight response in our bodies. As AJ Marsden, assistant professor of Psychology at Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida, puts it, “our fight-or-flight response is our body’s way of dealing with a stressor.”

People do not pursue close relationships indiscriminately — they probably look for people who are likely to reciprocate their investments. So when perceivers detect that someone is hiding their emotions, they may interpret that as a disinterest in the things that emotional expression facilitates — closeness, social support, and interpersonal coordination (Lebowitz, 2019).

That is why honesty and being natural is one of the reasons why we like others. But those who create stories behind our backs, those who are envious and perform character-assassinations to accommodate their selfish intentions are being disliked.

Most disliked people usually tend to have no social IQ. They say things like “well at least I’m being honest” or “this is how I am, deal with it”. They don’t know how to treat other people and tend to be arrogant, for no apparent reasons most of the time. Nobody likes a big mouth, a show off, a humble boaster, or people who don’t know how to just say thank you when given a compliment.

According to Kayiba Mpoyi, these traits are unbecoming and are not what true class acts are made of. Being nice and polite to people you like is easy, being nice and polite to someone you cannot tolerate or who you are in constant disagreement with – that is character. Learning how to speak to people is a skill only few have mastered.

No one likes dealing with a difficult person. Life would be so much easier if we could just avoid all the people we dislike. But, as they say, life happens. You might have to work on a project with a vexing colleague. Or the disliked person keeps showing up to professional mixers and social functions. Worst of all, you might find out your most irksome acquaintance is being tagged-along by a friend of yours.

But then all tables will be turned when others are the ones NOT to like you. Since you have the capacity of not liking others, same thing will also happen to you. It is one thing to say that you don’t care what people think about you but it’s another thing to say you don’t care if anyone likes you because everybody wants to be liked by someone.

People who are likable are genuine and they genuinely like other people.

Ron Sherbert (2020) posited these things as the core things that make people likable: They are good listeners; they engage others in conversation by asking open-ended questions; they are positive and enthusiastic; they are natural and; they do not judge others.

A study released by the US Department of Labor concluded that 46 percent of those who quit their jobs did so because they felt not listened to and were therefore unappreciated. Consider this: almost half the people will leave their friends because they didn’t feel like their pals were listening.

The measure of self-assurance is how deeply and sincerely interested you are in others; the measure of insecurity is how much you try to impress them with you.

Research shows that likable people always live a happier and more fulfilled life than those who are unlikable.

It is in this mindset that we struggle to be contributors of happy moments with others than being disliked by them for bringing negative encounters which they do not want to experience once again.

 

 

 

Divided By

                                      (image: youtube.com)

Bungkag!. After 35 years, the “people power revolution” is being drowned with the pressing health concerns, K-pop, divisiveness due to online trolls and the all-time selfish intentions.

As our society evolves, it is indeed a potent question to ask: What made us divisive as a people? What are the reasons why we disagree on a lot of things instead of working as a team for a common goal?

Jonathan Haidt in his book titled “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion” mentions that the building blocks of society rely on morality (a belief in what is right and what is wrong). A shared morality helps humans to bind together into cohesive social groups, and that allows us to live more productively and effectively. Inherent in this socialization process, however, is the division of individuals into groups to which we either belong or do not belong. Those who belong become our comrades; those who do not, our adversaries.

These facts can be encountered as we scroll the social media pages where people “label” others as “dilawan” and “loyalists” then bombard us with unqualified and even scandalous words. We can read on long threads their defenses and their profanities which the readers can oftentimes wish they are not in social media so NOT to be infested with such negative murk.

Psychologists began to study labels in the 1930s, when linguist Benjamin Whorf proposed the hypothesis of linguistic relativity. He believed that the words we use to describe what we see are not mere labels, but end up determining what we see.

Decades later, cognitive psychologist Lera Boroditsky demonstrated it with an experiment. She asked people of English or Russian mother tongue to distinguish between two very similar but subtly different shades of blue. She then theorized that labels not only shape our perception of the color, but also change the way we perceive more complex situations.

It is always a mystery why a lot of people label themselves as this and that. In the political arena, we then question their selflessness and equate their “passion” to selfishness. We often conclude that they do this “defenses” for them to benefit something in the future. For what else is there to “fight” for which has the outcome of DIVISION?

But what about those who are labeling themselves who act like a fanatic? Aside from being a fan, it was found out that it is all about CONTROL. Our deep passion for labels comes, in large part, from our need to feel safe and control our environment. A label is a quick response that makes us feel that we have the control, even if it is only an illusionary perception.

While the extremity of the current political rhetoric may feel unprecedented, the emotional undercurrents are common across high-stakes conflicts. If we have any hope of restoring a functional political system that serves the vision of the family, we must understand these hidden forces.

Confrontation focuses the emotional energies on the singular goal of winning over the other side. As people become consumed in this mindset, they reenact partisan patterns of conflict that may comfort the fears but undermine cooperation. Fierce loyalty to “our side” and “their side” makes it impossible to become ONE NATION.

Thirty five years ago today, the people acted as one to gain the real democracy thirsted for. They went to the streets showing oneness towards that goal. But the prize of their efforts is probably not redeemed as we look how others embrace such democracy to the extreme. There are those who hurl insults openly on social media in the guise of freedom. There are those whose ill manners are presented on the web without filtering them with education and cultured decisions.

''1984'' a dystopian novel by George Orwell contains no prophetic declaration, only a simple warning to mankind. Orwell did not believe that 35 years after the publication of his book, the world would be ruled by Big Brother, but he often theorized that 1984 could happen if man did not become aware of the assaults on his personal freedom and did not defend his most precious right, the right to have his own thoughts (Bossche, 1984).

It is really important for us to filter everything in our midst. It is good to be influenced positively by others but to disallow the self to make a stand is deadly. The development of our moral beliefs which leads to the attainment of moral actions is a big start.

While our moral minds may lead us down a path of division, we can choose to pause and reflect on whether or how far down that path we wish to travel. We can, for example, choose to appreciate the value of differing views of the "right" and "wrong" way to live. We can choose to believe in positive intentions, even when those intentions arise from entirely different moral values. We can acknowledge the way our righteous minds tell us a story that is only partly true (Schonbrun, 2018).

Then as a people, we can proceed to where we dreamed of becoming: Whole, United, and Progressive.

People Who Use People

                                          (image:youtube.com)

Manggamit nan tawo tungod sa ambisyon. Fame and power are greatest motivators. There are those who hunger for them that they need to do anything to satisfy the need. Yes, even at the expense of “using” others. There are those who silently plot their moves and there are some who act “cool” as if they are doing nothing at all.

People with power, position, talent and fame are prone to be the target of these individuals. They project themselves towards the personalities and traits of the people they look up to and try to become like them. There is nothing wrong with that. But when manipulations, lying, patronizing and identity-snatching happen, these can become serious matter.

 

Have you ever met people who use you for their own selfish gain? People who call you and pretend to be nice to you and then disappear when you need them? If you have, you’ve probably met people who don’t understand that relationships (like friendship) are a two-way street and that they require an equal investment from both parties.

Covert-Aggressive Personalities are the archetypal wolves in sheep’s clothing who are not openly aggressive in their interpersonal style. In fact, they do their best to keep their aggressive intentions and behaviors carefully masked. They can often appear quite charming and amiable, but underneath their civil facade they are just as ruthless as any other aggressive personality (Simon, 2010).

These persons intentionally want to hurt (or dump) you in a silent manner. The covert-aggressive conceals aggressive intent to ensure you never really see what’s coming; and he or she exploits your normal sensitivities, conscientiousness and other vulnerabilities to manipulate you into succumbing.

But since the field we want to dwell in this discourse is for those who hunger on fame and power; it is believed that the desire for fame has its roots in the experience of neglect, in injury. No one would want to be famous who hadn’t also, somewhere in the past, been made to feel extremely insignificant. People sense the need for a great deal of admiring attention when they have been painfully exposed to earlier deprivation. The same case is with those who thirst for power. A great possibility is that these individuals were exposed to some kind of oppression at an early age.

Seltzer (2019) asked, what is it about certain people that makes them so exclusively devoted to achieving power, not for its own sake (as many authors have suggested), but to abusively gain control over others? For although it’s a universal human need to influence others, the craving to "lord it over them"—to manipulate, exploit, and victimize them—far transcends what’s typically appreciated as normal.

The author continued: Because such individuals are seriously lacking in empathy, they’re unable to identify emotionally with those they use—whether financially, physically, sexually, mentally, or emotionally. Others are viewed solely as a means toward reaching a brutally self-interested end. And with such mean-spirited motivation, they cannot but dehumanize others, regarding and treating them as objects over which to gain extreme advantage.

People with an overriding desire to be widely known to strangers are different from those who primarily covet wealth and influence. Their fame-seeking behavior appears rooted in a desire for social acceptance, a longing for the existential reassurance promised by wide renown.

The urge to achieve social distinction is evident worldwide, even among people for whom prominence is neither accessible nor desirable. This is when the need to “use” others is the only option. The thirst will allow the perpetrator to create a façade of being good and amiable when s/he “connects” to those who have the fame, power and even the talents s/he can use to feed the hunger.

When the perpetrator feels that you can give no more, another prey is going to be hunted.

Disturbed characters carry opportunism to the extreme by exploiting others and situations to the detriment of all involved except themselves. Individuals with deficient characters also tend to focus on opportunities for self-advancement or personal gain without also thinking about how seizing the chance to get something they want might impact others. This is the nature of opportunistic thinking (Simon,2009).

One can notice “these types” when they constantly change their circle of friends.

Now, taking advantage of ripe opportunities is neither bad nor unhealthy in and of itself. But disturbed characters carry opportunism to the extreme by exploiting others and situations to the detriment of all involved except themselves. So, when a situation presents itself, no matter the potential cost — if they see a chance for personal gain, disordered characters will try to capitalize on the opportunity.

There are indeed things that we need to dig deeper. Even the motivations of the self must be evaluated to be a contributor to societal growth rather than its destruction. Relationships are foundations of a society. Our interactions with others must be dealt with care and understanding that such create ripple effects.

We can be with people who inspire us. But it is not healthy to “use” and manipulate them for our own benefit.

 

 

 

Selfishness and Mental Health

                                      (image: youtube.com)

Tanan dapat sentro sa AKO! There are indeed persons, aware or not, who want everything to gravitate to them. These types seem to think that the world revolves around them that they are constantly having conflicts with others especially if they feel that their “identity” is threatened. They are so sensitive to the things happening around especially if these things won’t benefit their needs to feed their insecurities.

Selfishness is defined as the tendency to prioritize one’s own desires and needs above the needs and desires of other people.

Since these persons have vicious cycles of considering themselves and eradicating others, one might ask: what made them? Is it the environment the individual was raised? Was it caused by the parenting styles? Or is because of the deficits the individual encountered in childhood…

Some mental health problems can contribute to the development of selfishness. Many personality disorders, particularly antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder, cause people to be so wrapped up in their own desires that they either do not notice or do not care about the needs of others. Many other mental illnesses can cause extreme self-involvement, which can contribute to selfishness. A depressed person, for example, might be so wrapped up in his or her own feelings of suffering that he/she is unable to provide for his/his children or communicate with his/her partner (goodtheraphy.org).

This must be true since the narcissist can never imagine that a person is better than himself.

Another reason why people dwell on it according to Parvez (2014) is that they have a fear of losing control. If someone has many needs and goals, then they overvalue their resources because they think that these resources are going to help them reach their goals. If they lose these resources, they lose their goals and if they lose their goals they feel they have lost control over their life.

Several constructs in the psychological literature appear to capture selfish motivation. For example, narcissistic personality characteristics, particularly entitlement (Campbell et al. 2004) and exploitativeness (Brunell et al. 2013), reflect selfish motivation. Dispositional greed (Seuntjens et al. 2015), materialism (Kasser et al. 2014), and aspiring for fame and fortune (Kasser & Ryan 1996) generally reflect selfish tendencies, although people can aspire to be wealthy or famous, or loved and community-oriented, for either selfish or otherish reasons (Carver & Baird 1998).

There is nothing wrong with taking care of the self and nurturing one’s needs first. One cannot pour out of an empty cup. But to constantly gravitate towards the self and forgetting the well-being of others are socially destructive. The sense of community must be implored to expand the greater good.

Human social life is interdependent, and human thriving depends critically on creating, maintaining, and strengthening social bonds. Selfish motivation can break mutually supportive connections with others, whereas motivation centered on helping/giving builds mutually supportive connections with others.

Selfish motivation is clearly related to poor psychological well-being, physical health, and relationships. For example, materialism is associated with lower psychological well-being both cross-sectionally and over time (Kasser et al. 2014).

With multiple literature pointing selfishness as a by-product of mental illness, it is really important to advocate the stringent stands on mental health these days.

"Emotional intelligence exists on a spectrum, and some individuals are higher in emotional intelligence than others," says Lisa Marie Bobby, PhD, a Colorado-based marriage counselor, therapist, and life coach. "One symptom of low emotional intelligence is the tendency to be self-absorbed, or exclusively concerned about what you're thinking, feeling, needing and wanting, instead of the thoughts, feelings, needs and desires of others."

So aside from being mentally-ill, selfishness stems from low EQ as well. And since these things are so difficult to confront for the “enemy” seems vague and incomprehensible to the layman, it is then important to master self-control. Mental illnesses can be dealt with psychiatrists and medical practitioners but EQ is now the responsibility of the adult. One cannot blame the parents for their inadequacies and adults must take responsibility on their well-being.

Yet, the concept of being selfish can oftentimes be the blind side of the person. Some won’t even accept this as part of their being. So, those who will be improved are those who listens to feedback and those who performs introspection.

In everyday use, introspection is a way of looking inward and examining one's internal thoughts and feelings. By doing so, individuals can now look inwards and function what benefits the majority outwards.