As the post title says. It seems to me these two contradict. For instance ego would be making yourself and things that happen to you super important, but dgaf would be realizing that you and the things that happen do not really matter in the grand scheme of things. The sidebar has both Ego related and non-ego related posts, ie: "one KEY step to not giving a fuck."

​

Which life path is more successful, not giving a fuck (not taking things seriously) or giving a fuck (guard your reputation with your life, etc). Seems they don't work together to me.

​

Some points I've got on the two:

DGAF:

-stoicism

-we are inconsequential in the grand scheme of the universe (nothing really matters)

-uninhibited (which demonstrates higher value)

-free to be who you are and be real

-outcome independent

​

Ego:

-machivallian (, regardless of the means)

-outcome dependent, needing certain outcomes to win/achieve goals

-everything matters (guard your reputation with your life, etc.)

-Frame (how could you have frame/hold frame if you didn't give a fuck? it's a requirement to control it)

-working towards goals because it matters if YOU achieve them or not...

​

The way I see it, there's perhaps 2 kinds of alphas, those who don't give a shit and are seen as tough, and those who play the game and invest in everything/everyone's opinions of them and have to defend their ego all the time. I think we can all agree the 48 laws of power is all about ego and self importance.

Not sure how to reconcile the two.

I've posted about this before but felt the discussion lacking, maybe someone can shed some light on something I'm missing or has an opinion on one being better than the other. For instance, one could argue that having an injured ego motivates you to make yourself BETTER than you were before or your competition, thus driving personal growth. Others say ego holds you back.