There seems to be an ego balance when writing. A writer can choose word personally or impersonally, or balance their writing to be an open question or closed answer.
I think that maybe the balancing is culturally useful, such as asking a personal question for the sake of self benefit, or writing a definitive answer for something more objective.
Still, it can sometimes go too far and end up distracting and detracting from discussion.
Where is it appropriate to write more egotistically or egoless? Is balancing question and statement in writing better for discussion? Would it be best writing as a mystical sage, benefiting much with as little ego as manageable?
I don't want to flame people, but I think >>76959 is a worthy case-study of self-important writing. The thread has a title declaring a political theory as their own property, not bothering with any indication of what it may be. The post is authoritative, making bold claims without any real backing.
The author also takes some time talking about themselves and the origination of the theory and then asks other posters to expose them to people who had the exact same idea. There is finally a pretension that they might write their own book in the future.
I admit I haven't read the full thread; it seemed like a vapid and spiteful discussion at a glance.
Unfortunately, I don't have good examples of differing ego balance. Perhaps there is a more involved way of looking at it. How does the "write about the self" factor relate to writing for the benefit of ones self or the benefit of others?