I have plenty of examples of that kind. But of course, once I could see them as they are, I just changed my mind. I don't think I've ever had an "agenda", just biases. Maybe that's why it's easier for me to change course as needed.

While I have no problem admitting that I've been wrong, it's still a problem when others of the same beliefs still haven't realized it's bullshit. So excuse me if I don't share any of the examples.

Personally I try to artificially inject self-doubt into most of my beliefs and claims. Obviously I am as egotistical and self-righteous as anyone else. But the more I train myself to recite "I think" or "Maybe" or "That's a good point", the more (I think!) I can stymie this imperialistic ego.

The problem is two fold. Your imperialistic ego is an evolutionary advantageous quality. You are paying some kind of price for "stymieing" it as your ancestors who did not have this "ego" died through natural selection.

The second problem is that everyone is unaware of their own ego. How can you stymie something when you're unaware of it? When you think that the other party is being unreasonable and that you are being calm and logical the other party sees the reverse.

This lack of self awareness is the real problem here. Your brain will reroute all your misguided attempts to confound it's bias and you unknowingly will only recite "I think" or "maybe" for just inconsequential things.

If you have been doing something wrong or holding an incorrect belief system for a good portion of your life, your biased brain will kick into gear and shield your awareness from the harsh reality of being wrong your entire life.

Religion is a good example of this, but the thing that causes a person to stay religious is an infectious thing that not only influences religion, but all of human behavior and all aspects of life.

Personally I think fighting your own biases is a losing battle thus my philosophy is to just not fight it.

I think the ego absolutely has an evolutionary benefit, but I don't think it follows that more ego then confers more evolutionary benefit. If so, less ego does not confer less evolutionary benefit. We can identify correlation in the past, but this does not imply the same degree of correlation or causation in the future.

I don't think it is true that everyone is unaware of their own ego. Being aware of your own ego is almost by definition "self-awareness". If your point is that all self-awareness is, by definition, illusory, then that is fine but I don't think that is a definition most people would agree with. I do think people who successfully study mindfulness (among other forms of meditation) are able to identify and relegate their egos in large measure.

I don't think "wrong" or "incorrect" are the right terms here. The brain optimizes to minimize prediction error. It can perform this process of "active inference" by either rejecting information (confirmation bias), updating its model (Bayesian updating) or manipulating its environment (changing the data which arrives). I agree many people choose the first. But I don't think it's the only way. You can also update your model by training yourself to be open-minded, or you can update the world by changing your environment around you (this is much harder, and often futile).

So while I agree with many of your points, I don't think I take as much of a cynical approach. I am optimistic we can work with the ego when it benefits us (from a happiness perspective, not an evolutionary one [0]), and sequester it when it does not.

.

[0] For all intents and purposes, we as humans are beyond natural selection. Sexual selection still matters, but as a society we don't really permit "survival of the fittest." Most people survive - independent of their genetic endowments - and still many reproduce. As a result I am not sure natural selection is the right objective function (perhaps it is weighted more toward artificial or sexual selection instead).