I think I understand where you're coming from now.

There's plenty of information out there that shows the evolutionary benefits of social mimicry, an off-hand example being shared expressions used to alert others in our social circles of danger, and in turn them using the same behaviours to alert us of danger.

Outside of a traditionally evolutionary context, the use of spoken language itself can be considered to be, or at least to be borne of, social mimicry and I think it'd be hard to argue that spoken language isn't beneficial to human interaction.

Social mimicry, however, is merely a part of what most consider the 'self'. It could even be argued that the true 'self' is a representation of the individual in the absence of these external influences.

Could you explain how you define the 'self'? This will allow me to have a better understanding of your concept of 'glorification of the self' and explain why, if I am already understanding correctly, my opinions differ.