5 ms·

"The ‘real you’ is a myth – we constantly create false memories to achieve the identity we want" Isn't this somewhat self-contradictory? Why assume the real me

"The ‘real you’ is a myth – we constantly create false memories to achieve the identity we want" Isn't this somewhat self-contradictory? Why assume the real me has to be based on true memories -- and I don't even want to start a discussion of what a true memory, a true account (save anything subjective?) of some event could be. If we know who we want to be, we most likely also know our real me.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
It depends on how you define "the real you." Generally, people use it to mean some long term inner identity that defines them as a person. This is what is a myth. You seems to use "the real you" to mean your current state.
- stephen_g 8y ago
  Would many people agree with the definition of “real you” as self-identity? I’d define the term as more as a combination of somebody’s personality and how they act and think when not consciously trying to act differently. For example, at work you might inhibit some of your normal characteristics and be more serious, or act nice to people you don’t really like when you might not do that normally. I think people can do that to such an extent that’s it’s possible that they could be deluded as to the nature of their “true” self, thinking themselves, say, kinder, or more competent in certain areas, or less racist than they actually are when their guard is down. Sometimes you need someone else or some experience to realise you didn’t really know yourself! I think current state is part of it - for example, people might become more cynical over time through their life not going the way they want. Things like that can gradually become part of the “real you” without you noticing.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >I’d define the term as more as a combination of somebody’s personality and how they act and think when not consciously trying to act differently. This article is about how personality is shaped by memory, and how flawed memory is. I'd say that definition is fairly close to the one used in the article, and there being no "real self" supports the shift over time and need for outside views that you have noticed.
- stewbrew 8y ago
  I think it's a rather classic problem. Does it move? Is the arrow there the same arrow as it was here? How did it get from here to there? The problem here is of course cutting time into intervals where the arrow (or the self) has a state. The problem (or myth) probably lies in the eye of the beholder.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    It's not a problem, the term can have different definitions when needed. In this situation, "the real me" is a personality based on past experience. This article says that definition is a myth that doesn't work with our current understanding of memory. You can now speculate if there is a "real me" that consists of something else.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

It depends on how you define "the real you." Generally, people use it to mean some long term inner identity that defines them as a person. This is what is a myth. You seems to use "the real you" to mean your current state.

stephen_g 8y ago
Would many people agree with the definition of “real you” as self-identity? I’d define the term as more as a combination of somebody’s personality and how they act and think when not consciously trying to act differently. For example, at work you might inhibit some of your normal characteristics and be more serious, or act nice to people you don’t really like when you might not do that normally. I think people can do that to such an extent that’s it’s possible that they could be deluded as to the nature of their “true” self, thinking themselves, say, kinder, or more competent in certain areas, or less racist than they actually are when their guard is down. Sometimes you need someone else or some experience to realise you didn’t really know yourself! I think current state is part of it - for example, people might become more cynical over time through their life not going the way they want. Things like that can gradually become part of the “real you” without you noticing.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >I’d define the term as more as a combination of somebody’s personality and how they act and think when not consciously trying to act differently. This article is about how personality is shaped by memory, and how flawed memory is. I'd say that definition is fairly close to the one used in the article, and there being no "real self" supports the shift over time and need for outside views that you have noticed.
stewbrew 8y ago
I think it's a rather classic problem. Does it move? Is the arrow there the same arrow as it was here? How did it get from here to there? The problem here is of course cutting time into intervals where the arrow (or the self) has a state. The problem (or myth) probably lies in the eye of the beholder.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  It's not a problem, the term can have different definitions when needed. In this situation, "the real me" is a personality based on past experience. This article says that definition is a myth that doesn't work with our current understanding of memory. You can now speculate if there is a "real me" that consists of something else.