6 ms·
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
by 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.