The Real You

[Kythras]

Howdy all, long time no post...

Anywho, I made this thread to discuss something that one of my friends said (and was brought to my attention by another friend), a bit of background may be required. Me and my closest group of friends play Dungeons & Dragons, a roleplaying game I hope I won't have to explain. Now, this friend said, that because we spend our closest times together (that is to say, when we're playing D&D) impersonating other characters/people we have difficulty discussing real things with each other, emotions and stuff (we're all pretty metrosexual so we have no trouble doing that with other people, we're not stone-hard macho-men) which got me thinking, when are we really ever ourselves?

This is a topic touched on in a long-dead thread, "Compartmentalization" does not one change the way they act, and thus who they, in essence are, depending on who they are with, where they are and what they are doing? For example, I challenge anyone to say they act the same way with their best friend as they do with their significant other, who is the real person the (hypothetically) charming, loving, gentlemanly/womanly person you might be with your other half or the (again, hypothetically) jokey, *****y, weirdo you are with your best friend?

Anywho! Discuss: Who do you think you are? Who do you think other people think you are? How do you change "who you are" depending on who you might be with...

Over to you...

[Glade]

Its difficult to show everyone around you a complete and accurate depiction of who you are as a person. The most you can accomplish is show them a aspect of your personality.

[~Beren~]

Anywho! Discuss: Who do you think you are? Who do you think other people think you are? How do you change "who you are" depending on who you might be with...

Over to you...

Well, I think that I am a very open/understanding kind of person. Truthful, funny, caring. Very passionate, very loyal (single too ladies ) I can be outgoing yet shy at times. I value trust, friendship, and personality. My friends think I'm 'Super Nice'. I'm said to be always calm, they hardly see me ever angry. And they look to me as a big brother (not sure why).

When I roleplay, I can change "who I am" whenever I want. Depending on who I am playing as, I try to get a sense on that character's personality and apply it. I am able to control my feelings. Whenever I'm with somebody, I try to act natural. I try to act like me. Why act like someone you're not? I hate that.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Chaotic good.

[Niles Crane]

I act like a man not because society raised me to do so, but because it is what the male gender is about. I have a very care and share friend who is a boy and quite frankly, it gets on my nerves. He's always too willing to talk about feelings and one cannot even throw insults at him without him saying 'Now you're just being mean'.

But I suppose I am feminine in some ways, certainly around my mother. But that is in private discussions, not society. I do in fact change my behaviour around different people. With those in a position of authority I am very prim and proper and with other kids I try to be laidback and 'cool' even though I'm usually a shy and quiet person.

I doubt there is anyone who can say they know me, given that I change my behaviour whenever I talk to different groups of people.

[Armfelt]

Cogito ergo sum, my thoughts make me who I am. Expressing myself with words and emotions is merely a way to get what I want. I'd say that 90% of what people say is not a sincere expression of emotions. Therefore controlling myself and acting accordingly to the situation and people I'm with, is of the highest importance.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Kythras, great idea to revitalize the 'compartment' discussion.
Throughout my life I've been a different person in different scenarios and with different people, and slowly -ever so slowly- I'm finally bringing these personas together. It has taken a long time and hard work. That older thread was interesting in that many people replied quite confidently saying they were the same person to anyone.
It's established that one way people deal with trauma is by taking the event and 'compartmentalizing' it so that they can carry on with their lives. I had to do this after witnessing tBP kissing on the say cheese thread (Waka waka waka!). Also, just as sterotypes are created by ...'somebody'; then distributed to society, a lot of our persona is not really us, but fashioned for us. For the first while after breaking away from this embedded social engineering, one feels lost, as we -all of us- are no longer familiar with who we really are, as humans, as spiritual creatures, as entities.
Your D&D info brings up an interesting question: why the yen for many people to create these alternate personas? Either in WoW, or D&D, or even on forum threads? Is it because we hunger for something, some personal or spiritual malnurishment that needs to be answered?
Thoughts please.

[Lusted]

I will be quiet honest and say i do act slightly differently around different people, because with different people something that one person might find acceptable another person might not. I try to minimise doing this as much as possible, but i still do.

[Siblesz]

There is no real "self".. there is only a randomly-assigned set of characteristics that interact with our instincts and with society to create the illusion of the self. Society expects a personality when it is raw instinct that makes a person. The sooner one realizes that the "personalities" assigned to people by society's categorization of fictitious traits are nothing but man-made illusions that play only with the mind's imagination and have no real basis in man's instinctive realities, the sooner one will understand that the self is in of by of itself not invariably attached to any wordly characteristics. Rather, it is made up of everything and nothing, and it is capable of everything and nothing.

[Silver Guard]

Ferrets: I'd say chaotic neutral at best...

Personally I will admit to being a very different person depending on the people I'm with. With my best friend I'm scathingly witty, with the people I hate I'm grumpy and snappy, with chavs I'm laid-back and mocking etc etc.
The closest you are to your 'natural' state is where you are most comfortable, for me this is defiantly around my partner, where I can be childish, yet caring and mature, or around my best friend, this is different dependent on the person (I know many who are certainly not completely at ease around their partners!). However, all of the things above are the real me, they're just different elements of me.
To answer the first poster, his lack of emotional output in his group is not making him a different person, he is acting differently yes, but he is still just as much the "real him" then any other time.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

@Lusted & Greve: Those were very clear and honest answers - exactly what I was trying to say.

@ Siblez: Do you belive the randomly assigned characteristic sets vary from person to person? Culture to culture?

[Silver Guard]

Siblesz: It's not the traits which make the personality, but the body it is in. The traits are grouped by society yes, but they are assigned to a person, thus forming a personality and the "self" of the person. Not all traits are blind instinct.The traits are very real things, and although the grouped personality is not, it is very helpful in describing the real "self".

[Chaigidel]

I think behaviour is altered incredibly with each social grouping the individual becomes a part of --- it is the nature of the animal so to speak.

but the best way to find out who you really are is to go to the wilderness, and wait.--- god will come show you who you are if you do this :O

[Zephrelial]

Quite an intriguing thread I must say.. Even it seems for one to answer the question,I believe it's not so easy as many people may think.We humans are complicated machines,especially when it comes to the aspects of our physchological condition and our innerself.

Mostly,the things that are deeply embedded within ourself are not revelead to us,some clues are given in our dreams and can be interprated in various ways.

Who is the real me? I can answer that in two ways.. Who am I in this Life I am part of; and who am I in my soul or in my dreams.I'd like to indicate that the harmonical correspondence between the answers of these two questions are most essential at answering how much satisfied we are or how much dissatisfied..

In the real Life,from my point of view and not from other people's perspective.. I am observant,completely free of any serious ambition or goal.Have very little interest in the trivialities of daily life,and see them as compulsory distasteful obligations.I don't enjoy going to a restaurant,a bar or shagging a female.Rarely enjoy anything that is "real" by that I mean anything that is not visionary or not imaginary.

As of character.. I could say I am sometimes a complete coward or act passively at petty situations.On the contrary in some major situations I need to cope with,I act like a shark that is completely deprived of fear.

I'm an opportunist as of nature..I see when there is a good chance and I take it instantly.As about personal relationships although I could say I'm cultured,well-bred and talkative.I usually screwed up so far..I can't totally define the reasons for this but I could say that in my personal relationships there is always a misconnection.. a problem.

I have sometimes problem expressing my feelings or thoughts effectively,on rare occasions I express them perfectly and in these cases the other person is usually deeply effected or shocked.

As an addition to these I could say that I'm a bitter realist,when it comes to evaluating situations and problems.This kind of realism sometimes disturbs optimistic people and find my words too harsh.

Finally I take no joy in social meetings.Generally when 2-3 people get together and start a random conversation I get bored in the first 5 minutes so I avoid joining such activities and find them unnecessary and not beneficial at all.

So in the light of this information that I reveal,some people may make certain presumptions about the real me.. However my actions in this Life is actually a resentment and does not demonstrate the real me.

The real me is someone who wants to live a wonderful and colorful life,that I'd like to ponder for at least 30 minutes what magnificent experience I'll choose to live as the next step,as in such life I'd like to live there are limitless possibilities completely free of any peril..

The real me strives to have friends and tons of them,each one of them to be wise,precious and a significant character that I wouldn't get bored in a century.

The real me wishes to be a compassionate God in a universe that is handcrafted by superior beings free of sorrow,mischief,boredom,cages,fights,rapes,child fatalities... And I'd like to share an eternity with these people in such a place.

The real me desires to have hundreds and thousands of love affairs,each that has a beginning uniquely like a beautifully scripted scenario... An endless spice forever in contrast to the famous saying of the the french: "En pail de mais" (cornbread without salt)

Enclosing the real me is a being that is free,kind,loving,adventuruous,full of desires and joy of life...

Alas,me that is within this Life that I had the terrible disappointment is a dark reflection of my soul: a bitter,introverted,cruel,dissatisfied,suffering creature...

[eventhorizen]

I think behaviour is altered incredibly with each social grouping the individual becomes a part of --- it is the nature of the animal so to speak.

but the best way to find out who you really are is to go to the wilderness, and wait.--- god will come show you who you are if you do this :O

God may have 'shown you', but don't speak for everyone. Some of us are capable of taking responsibility for ourselves irrespective of deities, books, etc. Of course some are not.

The 'real you' seems like an incredibly hard thing not only to define these days, but also to find and to express. The social network of even early life means even with closest and deepest friends there is much to drive a certain level of a front or charade.

Ultimately I think the real you only really surfaces in the greater world when both the need to 'act' according to potential social interaction gain diminishes, and when the negative aspects of too much 'acting' become an obvious, powerful damaging force on ones own psyche.

There is no real "self".. there is only a randomly-assigned set of characteristics that interact with our instincts and with society to create the illusion of the self. Society expects a personality when it is raw instinct that makes a person. The sooner one realizes that the "personalities" assigned to people by society's categorization of fictitious traits are nothing but man-made illusions that play only with the mind's imagination and have no real basis in man's instinctive realities, the sooner one will understand that the self is in of by of itself not invariably attached to any wordly characteristics. Rather, it is made up of everything and nothing, and it is capable of everything and nothing.

These characteristics are far from random, and ultimately the greatest, most powerful set of characteristics are those we determine to display through analysis and reaction to situations. Even 'self' for a large part is still a tool to get what we want from life, and is often used as such.

Behind every display of self is the 'true' self, and it is still an animal in character whatever it's motivations. Our ability to be this aware creature at all times, yet still to be able to manipulate, direct, think on and influence our own awareness and it's foundations, while still being aware of all of this, is what makes us different to all life we know of. Although language barriers between humans and other creatures may stop us understanding their minds.

We are no doubt handed 'random' attributes at birth, and thrust into fate determined scenarios and enviroments, but we still have a multitude of tools at our disposal, and as human society becomes ever further disjointed from 'nature' as it was before us, so those tools become less tools of the animal kingdom and plant kingdom specifically, and become ever sharper tools for the human social enviroment. We have the ability to lie, steal and cheat our way to whatever our hearts desire, and we have the awareness to be able to choose this path through conscious thought, even if predisposed to varying extents to specific mentalities in life.

Personalities are constructs, but there is little in the universe that is not. Personalities are immensely complex constructs, perhaps the most complex, but that does not inherantly diminish their soundness. When all outward influence is removed, an individual will still exhibit a predisposition towards certain character traits, because we know certain character traits are influenced by genetics, and genetics is something a human cannot escape.

Like all travel through life, I am inclined to believe that the real self evolves with time, given experience of one type or another. It is the characteristics of the 'watcher' behind every psyche that I view as the 'real self', because it is the characteristics of the 'watcher' of the psyche that determines both disposition to circumstance and event and desire, and that also causes the most psychological problems when ignored, disturbed, or denied.

The outward personality is a tool, a mechanism for interaction, and also a shield, and it is rarely displayed as anything other than all of these three things in combination, controlled by the deeper mind, and ultimately the driving force of all human mind, the deeper psyche, the 'watcher'.

The inward personality is what you see when you look in someones eyes. The mouth can lie, but the eyes do not. It is the characteristics of the inward personality that determines an individuals later reaction to the accumulated experience of life, and not the front that is often or almost always displayed.

We are immensely aware, immensely intelligent animals, and this is what lies at the heart of us all, watching over our every move and every experience, whether our minds are flooded by frontal experience and interaction or not. We may all be incredibly similar in the deepest recesses of our minds, or wildly differing. It is a truth in life though that no one else will ever appear in your mind, never share that place with you, and that you and you alone will experience the depths of your own self. There is room for a lot of psychology and philosophy here, in that expression, suffice to say that is because each of us experiences the extent of what it is to be a complete human mind, and we must ultimately share that exact experience with no one.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I don't think we can truthfully represent our personality with objectivity. Even a homophobe or racist will give himself a glowing review.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

I think the Real you is a fairly dubious phrase.



People react diffrently to diffrent social situations, its only natrual that you dont have a Monotone personality.

[Siblesz]

God may have 'shown you', but don't speak for everyone. Some of us are capable of taking responsibility for ourselves irrespective of deities, books, etc. Of course some are not.

The 'real you' seems like an incredibly hard thing not only to define these days, but also to find and to express. The social network of even early life means even with closest and deepest friends there is much to drive a certain level of a front or charade.

Ultimately I think the real you only really surfaces in the greater world when both the need to 'act' according to potential social interaction gain diminishes, and when the negative aspects of too much 'acting' become an obvious, powerful damaging force on ones own psyche.



These characteristics are far from random, and ultimately the greatest, most powerful set of characteristics are those we determine to display through analysis and reaction to situations. Even 'self' for a large part is still a tool to get what we want from life, and is often used as such.

Behind every display of self is the 'true' self, and it is still an animal in character whatever it's motivations. Our ability to be this aware creature at all times, yet still to be able to manipulate, direct, think on and influence our own awareness and it's foundations, while still being aware of all of this, is what makes us different to all life we know of. Although language barriers between humans and other creatures may stop us understanding their minds.

We are no doubt handed 'random' attributes at birth, and thrust into fate determined scenarios and enviroments, but we still have a multitude of tools at our disposal, and as human society becomes ever further disjointed from 'nature' as it was before us, so those tools become less tools of the animal kingdom and plant kingdom specifically, and become ever sharper tools for the human social enviroment. We have the ability to lie, steal and cheat our way to whatever our hearts desire, and we have the awareness to be able to choose this path through conscious thought, even if predisposed to varying extents to specific mentalities in life.

Personalities are constructs, but there is little in the universe that is not. Personalities are immensely complex constructs, perhaps the most complex, but that does not inherantly diminish their soundness. When all outward influence is removed, an individual will still exhibit a predisposition towards certain character traits, because we know certain character traits are influenced by genetics, and genetics is something a human cannot escape.

Like all travel through life, I am inclined to believe that the real self evolves with time, given experience of one type or another. It is the characteristics of the 'watcher' behind every psyche that I view as the 'real self', because it is the characteristics of the 'watcher' of the psyche that determines both disposition to circumstance and event and desire, and that also causes the most psychological problems when ignored, disturbed, or denied.

The outward personality is a tool, a mechanism for interaction, and also a shield, and it is rarely displayed as anything other than all of these three things in combination, controlled by the deeper mind, and ultimately the driving force of all human mind, the deeper psyche, the 'watcher'.

The inward personality is what you see when you look in someones eyes. The mouth can lie, but the eyes do not. It is the characteristics of the inward personality that determines an individuals later reaction to the accumulated experience of life, and not the front that is often or almost always displayed.

We are immensely aware, immensely intelligent animals, and this is what lies at the heart of us all, watching over our every move and every experience, whether our minds are flooded by frontal experience and interaction or not. We may all be incredibly similar in the deepest recesses of our minds, or wildly differing. It is a truth in life though that no one else will ever appear in your mind, never share that place with you, and that you and you alone will experience the depths of your own self. There is room for a lot of psychology and philosophy here, in that expression, suffice to say that is because each of us experiences the extent of what it is to be a complete human mind, and we must ultimately share that exact experience with no one.

The realization that you are no different from anyone else, and that everyone's personality is shaped by situation and the instinctive back bone, makes one realize that the self is not unique, it is a reflection of everyone else, it is a reflection of nature. Look at yourself in the mirror, and you look at human nature in its entirety. We are not unique. We are products of the same source, we are connected at the same thread, and though we may have different experiences, the emotions behind those experiences, the raw instinct will always be the same. To deny this is to deny the human reality.

When people experience war, the outcome in their personalities is quite amazing. Individuals who are noted to be compassionate and caring in times of peace, show the opposite qualities in war. Individuals who are noted to be uncaring and vicious, such as criminals, show the opposite qualities when tested by the hardships of battle. This shows that the idea of the self is a paradox... it is a recollection of opposing traits that alternate according to situation. Although some people do show to have these opposing traits ingraned in them, these people only lie in the extremes. The great majority of people experience a neutral set of emotions, and their personalities are formed as these emotions are tested through experience.

It is hence how experience defines a person. But that does not make a person with more experience any different from one with less experience. It just means that the person with more experience knows how to control his instincts to deliver an alternating response, while the person with less experience is often driven by emotion alone.

[Da Skinna]

I've always said to friends that I don't really see myself as an individual, but that I see a little bit of myself in everyone.

This seems to go hand in hand with what Siblesz is saying, and indeed I see another favorite topic of mine reflected in his words.

The real me is one that tries to encompass the world, and become familiar with everything that is around me. I am usually docile, except maybe when I'm driving (...) and I can see things from the other side rather easily. Maybe that is why I am so docile, simply because of that understanding I have of the other side, because of what I see in myself that is reflected in some aspect or another of the opposing side, person or whatever.

I can't really say I've experienced a lot, but I can say I'm no fool. It's the big picture that I look at, and contributing, helping in some way to expand that picture, and in doing so expand my view of that big picture, is something I've made my job.

Woh. I just blew my mind. Except I need to find a job that actually does that... and finish college.

I think when I hear (however little I hear of it) this universal psyche thing that we all share on some wave level in our minds, this plane of spiritual/psychological existance that we all have access to, is true. Or just about right. We have that basic starting point, and from there we grow, we are shaped by our environment, by our upbringing, by our friends, by our passions, and ultimately our experiences. From there, to continue on this level of awareness, we need to have an open mind, and see that there is indeed more to life and death than just what we see and what we are told and what is so readily explained to us, and then decide just how we want to fit into that, if we do actually care.

Does anyone have thoughts on the same line?

[Silver Guard]

The realization that you are no different from anyone else, and that everyone's personality is shaped by situation and the instinctive back bone, makes one realize that the self is not unique, it is a reflection of everyone else, it is a reflection of nature. Look at yourself in the mirror, and you look at human nature in its entirety. We are not unique. We are products of the same source, we are connected at the same thread, and though we may have different experiences, the emotions behind those experiences, the raw instinct will always be the same. To deny this is to deny the human reality.

This personally smarts of Plato, who's belief that we are but repeated copies of an original "mould" was later refuted by Aristotle. And I will use the same argument. When you look in a mirror, you see humanity. But this is not who you are. "Humanity" is a human created group, a species much like a horse or a ferret. We are not inperfect copies of a universal humanity, but the opposite, humanity is a cast of the shapes we see around us. Each and every one of us is unique, we are perfect individuals. Just look at your finger, the mark is your personal "bar code" one unique to you only.

When people experience war, the outcome in their personalities is quite amazing. Individuals who are noted to be compassionate and caring in times of peace, show the opposite qualities in war. Individuals who are noted to be uncaring and vicious, such as criminals, show the opposite qualities when tested by the hardships of battle. This shows that the idea of the self is a paradox... it is a recollection of opposing traits that alternate according to situation. Although some people do show to have these opposing traits ingraned in them, these people only lie in the extremes. The great majority of people experience a neutral set of emotions, and their personalities are formed as these emotions are tested through experience.

The murderer who carries a man he hates across a bullet-torn battlefield to save his life in name of his county is not any different from the man who stabbed his father to death two years before. It is the experience he has taken in which creates his "self". The mind is constantly built upon. Before our ability to sense, we were a blank slate. However, each and every one has unique birth traits, and unique upbringing. Nature and nurture if you will. The man who saved his feelow soldier was produced with a discipline and duty to match his raw brutality. He is unique in his mind and body, as the mind is part of the body. (See Hume on experience)

It is hence how experience defines a person. But that does not make a person with more experience any different from one with less experience. It just means that the person with more experience knows how to control his instincts to deliver an alternating response, while the person with less experience is often driven by emotion alone.

I disagree, experience is what forms the mind, without it we are nothing. A blank white board, ready for drawings and words to be scribbled over it's surface. The person's mind is the writer, the unique mind who shapes and distorts words and images so that they are different to what a man with the same experience would have in his "self". The "ego" does not exist, there is no permanent, unchanging individuality. "Self", however, does, as an ever-changing yet unique identity.