Identity, Core Self, Authentic Self, Personality

What comprises our identity? Do our actions define us or is it our thoughts or our feelings or all of the above? And how does the 'recipe' work? Do I take my 2 teaspoons of good actions and mix them with the 4 tablespoons of bad actions, blend them with lofty thoughts, then add the negativity and bake at the high temperatures of volatile emotions? Forgive my pitiful analogy but this is how complicated it seems to me.

I've been confused about the differences (or not) between identity, core self, authentic self and personality..

But this morning I was re-reading Mindsight. 'Multiple selves' is addressed in the book. They are also called 'states of mind'. We access these different selves/states based on what we're facing or experiencing at the moment. When I guide my employees, I put on my employer hat and that is one of my selves. When I go to doctor I become a patient and that is another self. In the book is written, "Some states are engaged frequently enough to help define the individual; these so-called self-states combine to create our personality."

But, from what I read, we can alter some of our states. If one of our states is reactive in nature and causes dysfunctional behavior/thoughts, there is the possibility of change. so, our personality is not a rigid aspect of ourselves. We can be someone different. And I'm wondering how much our perceptions of who we are create our personalities. And are our self-perceptions accurate? So, can we even know our own personalities? Other people may have a completely different viewpoint. Does it even matter?

So, then, we can't really say that our personality is our authentic self then, can we? Or is authentic self different from core self? Maybe authentic self is being aware and very conscious of all my selves/states and then able to actualize my behaviors to align myself in a healthy way to those selves. But that wouldn't make sense if one of the selves is dysfunctional. ?????????

Siegel talks about finding the core self: "Is there any core self beneath all our layers of adaptation and personality? I've talked about our multiple self-states, each carrying out its own mission to fulfill our motivational drives: for connection, for creativity, for comfort. Other states coalesce around specific activities: our expertise at a particular sport, our mastery of a musical instrument, or a set of skills necessary for work or school. Still other states operate in our social circles...

"But beneath all these self-states, I believe is a core self that has receptivity at its heart... It is the essential 'you' beneath narrative and memory, emotional reactivity and habit."

Is being authentic mean being honest? Honest with others and honest with ourselves? But can't that 'honesty' change a lot depending on the circumstances? What is true for me now may not be true for me tomorrow? So, how could the authentic self really be called our core self?

Well, I'm still confused. I think I'm understanding what personality is now but I'm not sure if there is a difference or not between core self and authentic self.

Well, I haven't read the book your referring to, so I might not be much help here.

I think our habitual behaviors are what makes up our identity. A thought and feeling can be fleeting as well as some actions. Thoughts lead to feelings, feelings lead to actions, actions lead to behavior.

I think you can be aware of the fact that you act differently in different situations. Many people have a home life and work life deviations.

Your authentic self is not necessarily one in which you are honest, but more like the one that is most aligned with your feelings and thoughts. It's who are when you are with your closest friends/family. Or who you are when no one is around.

Your personality is just all the characteristics that make you unique. It's who you are and how you behave.

Not to sound glib, but perhaps you are reading too much?

I understand the curiosity, but IMO all of these things are simply academic, artificially created concepts to describe human behaviour, and, well, sell books.

There are a lot of self-seekers out there, but I'm not sure the answers to ourselves or others can be found in books.

I think it is really important to come to know yourself, and not what others would have to say about you.

Don't get me wrong, I love Brene Brown, and find her research to be outstanding. Hers is the only book I have ever bought and read all the way through.

Skysblue - may I ask why you are trying to distinguish between these?

Elliemay - you may have a point there. Do I read too much? Probably. But I read to understand. The readings don't prompt my questions; my questions prompt my readings.

Feiticeira- yes, I think I understand that - our habitual behaviors make up our identity. And I'll add that our identity can change if we change our behaviors, thoughts or feelings. So, again, our identity is nothing concrete. You say authentic self is acting in alignment with our thoughts and feelings. So, therefore, the authentic self is also not concrete with that as the definition.

stopdog - why am I trying to distinguish between them? I guess it's my attempt to understand myself and get to know who I am. Those terms are bandied around and I have a tough time grasping exactly what they mean.

My T suggests that what I'm doing in therapy is to find my authentic self and thereby be able to live comfortably in my own skin and also act according to my values. But does the authentic self need to include all that disgusts me about myself? Well,sure - if it's to be considered authentic.

I struggle with self-loathing. I want to be a better person. I don't know how I should view myself. As I've been telling more and more of my 'story' to my T, I am filled with feelings of shame and guilt and self-hatred.

My T and others tell me that my story does not define me. I can understand that the story is just one part of a mosaic. But it's there and it does exist. And not only does it reflect on me now in the present but the 'me' that's in the story has not changed.

I want to be a different person. I want to have strength to live my life the way I want to live my life. I want to know that I possess positive attributes. I want to be comfortable with myself.

So, as I struggle to improve myself (and fail fail fail), it's very important to me to understand 'personality', 'identity', 'core self', 'authentic self'. I want to know who I am - am I doomed to be what my 'personality' is right now? And will I move closer to acting according to what my 'authentic' self is? How will I know if it's 'authentic'?

I guess I would have thought that core self and authentic self were the same and that personality was sort of the outward manifestation of those. Identity would be an internal reflection.

Can we talk about the self-loathing? I think I hated myself more when I was living a "double life", when I felt like I was going through the motions day to day, but the real me was hidden far far away. THAT disgusted me as a concept, that I would live that way, treat my one and only life that way, living so inauthentically.

As I start living life more as myself, I perceive old shameful events differently. I hear past and current conversations differently. I get out of ruts and make new contacts who, quite unexpectedly, validate my new perceptions (a cousin told me how my mom was still up to her old tricks).

I know you want to get this process over and done with, but as they say in project management, no matter how hard they try, nine women cannot have a baby in one month. I think the more the new, improved sky takes hold, the less there will be of the old shameful sky. it drops away or gets transformed, is what it feels like to me. and I don't really know what my personality will be like say a year from now. so much of it is tied up in defenses - joking, being empathic! hmm...

I can't really comment because according to my T I havent developed a proper "self" yet or something.
But from what I have read/heard/etc I would have thought the core, authentic self is the collective of all your parts, as a single entity. Defense mechanisms, memories, habits,hopes, fears, dreams, mental illness, the whole she-bang rolled into one big ball. And that big ball is your "self". It is the whole package deal.

*** Trigger for mention of imaginary violence***

I suspect this whole question is way too complicated for me to understand. But even realizing the quixotic quest I'm on does not seem to dampen my enthusiasm for seeking clarity of my situation. Simply put, I want to know who I am and once that is accomplished, then to be able to accept the good, bad and ugly of all that I am.

Being able to identify those terms I've mentioned as the title of the thread, it seems, would be giving me a tool to grasp the whole notion of identity.

I'm going to present a imaginary 'person' whose name is John. John is a good enough guy. He's married with 2 children. He had a rough and tumble childhood but nothing too extreme, as he would tell it. Not that he talked about it much. He had served in the military and now was working as a manager of a local branch of a chain store. His employees respected him but also feared him a bit. There was something about him - maybe his aloofness, maybe his curtness, maybe his ability to pierce them with his glance, that kept the workers a bit on guard.

His wife was his old high school sweetheart and she had learned to cope with John's moods. John would never be violent but he swung from extremes of warmth to cold. He could be kind and generous and then the next day unable to give anything of himself and could be very cruel in words (but, again, no physical violence) From the point of view of the outside world, he led a more or less normal life. He did not drink nor use drugs.

John was attentive to his children and would spend hours playing with them - but only when he was in one of his 'good' moods. Otherwise, the children knew to keep their distance.

Then one day, a terrible thing happened. Something snapped inside of John and he became enraged and out of control. He went through his house and tried to destroy everything in it. He threw the TV against the wall, he tore down the photos from the wall, he upended the beds, he took a sledge hammer to the furniture, he threw pots through the windows and on and on.
He then got in the car and raced away until plowing into a utility pole and wrecking the car. Unfortunately, he also veered onto the sidewalk before the crash, hit an elderly man and killed him.

After this episode, John was filled with deep remorse and although imprisoned for his actions, he never could find a way to forgive himself. Once released from prison, he did all he could to change himself and to possibly redeem himself. But he would never be able to forget or forgive himself for his terrible crime no matter how much he was able to 'improve' himself.

So, who is John?

We can say his personality was comprised of many parts - aloof, kind, disciplined, etc. Like all of us he had many 'selves'.

But what could we say is his 'authentic' self? All the selves rolled into one? Is one of the 'selves' more prominent and therefore can be called the authentic self. When John erupted in rage, wasn't he being authentic? The rage represented who he was at the time. But, later on filled with remorse, does his authentic self be better defined as 'remorseful'.

So, when we're advised to get in touch with our 'authentic' selves, what does that mean? Does it mean the part that is most dominant at that time but will change?

And is identity the same as authentic self? John IS a remorseful person, we could say. Or we could say that John IS a killer. Or is identity just a collection of labels and we can pick and choose which labels to apply depending on our mood at the moment.

I think core self is something that is deeper than thoughts, actions or emotions. I think that it is a place that isn't confused by the ever-changing landscape of mental/physical activity. What that is exactly, I don't know. I do know I had an experience once with my somatic T in which I believe I accessed that place. Words, descriptions and labels were not needed there.

And so, maybe resisting any kind of label is the key. But therein lies the rub. Just by refusing to apply a word to something does not mean it does not exist.

So, if someone tells me I'm controlling, I must consider that as a possibility. As I examine the evidence, I can try to determine what the truth is. But there are so many variations of the truth. Maybe I'm controlling in this situation but not in that situation. So, what do I do with that label? Is it part of my personality that I'm controlling? Is it something that needs changing? If it is part of my authentic self, then by exercising my controlling habits, I am honoring my authentic self, right?

I hope no one read this to the end. If you're confused, just know I'm more confused.

I do not think there is enough information about the man in your story to determine his authentic self.

In your example-
I think controlling can be part of personality without being core self. It would seem something like controlling would be to protect the core self. Whether it is something that needs changing, is up to the person - ie. does it interfere with something you want/a way you want to be in the world and if so is changing it worth the effort/loss for you to do so?

Do you remember the part in Becket by Jean Anouilh where Henry complains that Becket is always defining things and Becket responds by saying without definition the world has no shape? I believe that. I can identify with your desire for definition.

Is the fact that I love these sorts of discussions part of my authentic self? Possibly, but I would more say it is more a part of my personality. I have different identities which direct my personality depending upon whether I am being professor, lawyer, friend, lover etc. And although my personality is somewhat the same - it manifests somewhat differently in each situation.

To me, and I don't really have any explanation for why I believe this, but I think of authentic self, or authenticity, as something that really only "lives" in the moment. Usually as in the moment, mindfulness-- because in my experience, I can only be authentic if I'm mindful. So it doesn't really make sense to me that the dude in your hypothetical could have an authentic self that spans multiple moments.

Anne

I believe the first three; identity, core self, and authentic self, are defined by us and our personality is what others perceive, from our behavior.

I identify with what I identify with! One hears/reads about men retiring and then dying because they have identified with their working selves and not developed any other interests and now that identity is gone. Similarly is women who primarily identify as "mothers" and the children grow up and they are at a loss how to behave, what to do with themselves.

If I were to look at one of these two people; I would perhaps see the guy had a "Type A" personality, was intensely into work. The woman I might see as mothering (or smothering :-)

Those are the stereotypical examples. Most people are more complicated than that. Your mother, for example, might also like to write or paint and identify with being a writer or painter/artist. The guy might belong to civic or professional groups and might identify with being a civic leader or Accounting professional, lawyer, or doctor. Some of those identities have their own stereotypical personality traits; the lawyer might be someone who loves to argue, we might say they have an argumentative personality. We might find an accountant to have a "bland" or boring personality.

However, my looking at the accountant and what he does, his outward self that I can see is why I might say he has a bland personality. He could though have a rich inner life that I never see or that he never discusses; he could be an arm chair traveler and identify with explorers (or pirates, football players, etc.). Maybe he was on his high school football team 40 years ago and really loved that period of his life and still identifies with it. I may still decide he has a boring personality. Look at Bob Newhart; he was an accountant who became a comedian; his personality couldn't fit itself into an accounting identity.

The "couldn't fit" part is where the "core" or "authentic" self part comes in. Bob Newhart is the only one who can tell where he does or does not fit! I can look at his personality, his always making jokes, etc. and suggest he become a comedian but only he can tell if that would be a good identity for himself.

I love working accounting problems but do not wish to become an accountant. I am here daily, love psychotherapy and the process of learning about myself and others but my core self does not allow me to be a psychotherapist. I would be miserable sitting for hour after hour listening to others, my preference is to listen to myself.

I am a writer and a researcher. I have written a novel http://mysharingspaceonline.com/story.pdf and spent the last two years doing intense genealogical and historic research. In November I wanted to write a novel about my 3rd great aunt (b. 1755, d. 1813) but had difficulty. Looking inside at my "core" self, I could not sacrifice the research, the "truth" of what I'd found and fill-in-the-blanks with fiction. I turned my novel writing into a research journal instead. It is that looking inside and knowing who I "am" that let me know which way to jump, that helped me solve my discomfort over trying to fictionalize my previous two-years' research. I could not do that. Technically I could; anyone looking at me and my self-identities and personality would say I could, but my core self said I could not and came up with what was best for me.

I pretty much use core self and authentic self to mean the same thing. I was being authentic in my choice of research over novel writing; I guess, technically, my core holds both the writing and the researching selves and it is the authentic self that chooses in any given need/situation?

Confusion happens if we do not know ourselves, what we like, what we feel, or if we let others define us. "Wanting" to be something, identifying with writers, say, and not writing, that either has to hurt our core self (why writer's block is painful to writers) or we are only fooling ourselves (not knowing our authentic self) and wasting time saying we identify with something we don't really. That is why it is important to look inside at what one really wants (identity) and feels (core) and then to express those things (authentic/personality).

I guess one step needed is to determine if there's such a thing as 'authentic' self. And then to determine if there's something different called 'core' self. Once it's established that they do indeed exist then more examination is possible.

huh - that's interesting. So whatever mood or emotional space I'm in at the moment is my authentic self? So if that's true, I wonder why my T is coaching me to find my authentic person. There's no search - it's right in front of me manifested by my moment to moment thoughts, feelings and actions. No search required.

I do not believe it is smoke and mirrors or entertainment for no purpose - I truly believe without definition one cannot put the world/experience etc. into context which one needs in order to know how to operate and understand.

Perna, thanks for you very clear examples and explanation. So you think what a person wants is their identity? So, if i want to be a writer but I have no talent, then that wanting is not my identity? And getting in touch with the reality of the situation (no talent) is getting clear about one's own identity?

Ok - so what about wanting to be, say, a kinder person? If I can't manifest that desire, even though it's what I really want, how can I say that my identity is a 'kind person'?

And to confuse things even more, what is 'character'? Is our character the same as our identity?

I think one can have an identity as a writer as long as one writes, talent or lack thereof would not stop one from being able to consider it as an identity. I think one can identify oneself as a kind person if one believes one is being kind - people can interpret kindness differently (just look at the varying responses on this board to descriptions of the range of what one person considers kind, another will find cold and still another hostile and so forth)
I would put character more in line with a manifestation of personality - moral underpinnings.

I'm not a writer, but I use to be. I stopped writing because I was feeding into a deep seeded depression that wouldn't end while I was still writing. Am I a writer? Not anymore, no, do I identify with writers and respect their work? Yes, I do. On that note, I'm not an artist either, I can't draw/paint to save my life, but I do enjoy and respect the work of great artists.

But I think that 'wanting' to be something IS in fact an aspect of our identity. Let's say someone wants to learn to play the piano, they aren't a pianist, but they are learning. The very fact that they are attempting to learn is part of who they are.

You're identity, very simply stated, is that which you identify yourself with; i.e career, political affiliation, religious views, hobbies, ect. So if you workout on a regular basis you might consider yourself as someone who is fit, and others would see by you're actions that is a part of what they may identify you as.

Character on the other hand is perhaps the essence of who we are. Are you the type to help out those less fortunate than yourself, or are you a hard worker? Do you take pride in what you do? Can you genuinely feel happy for another persons success? These are things that define one's character.

Then personality would be how you react to your environment. If you're a passenger in someone's car do you get uneasy because you are not in control of the situation? Are you comfortable meeting new people and networking?

Just my opinion if you really want to break these down, I feel like labeling is a bit dangerous though, simply because it can lead to stereotypes and prejudice.