I don't really think we are completely aware of what our personality is, but I think our self-concept definitely works against the freedom we allow ourselves to enjoy. We are never totally free anyway, but if you could determine how much freedom a person is capable of and call that "freedom" (for the sake of discussion), even then our concepts of who we are, identity, will tend to restrict how close we come to this "freedom."
I wonder if it's just the nature of our mind that keeps us from the full realization of our self? In the same way that language is symbolic, it's probably true that our self-concept is symbolic, in that it's only a rough representation of
self. If self awareness is the awareness of an identity separate from the rest of the world, then the identity itself would be, for example, the actual object (lets say a house), and our awareness would be the mental representation (namely the word
house). In this way, our search for identity is basically the attempt to take our understanding of ourselves out of the symbolic and into the fullness of understanding.
It's like how people will refrain from things they determine are "not me", but how they arrive to that conclusion fascinates me and yet frustrates me, because how do they know what "me" is? Is it just a matter of wish fulfillment, with "me" being the desired self? or is it more a response to what has and hasn't worked for them?
This is something that I have always wondered about with MBTI, too. It seems like, perhaps even unconsciously, that it would become a self fulfilling prophecy. The more one learns about "who I am" the more they are going to act how they are
supposed to act - so, in finding oneself, one becomes less like them self.
I think all we have for self-understanding are:
1. How we view ourselves, which is often determined by a need to fulfill wishes about the self. (not very accurate, although the ability to perceive the self is highest here, but it's subjective)
Interesting idea. Perhaps our own distorted (subjective) view of ourselves adds further distortion to our identity? It's sort of the same idea as a crazy person trying to diagnose themselves as being crazy, or a sensor that is supposed to sense when it is no longer functioning. How can we truly search for our own identity when it is ourselves that do not have a clear picture of not only who we are, but who we think we're supposed to be?
2. How others view us -- i.e. persona. This requires a good feedback system, and honest communication to work well. The motives of others can cloud this. (objective-ish, but not reliable and unable to perceive as much data)
Indeed, the way others treat us and the persona's of other people will affect our own persona (and ultimately our identity). This, I guess, is sort of the motivation for the quote "hell is other people", since other people can have such an affect on our own search for self identity - and can even warp and shape what our identity even
is.
2a. Generic understanding. This is based on the idea of who someone is categorically. For example, you might say you're a homo sapien of a certain race, gender, genetics, etc.. This data could give you an objective idea of who you are as a specimen, so to speak. (accurate, but probably not relevant or perceptive)
This could even go with MBTI, too - INTP's will classify themselves as INTP's; there is a
lot of talk on this forum about how a "normal" INTP should behave, and how INTP's
should act in certain situations (mostly with relationship related things). I think this way of self identification is also what perpetuates stereotypes. I abhor stereotyping, but not just from the outside, but from inside. I think a lot of people of different races, sexes, political views, religions, personality types etc will adjust themselves to align more with the stereotype isntead of trying to transcend it, or simply just "be themselves".
I don't think it necessarily follows that some part of our cognition, designed by means of natural selection (I would assume you are implying), is blocking ourselves from understanding our true identity. It also seems quite possible that intelligence is the limiting factor (in this case, probably neglected by natural selection for its uselessness in procreation).
Actually, I think that the way our brain is constructed by natural selection
is the limiting factor. Not only are we unconscious of many of the way our brain works, and are subject to our emotions instead of in control of them (for the most part), but as I mentioned in the first paragraph of this response, natural selection has built our brains for symbolic thinking. This is a "design" that's most advantageous for survival instead of philosophical thinking, so it would follow (to me) that our inability to fully realize our identity is a result of natural selection
If you define personality vaguely such as: Personality is the consistency of temperament with which we deal with any given situation, it suddenly becomes very easy to know who you truly are. I'm an INTP.
Personality must be more complex than that.
I would strongly agree with this. This is why I find it strange that many people search for self identity by looking for their
modus operandi. People seem to want to define themselves by their normal way of reacting to situations by looking at how they have reacted (whether it be their behavioral reaction or their thoughts at the time) in the past. This is obviously important for introspection, because one
should understand why they did what they did, but I wouldn't see this as a good way to undertake self discovery, but more a learning from ones mistakes (or successes).
I believe every thought or action is based on the outcome of a previous situation with some degree of genetic influence. For every decision you make, the casual factor seems to be the perceived positive or negative effect of a previous decision of similarity. So if your allow for this point of view, wouldn't a true understanding of one's self also require the complete understanding of the system of cause and effect the leads you to every thought that goes through your mind? If so, the limiting factor is indeed part of the intellect, but not a blocking mechanism, more like a missing component.
I would agree that there is some degree of determining factors, mainly genetic, when seeking ones identity. This is sort of what I was touching on in the OP, the idea that our personality (genetic or social constructivist) is an antagonist to our free will, restricting or limiting it. The question, then is, are we able to transcend these limitations placed on us by natural selection and our social upbringing and education? How would one go about transcending this - by recognizing and understanding it, or is this an exercise in futility? Will the full realization of our identity allow us create our own identity however we please (and if this is true, wouldn't we just create it by thinking through the filter of our identity?)
I remember reading an article discussing the neurological changes which occur over the course of a long-term loving relationship, and how even in the most impassioned and intense of relationships, without fail, after two or three years or so, the level of oxytocin, a hormone which generally makes us more acquiescent, friendly, and docile, increases in both partners - and so the nature of the relationship will have fundamentally changed from a nonstop sex-party, to a more 'civilized' (who's to say though...) and equally as satisfying partnership - but possibly in different ways. I think it's possible this could explain the real/perceived tendency of married folk to be more conservative [politically or in terms of behavior] and risk-averse. If this is the case, it's a sobering thought, to think that our perspectives, opinions, behavioral patterns, etc., could all be subject to and profoundly altered by physiological and neurological changes which occur independently of volition, possibly meaning we're nowhere near as free to think what we'd like as we would've thought.
There is definitely a level of biological determinism involved in our personality. Even a simple task, like walking, becomes more mundane as synaptic connections either solidify (
long-term potentiation,
synaptic plasticity) or are removed (
synaptic pruning), turning things into a more 'automatic' process. The brain is stimulated by new things, so there is definitely a decrease in the neurotransmitters involved in lust and passion as a relationship matures. There have even
been studies that showed that the serotonin levels in someone that has just recently fallen in love are the same as with people who suffer from OCD, which decreases as time goes on.
